The Emperor Has No Close

I’ve done blog entries on compaction threads, memory consumption, difficulties in doing upgrades, voice command not working over bluetooth, and 240x240 screens.  Now I’m going to do one on why the little “X” button on PocketPCs doesn’t close apps.  Am I insane?  Do I like having you people kick me around?  Well, maybe “yes” on the former, but definitely “no” on the latter.  That said, someone needs to explain why we do the things we do, and that someone might as well be me.

So why is it that there’s no easy way to actually close apps on Windows Mobile devices?  Sharpen your pitchforks, collect your torches, sit back, and I’ll tell you.

The monster you want is in the castle down the road…

This won’t reduce the angry name calling, but I’ll say it anyway.  I don’t fully agree with our stance on this.  You’ll notice that I’ve written a lot of little ISV apps for Windows Mobile and its predecessors, and every single one of them has had an “exit” option in one of its menus.  There was a time when we were so hardcore on this “thou shall not exit” stance that we refused to give our stamp of approval to any ISV app that had an exit option.  Even then, I defiantly made my apps close.   Fortunately, we’ve backed off on that stance and now allow people to write apps that close, even though we still don’t make our own official apps do it.  If you’re writing an ISV app and it makes sense to give users the ability to close it, I’m all for you doing so.

Unfortunately, if this hasn’t convinced you to put your pitchforks away, then I’m toast, because I agree with the rest of our stance on this….

How’d we get here?

In the beginning there were Microsoft Handheld PCs and Palm Pilots.  The Handheld PC interface looked a lot like the Desktop PC interface.  It had a desktop where you could drag around icons.  There was a taskbar across the bottom that showed which apps were running.  The apps had separate “iconify” and “close” buttons.  Etc.  On the other hand, the Palm Pilot’s interface wasn’t anything at all like the desktop’s.  And Palm kicked the Handheld PC’s tail up and down the court.
 
When you pour blood, sweat, and tears into product but only sell a few thousand units, you have to take a long hard look at your assumptions.  The most consistent feedback we heard was that the desktop interface wasn’t appropriate for a small handheld device.  So we reconsidered many of the design decisions that drove that desktop-like Handheld PC UI.  Maybe people didn’t want a “desktop” on a device they carried around.  Maybe a “today” screen that quickly showed what you needed to do that day made more sense.  Maybe spending screen real estate on a taskbar didn’t make sense when your screen was a quarter the size of the device you took the idea from.  And, maybe, just maybe, having users close apps wasn’t appropriate on an embedded device with a slow processor and even slower memory.

None of the other embedded and mobile devices of the time made you close your apps.  Palms didn’t do it, cell phones didn’t do it, VCRs didn’t do it, car navigation systems didn’t do it, and game consoles didn’t do it.  There are a couple of good things that you get from doing things this way.  For instance, the system feels faster when you don’t close apps because it takes longer to launch an app than it does to bring an already running one to the foreground.  But what became our philosophical reason for not closing apps was the belief that users shouldn’t need to manage their memory. 

If an app closes in the woods and no one hears it…

The base philosophy, that users shouldn’t need to manage their memory, is pretty hard to argue against.  Come on, tell me that users should be required to manage their own memory.  I dare you.  You can tell me that you can do a better job.  You can tell me that we don’t do a good enough job.  You can tell me that in some cases we do a fine job, but in the cases when we don’t, the world comes to a screeching halt, time goes backwards, and history is rewritten to be somehow more dark and foreboding than it already is.  But you can’t tell me that users should be required to manage their own memory.  That’s like saying that car owners should be required to change their own oil.  I don’t think so.

So, on realizing that users shouldn’t have to manage their memory, we set about doing it for them.  We made our shell watch how much memory was being used and close apps when more was needed.  We made many of our apps remember their state when they were closed so that they could reload it again when they were opened (so users couldn’t really tell that they had ever been shut down).  We taught ISVs how to do the same thing.  And we removed the close box from all of our apps.

By 2000 we had iterated on this a few times and released a product (PocketPC 2000) that started winning both reviews and marketshare.  But there has been resistance to having us manage the memory since we first removed the close buttons.  One of the first ISV apps written was a manager that let users close their apps.  And, variations on that theme are still popular today. 

