answered
2015-04-02 10:48:30 +0300
I would like to share also my view about these 2 new comer OS.
I have both a Jolla and BQ phone.
1st, Ubuntu Phone is not as optimized as Sailfish. It is quite slow in the menu (at least 5s to open setting menu ...). Switching between scope can slow down the device etc ...
About hardware, BQ phone is clearly better than the Jolla. As I said in a comment above, the screen is so much better on the BQ phone compared to the Jolla ... and for a full touch device, you know that screen can be important ;).
About swipe, I have to say that Ubuntu brings swipe gesture to the next level compared to the Jolla. The N9 was the best but clearly, UbuntuPhone is almsot as good as Meego-Harmattan on this point. So, in term of pure pleasure, it is better to use UbuntuPhone than Sailfish.
Gallery, Music app are also better on Ubuntu. I can send MMS with Ubuntu, I can't with Sailfish (problem with orange french operator).
In term of ecosystem, Sailfish wins .... but for how long? Now that Ubuntu Phone are released, let's talk about that in 1 year ;).
Bluetooth connection with car is crappy with Ubuntu compared to Sailfish.
My conclusion is : UbuntuPhone is very intersting but a lot of work must be done. System is absolutely not optimized compared to Sailfish (I lost 30% during night in flight mode with BQ phone ...).
Swipe are so much better on Ubuntu.
Multitasking is better on Sailfish.
Keyboard is better on Ubuntu but must be improved ...
Clearly they are 2 good OS and I have bought Jolla and BQ phone to see how they will move forward.
But what suprise me a lot is the fact that they are 300 people working on Ubuntu Phone and only 100 on Sailfish.
So, I guess Sailfish people are very good :)
first of all ubuntu, bb10, sailfish are operating systems that move huge step for me will be great systems if still polishing and three are only based on gestures and swipes, now three the most advansed is bb10 your last 10.3.1 upgrade and integration of bb blend is wonderful, Sailfish continues after the version 2.0 shown in mwc 2015 made it clear I go much but must have points of attachment with 1.0 interface eg multitasking was more interactive than the version 2.0 (added small buttons on the window), finally this ubuntu that while I walk to steps as well huge most ball is made with scopes also use more resources (cores, ram, etc) need to optimize more the system so that it can run smoothly with a dual core processor and maximum a four cores but the experience is nice but eye Cannonical must put attention since many users balls with scopes are made (for me should only exist these default, the scope of application, the scope of social networks with updates (facebook, twitter), the scope of news (newspapers and magazines), the scope Videos (gallery of the phone, youtube (your subscriptions with the latest uploaded), dalimotion, vimeo and netflix), the musical scope, last played songs of the phone, also soundcloud, dezzer and spotify, the last scope photo (gallery, Flyckr, pinterest and stuff).
There are many people who think putting a scope eg a web page as Cnet (it shows all the information and is not it just shows you some of the information and if you want to have it complete information you need to open the browser or application) then to have that scope, that's when he sees the scopes as something useless, so if Cannonical lse put the batteries and only leaves the aforementioned escopes would be a great forward motion for example is music with your last songs added to the player or the heard last and apart if you soundcloud, spotify or dezeer show you the lists you've created and last added by your favorite artists and be able to play from there so if something interesting but first Cannonical should regulate scopes to avoid anything can be a scope
Now if we go by the UI there is nothing more beautiful than Sailfish, also the optimization of the system sailfish is better than ubuntu and bb10.
sailfish is from my point of more intuitive, beautiful and fast view (an example is close windows with a single swipe from top to low ubuntu you need at least two movements)
Jose101192 ( 2015-04-01 23:07:16 +0300 )editIs this from Google Translate or something? I didn't understand much.
SuperPhone ( 2015-04-02 00:49:42 +0300 )editI really do not understand why the OP got voted down for sharing his/her experience and opinion regarding another somehow related OS. There is nothing wrong with looking beyond one's own nose regardless if it's - as in this case - about a concurring OS. Here's my vote up.
moosiqpipl ( 2015-04-02 00:51:16 +0300 )edit"My phone is now actually running the same OS (Ubuntu 14.10) as my desktop and that's awesome." — I don't see why this is awesome. Afaik Windows is trying to do the same and having the same software on a variety of different devices. Why? I really don't understand. IMHO, devices are different and so should software be different respectively. I don't want touch-oriented UI on my desktop, and neither do I want terminals on my phone.
If you're a fanboy of operating system XYZ, then of course this all makes sort of sense.
Okw ( 2015-04-02 10:57:10 +0300 )editI don't want touch-oriented UI on my desktop either. It's more about the base system. You can e.g. develop your application natively on your desktop and be pretty sure that it will work also on the phone and even the same libraries you are using are there. Of course this is not always the case.
SuperPhone ( 2015-04-02 13:16:58 +0300 )edit