X marks the spot

One thing we did has been pretty contentious.  Along the way, we got feedback that users didn’t mind letting us manage the memory for them, but they really wanted a way to say, “I’m done with this.  Make it go away.”  So we put a “go away” button in the upper right corner of PocketPCs.  This button just sends the application to the background.  It doesn’t close it.  If the system needs more memory while the app is in the background, it’ll close the app.  But, if the system doesn’t need more memory, the app will stay in RAM and be ready to come back quickly the next time the user needs it. 

Now, in a move that some people consider brilliant and others consider unforgivably stupid, we made the “go away” look like an “X”.  Brilliant because anyone who has ever used Desktop Windows will know that an “X” button in the upper right corner of the window will make the window go away.  Unforgivably stupid because every one of those same people will assume an “X” button in the upper right corner of the window will make the app close.  Whether you think the move is brilliant or stupid is pretty heavily tied to how much you believe that users shouldn’t have to manage their own memory.

And now we’re here

Some people say that we don’t do a good enough job managing memory.  We must agree to some degree because we’ve adjusted or modified the memory management code on just about every release since we added it.  I believe the adjustments have been improvements, and I expect that we’ll keep improving it.

I’ve heard some people say that we’ll never do an acceptable job with our memory management and that we should give up and make the X box close apps.  First, I’ll say that doing so would break all the apps that expect the current behavior.  But, more importantly, there are literally millions of Windows Mobile users who never close apps manually and successfully get their jobs done.  While we’re definitely not doing a perfect job with memory management, we have way too many happy users to claim that our memory management is universally unacceptable.

There’s a reasonably sized (but still tiny minority) group of users who feel that they can do better than the memory manager and want an easier way to take control.  Because there are so many apps that let you close things, some of which are very well integrated, I’m reasonably comfortable saying, “Use one of those apps.”  I know that someone is going to say, “I paid $500 for this device.  I shouldn’t have to pay another $10 just to close my apps,” but we do let you close apps with the Memory control panel.  If you think there should be an easier way to do it, all I can do is point you to the “I’m Just a Feature” entry to explain why a minority view feature is less likely to get implemented than one that most users want. 

Finally, if you’re about to say, “This third party app uses too many resources and I need to be able to stop it,” my answer will be, “If that app really needs to use those resources, then it should have its own close option.” 

Donning hazard suit

So, that’s why the “X” button doesn’t close apps.  You can start calling me names now.

Mike Calligaro

Comments

• Anonymous
  October 05, 2006
  You have to remember that Palm OS actually does close applications when the user switches to a different application. Indeed, there is no way to have multiple applications running, something that actually annoys a lot of programmers. If all the user's applications were actually coded to play nicely - to stop all extraneous activities when moved into the background, and to free up memory for things that could be easily recalculated, to use small amounts of memory so as not to unnecessarily steal memory from other applications, and to actually respond to the WM_HIBERNATE message by freeing even more memory - then things would be fine. But they're not, so users see their PDAs slow right down as the OS struggles to free up memory. Developers have become used to allocating more space to get denormalized or precalculated data structures, but in fact the CPU is much faster than RAM and it would often be better to simply burn CPU cycles than hog memory. The use of precalculation really dates back to a time when CPU core clocks were slow enough versus RAM cycle time that the lookup was quicker than calculation, but it's just not true any more (I believe the SDRAM clock in most PXA270 devices is something like 1/5th or 1/6th the core speed). Me? My applications run almost exclusively on handhelds (yes, even Pocket PCs) which are dedicated to my application. As such I can take all of the device's memory, and not worry about my application being moved to the background - we're normally running in full-screen mode with the shell suppressed anyway. To this extent Windows Mobile can be an utter pain because of all the popups and notifications that the OS does, but we're stuck using this inappropriate platform - the rugged handheld device OEMs simply don't offer Windows CE on the full range of their equipment, and the customers often foresee a requirement for some part of the PDA functionality (which usually never materialises).

• Anonymous
  October 05, 2006
  I must say, I'm very happy with the way that the app doesn't close completely by using the X.  Admittedly, I would like a menu option to close the app, but I digress.  I like when I hit the X, it goes to the background.  The Start menu with the MRU app list then becomes kind of a task manager so I can swap back and forth between apps.  Admittedly, it isn't alt-tab, but it gets the job done. Overall, nicely done with it, and I agree with keeping it the way it is.

• Anonymous
  October 05, 2006
  You're a brave man, Mike!  :) Actually, I guess I fall into the camp of users for whom the X button works fine as-is most of the time.  For those times when it doesn't I've got a freeware app to force close applications, so I really have no complaints on that front. Now don't get me started on the Inbox and Mobile IE...

• Anonymous
  October 05, 2006
  Nice explanation... thanks.  I've always been a little confused why the X was chosen... I've always thought it should have been a minimize button.

• Anonymous
  October 05, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 05, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 05, 2006
  Well -- it's an explanation, at least. The first third party program I install after a hard reset changes this behavior, but I don't really mind that the default is to minimize. Your target audience isn't me, can't be me, and Microsoft has sunk a lot of money into the market I want only to find it practically doesn't exist. I wanted the desktop, you see.   Knowing why makes it easier to understand, and you do a great job explaining the 'why' of all the weird things Windows Mobile does.  You do great PR, if only for the techier users.

• Anonymous
  October 05, 2006
  For those of you who want the close button to really close the application, there is a program called smclose (developers page http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA032810/ see last link). You have only to copy smclose.exe in the WindowsStartup folder so that it is lanched when the device powers on, that's all. (Or start the program manually as needed)

• Anonymous
  October 05, 2006
  I don't know what's wrong with letting users 'manage' their own memory. They do it just fine on a desktop PC. Closing apps that they know are memory hogs when they no longer need them. Let's face it, the 'close' button problem on the Pocket PC et al, stems from the fact that the platform was so slow starting apps compared to the Palm platform, so had to keep everything running to give the illusion of speed. I'm still running an HP Jornada 568 (with WisBar set to close on (X) :-)) John

• Anonymous
  October 05, 2006
  Its not quite as simple as installing a 'fix' program to make apps close properly. The only one Ive found that works and has the functionality I require (ie, X closes app, display list of icons of running apps in title bar for quick recall, have this functionality switched on / off on a program by program basis) is wisbar. That so nearly works, but it breaks the connection icon on my Hermes, so I cannot see the difference between 2.5G and 3G coverage areas. I have to quit wizbar, look at the icon, and re-load wisbar. Looks like I will be dispointed when WM6 comes out, and it STILL doesnt have the OPTION to behave like this :( Like someone else said, if it all worked it would be fine, but surely im not the only one who finds my device bogged down and unresponsive / crashed if I open too many apps? also not having icons for running apps (a la wizbar) is unforgivable. If my GPS program is running in the background, why should I delve into the start menu to to sent it a WM_ACTIVATE message? i only have 2-4 apps running at once, there is plenty of room in the title bar for icons. Please reconsider :) george

• Anonymous
  October 05, 2006
  From a developers point of view, it was quite annoying to have a blanket "thou shalt not close" instruction that would prevent us from getting approval for the app, and it's good to hear that requirement has gone away. For an application like ours that makes constant use of a resource that another application might need (a GPS receiver on a COM port) it is absolutely essential that we can close our app (and surrender the port) when the user wants to use the GPS receiver with something else. Of course, that's dealt with in a different way in WM5 with the shared GPS feature, which makes things easier all round.

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  The why's are unimportant, what is important is choice.  For those who want the choice to close/minimise etc, then SPB pocket plus is the way to go! (Or wisbar as stated earlier, or both if you're really keen!!!!) Thats my piece...

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  What I don't like about this = ActiveSync failing to sync documents because they are still open within the WM5 App that I have "closed" What I do like about this = not having to wait for Voice Command and Pocket Outlook to reload every time I want to use them

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  Isn't the real reason that the "X" button doesn't properly quit applications is that the Windows Mobile Team secretly wishes it was the MacOS Mobile Team? ;-)

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  I don't have a problem with applications being "minimized" (or sent to the background) instead of closing, but I think it's horribly misleading to use the X symbol. Why not a down arrow (minimize) or anything else which users already know means "go away". Look at your desktop. You've got three icons at the corner of a window, and you know what they mean. The little bar thingy means "go to the little bar thingy at the bottom of my screen, and keep out of my way", while the X means "stop doing everything you're doing, I don't want you around, not even in the background" I just think it's awfully misleading and inconsistent to use the X symbol for anything other than close. True, in many cases, mobile apps shouldn't close, but then don't give them a little "close" icon at the corner. Give them something which means "go away" or "minimize". And that change could be done without breaking existing applications. ;) You have to keep in mind that whether or not the user should manage memory himself, a lot of users expect to do it, or are used to doing it, or think they're doing it. On my PC, I decide which applications to run, and when. A lot of people bring that same attitude to their PDA, and expect that they're the ones deciding when applications do or do not run, and in that case, the X symbol is just misleading them. Especially in the cases where "your" memory management fails to do the job, it just seems like a sick joke that the user is given the illusion of being able to control memory usage, to close apps, but in reality, it's ignored by the system.

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  Regarding using an X instead of some sort of iconify icon.  I carefully didn't say whether I thought the move was brilliant or stupid.  And I'm going to continue to not say...  (-: Mike

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  I wouldn't mind the forced "minimize-X" as opposed to the optional "close-X" if every time I had application issues the first response was not "close out all apps in memory" or worse yet, "soft reset" (since that simply closes and resets all apps anyway). But I still <3 my WM5.

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  First I want to thank Mike Calligaro for the opportunity that he has given to us, users of Windows Mobile devices to express our opinions. I’m new to this blog, although not to Windows Mobile. I fully understand the explanation about the need to rely memory management to the OS and not to the users. That is the way to go. But there's still a long way ahead: files opened can't be synched, deleted or otherwise used for other programs; programs minimized may not return resources to the OS (most notably memory); programs minimized may keep hardware locked for their use (GPS, for instance); use excessive CPU cycles, etc. So while I understand the decisions I use a task switcher to actually close applications; because the OS isn't helping me enough. I think that the OS should be more aggressive and be able to free up resources of minimized applications, instead of expecting that the programmers have been careful enough so their applications play nice. The OS should handle all that and provide to the applications the events and interfaces that give them the opportunity to react to those events (WM_HIBERNATE just asks form programs to do so –if I understood this well-, but does not actually do anything if the event hasn’t been programmed). Also I find that most often the single part of the system that uses most memory is the OS itself; frequently I’m running out of memory to launch some program, and nothing is being showed up as running. So the OS should also have some kind of garbage collector and memory “defragmentation”. If all this worked well, we wouldn't be discussing if there should be an 'X' or '-' or what. All people cares is that they are able to run their programs at an acceptable speed. If that means using a program to close running tasks to regain the lost performance, they will do so.

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  Scycost: Yes. Yes, yes, yes. But then again, yes. It is hard for me to imagine that the percentage of power users is so low (considering most of us have PPCs because we are power users) that yours seems like a novel idea, albeit a good one.

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 07, 2006
  If Microsoft was a truely cutomer concentric company (its not) it would give the WM5 "customers" the option of how the little x behaves. Either minimize or close an application. For somewhere around $500.00 I think the "cutomer" should be empowered to make a choice an magaging their own $500.00 dollar memory if the desire.

• Anonymous
  October 07, 2006
  Every time I get a "not enough memory to save this picture" error, then have to close the camera app, then go to Start > Settings > System > Memory > Running Applications > Close All, I have to wonder if the "majority" of people you refer to are people who don't actually use the product. Every my phone locks up, reboots or crashes and, on reboot, I am subjected to alarms I have dismissed, lost preferences, lost text messages (!!!) and other irritations because of your choice to store data in the wrong place, I have to wonder if the "majority" of people you refer to are people who don't actually use the product. And if this "majority" does actually say they don't have these problems, then I have to assume that they either don't use the product, don't recognize the problem, don't understand your questions, don't know how to explain the problems, or simply don't mind the problems. Because I own quite a few Windows Mobile devices and have worked with MANY more.  I know many people who have Windows Mobile Smartphone and PPC devices.  And I know that it is NOT a minority of people who have these exact same memory issues with PocketPC. The Windows Mobile Smartphone is (are) the best device(s) I have ever used or owned.  The PocketPC phone NEEDS to learn more from the success (in function, not sales) of those Smartphones.

• Anonymous
  October 07, 2006
  Is this true, does Microsoft consider the Close button? Or this this just your idea, MikeCal? I would say, you should install some of this "realy close" applications (gues why they are so popular?) and look how they do the job and then make the best of it. Not to complicated of course. Maybe like this: Let the functionality as is, just one hide button, but change the symbol (not "X"). Additionally a context menu (press and hold the hide button) should show a task manager to quickly switch and close applications (like SPB Pocket Plus).

• Anonymous
  October 07, 2006
  "Would it meet everyone's needs if we:

• provided a close button in addition to the existing button and
• provided a minimal task manager in rom on smartphone and pocket pc"

1. A ( - ) button next to the ( x ) on the PPC would be perfect.  It would be "intuitive" because every single PPC user already knows and expects that and it would solve many of the problems PPC users constantly struggle against.  On the down side, Solitaire would take a little longer to launch the next time a person wants to play it.  I think the pros outweigh the cons.
2. The taskmanager in WinMob Smartphones is tremendously easier to use than on the PocketPC. PocketPC: Start (which forces me to use 2 hands!) > Settings > System > Memory > Running Programs > Stop All Smartphone: click taskmanager icon in the MRU bar on the today screen > click 7 click okay At least having the Memory App available to the MRU on PPC would help, putting the MRU on the today screen would be even better.

• Anonymous
  October 07, 2006
  I would not like to attack anybody, just commenting the above argumet. I'm a very happy HTC TyTN user (so Windows Mobile 5 user) and a happy developer and very comfortable with Microsoft products. This X button question is not a big problem for me, I installed a 3rd party utility for it and that's all. I would like to comment the argument in silent: The argument is that "the OS manage the device memory better than the user", but there is an assumption behind this argument: "The applications are well written, and processes manage own memory well", this is an idealistic assumption imo, most applications can't use resources well, I know, I'm a developer :-) But I agree, an OS can manage its own memory better way than the end user, but this is not 100% true for applications, only in the case, if an application is written 100% well. Is there such like apps? How many? Thanks for your attention.

• Anonymous
  October 07, 2006
  @Mike: In a theoretical, ideal world you'd be right. However, reality is just two blog entries away from yours - a quote from Jason Fuller's September 15th post about Virtual Earth Mobile: "Make sure you have exited the app before trying to install the new version." Maybe the issue goes beyond memory managment. Locked files, for example. :-) Cheers  Daniel

• Anonymous
  October 07, 2006
  Applications consume resources not just RAM. For instance an application may keep a lock on a database or file. It may be using a sound/media API while denying another application. I don't have a MS, but when a media player app is playing sound and you hit "x" does it stop playing? I think sending the app to the back is fine so long as software behaves as if it is closed. User are task based, once they finish a task and hit the "x" button - they don't want to see any trace of it. If the OS decides to keep the app in the background as an optimisation then so be it. in terms of usability. I prefer the OS to manage memory not me. Consider the user experience of having an application that you know you can run (it worked yesterday), but today you are out of memory. Having the user select a list of tasks to shut down (not knowing how many will free up enough RAM) is ludicrous. I think the most pleasing solution involves the OS managing the memory, but also some effort from the app writers to persist state (and only stop persisting state if the user presses the x button).

• Anonymous
  October 07, 2006
  If the choice is so contentious...why not just make it an option?  Let those of us that want to manage the memory have that option.   Oh and I believe that everyone SHOULD be required to change their own oil too...at least once.

• Anonymous
  October 07, 2006
  Mike, I accept the argument that you need this functionality to be like this in order not to break current applications. I also accept that the memory management is improving with new versions. But then, why not give the user an easier path to close his applications whnever he wants to? Just like every task management tool does: a long click on the X button would open a menu with the running applications, and you could choose between going to one of them or closing one of them, or closing all..... can't MS learn from all the tools that are in the market? Can't they understand that if there is such a demand for these tools, so they are doing something right? It is the same with other decisions, like the removal of wireless sync with Outlook from Activesync 4.x..... we can accept that there were problems with security. But then this doesn't require completely removing the tool from AS4.... it would be enough to make the default as disabled, make it manageable by corporate server policies, and if free to use by the policy, then give the user the ability to turn it on. I don't agree that the aligment policy for all features should be "Users are stupid, we don't give them the option". Here is MS's mistake in my point of view.

• Anonymous
  October 07, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 07, 2006
  Been using WM5 for a short while and already wondered about this topic. This is my humble user ideas in this world of experts: 1- Why not make ONLY the preferred(favourite) applications to stay in background and allow us to close all others with an 'x' because we sometimes just want to have a little peep at some applications and want them to go away as fast as we finished looking at that something: a memo, an sms, an email, a topic, a calculation, but we may want our favourite music player or communicator to still run in background. 2- Some sort of shortcut (one-button) access to favourites (whatever they are)? 3- Is that too much to ask from so called experts that look down on us humble users with less brain than a doorknob? Besides, if you really were thinking your users were that thick to think for themselves, the operating system would have to be much, much, much more dummy-user friendly! 4- I miss so much the ability to find/search I have on my PC/laptop! I user it all the time on my other devices. Please bring it to meeeee! Thanks!

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  Keep things the same. Just provide a shortcut button to the Memory screen, e.g. Hold-OK. I like pressing OK to make things descend to background.  I don't close apps other than single serving system tools such as MemMaid.  I also chose my GPS prog and radio streamer, but I NEED "OK" TO KEEP MINIMIZING THESE THINGS. Get manufacturers to stop being so cheap about memory -- Problem solved! andy

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  Very nicely written, thanks for the explanation.  I think my main problem is that I visibly see how poorly the memory is managed on my device every day.  For example I have this one app which must use a fair amount of RAM because every time I sleep my WM5 phone or run IE--WM closes the first app.  Unfortunately, the dev of that app did not account for this and the "session state" is lost.  Very very annoying, and it's not the only program I've noticed which does not handle this case well.  On top of that, I'll occasionally notice the device slow down to a crawl, look at the free RAM and clear the IE cache or other temp files, and then not only does the device speed up, but I can run more programs simultaneously.  I thought this program memory versus storage memory scenario was killed in WM5 but I can attest that such is not the case.

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  Don't add a second button.  Do hold-OK like Andy just suggested.  If you have not seen it before, check out the freeware app Magic Button.  It's the first app I install on a WM device.  You would do well to emulate it. http://www.trancreative.com/mb.aspx

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  Mike, You are indeed a brave man to tackle this issue, as it's been a long sore point with end users. I've been watching the platform evolve since 1996, so I've seen everything come and go. I fully understand why the Pocket PC team, coming off the dismal failure of the Palm-sized PC, was so desperate to use every trick in the book to match the speed of the Palm V. Problem is, they let their desperation get in the way of more than a decade of user-interface training that every computer user had been through. "X" means close. "-" means minimize. The...arrogance of the Windows Mobile team to think that they can re-define a universal UI element like that is stunning. And yes, the MSN Messenger team is equally arrogant for their implementation. If the "X" were another symbol, it would be clear to the user that the application is not actually being closed. Knowing that, they can act appropriately by going into the control panel and shutting down the apps themselves. I do a bit of consulting and have watched regular users (non-geek types) struggle with this close issue over and over. Trying to delete a file, only to have Windows Mobile Player, the application they THOUGHT they closed, still locking a file. It's just not acceptable that end users are tricked that way.

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  What about a tap-hold option? Users tap-hold the X and the program closes, so simple, and everybody's happy. Think about it, it doesn't use any extra screen real estate, and it doesn't affect users who are happy with the way things are now.  But for those of us who like to and need to manage our own memory... perfect! Andy

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  Hi Mike, One other comment I submitted (twice) doesn't seem to get posted. Did I violate any rules with my comment? Sorry if I did. @ Andy: Tap and hold is much too slow for this feature. An [X] button needs to close, and do it fast. My biggest complaint with the [x] button on windows mobile is the icon [x] they chose to paint on there. Instead they should have an arrow down or something. I agree with the previous commentor who cited the same confusing functionality on the windows live/msn messenger desktop client. I too find this implementation arrogant.

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  Hi mike, love the arcticle; and I love your guts for sitting down and explaining this to us. Before reading the article I already was aware of the rationale behind that [x] button idea. I agree with all your writ except one piece: You said, "doing so would break all the apps that expect the current behavior." A large number of people install a "really close" extension, any application that becomes broken due to a "really close", already is broken, and generates tech support calls from those people. One of the most compelling arguments a pro-microsoft guy has is the integrated-ness of all their products and the level at which they support legacy things (software, ideas, etc.) Although the latter has been slipping the last few years. A person who could run windows 95 will be able to learn xp and vista in literally no time at all. This is one of the reasons why sticking to microsoft products pays. Zero learning curve.

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  About 8 years ago, our company started making use of handheld devices for our emplyees' PIM and other information. We would buy the best available - at that time it was on Palm OS. later on, when Pocket PC 2002 was available, somehow realising that microsoft would crush the PDA market within a short time, I started promoting the platform within our company. Most of our personell are fluent windows users and generally smart individuals. Being more on the IT side of things, I spent quite a lot of time helping people convert their Palm OS information to Pocket PC. I get feedback and questions from some 200+ Windows Mobile users. Mike, to how many people with a windows xp background have you explained why there is an [x] button that does not close? I mean, look at windows xp, [x] is a friend, he's always there, he's reliable, he takes the darn application out to keep you from going insane. if the application does not want to obey, the operating system goes, "this application is rude, misbehaving, what should i do about it?" This [x] feature rudely and promptly shuts down the unwanted application, and ends anything it is busy doing with no warning. It consits of two diagonal lines that cross. It's a "feature" that every single windows 95+ user is used to. Think of 850 million + people. Now... go give all those windows users a windows mobile device and tell them the [x] button (their friend) does not function like the PDA's big brother, the desktop. I can tell you some of those people would injure you with the said device. You see, it's not that people must have an [x] button. BUT, if it's an [x], by all means, it should function like an [x]. Many, many people think the misleading icon is pathetic. I repeat, many, many people are disgusted with a fake [x] icon. It is a slap in the face for the windows user.

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  About 8 years ago, our company started making use of handheld devices for our emplyees' PIM and other information. We would buy the best available - at that time it was on Palm OS. later on, when Pocket PC 2002 was available, somehow realising that microsoft would crush the PDA market within a short time, I started promoting the platform within our company. Most of our personell are fluent windows users and generally smart individuals. Being more on the IT side of things, I spent quite a lot of time helping people convert their Palm OS information to Pocket PC. I get feedback and questions from some 200+ Windows Mobile users. Mike, to how many people with a windows xp background have you explained why there is an [x] button that does not close? I mean, look at windows xp, [x] is a friend, he's always there, he's reliable, he takes the darn application out to keep you from going insane. if the application does not want to obey, the operating system goes, "this application is rude, misbehaving, what should i do about it?" This [x] feature rudely and promptly shuts down the unwanted application, and ends anything it is busy doing with no warning. It consits of two diagonal lines that cross. It's a "feature" that every single windows 95+ user is used to. Think of 850 million + people. Now... go give all those windows users a windows mobile device and tell them the [x] button (their friend) does not function like the PDA's big brother, the desktop. I can tell you some of those people would injure you with the said device.

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  I realized my comment was not published because it is too long, I broke it down and submitted it in pieces. Sorry about the duplicates.

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  Here are my humble suggestions: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE change the icon on the [hide] button to something other than [x]. Placing two buttons in the upper right corner [hide] and [x], would cause unecessary confusion for new users and people who are expecting more of a phone interface.

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  Here are my humble suggestions: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE change the icon on the [hide] button to something other than [x]. There should be an additional settings page that allows the user to change whether the button in the upper-right corner means [close] or [hide] Placing two buttons in the upper right corner [hide] and [x], would cause unecessary confusion for new users and people who are expecting more of a phone interface.

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  Placing two buttons in the upper right corner [hide] and [x], would cause unecessary confusion for new users and people who are expecting more of a phone interface. If by chance, the Windows Mobile 6.0 "new feature list" includes the above mentioned changes, it would because many people to smile and say, "they finally used their brains." How much do you guys listen to feedback? Do you ever offer user surveys? Face it, an [x] that does not close is just plain dumb, no matter how you look at it. It's no argument, it's no question, and everyone knows it except for a few deciscion makers at microsoft. I am willing to bet they have no decent explanation of why it is an [x] icon, as opposed to an arrow down or something.

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 08, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 09, 2006
  Hello Mike! First thank you for writing this article on the history and background of the CLOSE APP button. Nevertheless I rather disagree:

• It has nothing to do with the question if the user should manage memory or not. You wouldn't say that a user manages memory himself in Windows XP or so when closing an application?! It's always the OS which manages memory.
• Most annoying is the locking problem: A file is locked by a running app in the background and you can't manipulate it.
• And then you sometimes run out of memory and have to manually close apps one after another. And that's called AUTOMATIC memory management?!
• Maybe it was true and meaningful in the past to just put the app into the background but nowadays the OS and UI itself should offer the option of really closing it, together with a builtin task manager/switcher (WisBar-like). Best regards, Günther Schöllhammer

• Anonymous
  October 09, 2006
  @ Chris So you WANT the button to function that way... fine, it's probably best. Probably. I agree, it's not all that bad except for the file locking issue mentioned before. It does need some fine tuning. There should be be a better task manager, etc. But still, if the button is not a [close] button, it should not have an [x]. It should have something that means, "minimize, but close if memory is short". And arrow or something would suffice. Or even an [x] with an arrow on one of the bottom points. The [x] is simply misleading. The minimize-but-close-if-required is new functionality for windows users, it deserves a new icon. Don't just muddy up the definition of [x] for us. I agree, there is no reason to start calling names/insults, we can have an educated debate here. And I'm sorry, being one of the offenders myself.

• Anonymous
  October 09, 2006
  Shannon, you said that you love the Smartphone but dislike the PocketPC.  But the Smartphone doesn't give you an easy way to close apps either. Can you tell me more about what makes you like the Smartphone method but not the PocketPC one?   Kazi, I don't believe the OS can manage its memory better than the user.  The user has information about what's about to happen (I'm going to use this app again in a minute) that the OS doesn't have.  What I believe is that the user shouldn't NEED to manage his memory.  It's similar to driving a car with an automatic vs manual transmission.  A well driven manual transmission will always outperform an automatic, but most people (myself included) buy automatics. I personally do this because I don't want to have to shift.  I assume other people are similar. Chris and Helio, as far as we're concerned, the user DOES have the option to use close his apps.  He can either use the built in memory control panel or he can install one of the many available managers.  See the "I'm Just a Feature" entry, but any feature we do means 10 more we don't do.  If we had a choice between enabling something that can't be done by a 3rd party or redoing stuff that 3rd parties already provide, we're generally going to choose the former.  Etc. Marta, we absolutely do NOT think you're stupid. It's not that we think you're incapable of closing apps.  It's that we think you shouldn't have to.  See the oil change example. Nicholas and Andy, more memory means more expensive devices.  In the past, more expensive devices have not sold as well as less expensive devices.  When more expensive devices sell better than cheaper ones, OEMs will be happy to put tons of memory in them. As for Tap and hold on OK, if we added that feature, how would we teach users that it works that way?  Wouldn't most people still assume that X closes and never think to tap and hold to close?  And what about the users who want to minimize but occasionally hold the X too long?  How will they understand why sometimes their music stops playing when they press the X and others times it doesn't?  On the other hand, any user who installs a utility to enable tap and hold X as close will definitely know about it.   Mike

• Anonymous
  October 09, 2006
  The difference regarding SP vs PPC is that SP makes it very fast to access the memory applet from the MRU list. Not ideal, but it works. Also, SP doesn't promise to have a close function by taunting us with an [X] button. One major step backwards recently was when recent SP releases seem to eliminate the navigate by number option. Bring it back!

• Anonymous
  October 09, 2006
  "As for Tap and hold on OK, if we added that feature, how would we teach users that it works that way? " Maybe you could add it to the completely useless and annoying cut and paste tutorial that is shown everytime a device is hard reset? Or, you could do a "tool-tip" pop up the first time a user clicks on the X to inform them of the functionality.

• Anonymous
  October 09, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 09, 2006
  Mike, You say that users should not need to manage memory, but in reality, that is exactly what we are doing. When wm5 slows down to a crawl, the user is forced to go to the memory section and close apps, i.e. MANAGE MEMORY. And if you think that it’s only the Minority who do this, or feel this annoyance (without knowing what to do about it), then you are completely WRONG. So, the millions of dollars spent on marketing that would say otherwise, well they are simply WRONG. You would best benefit if you get some new marketers, which would give you the real life info. So, if you all cannot find a way to effectively allow your UI to manage its memory, then put the memory section on the Today screen, and at least give us an easier way SO WE CAN DO IT.

• Anonymous
  October 09, 2006
  what is the chance of the default icon being changed? to solve the problem of accidential closing w/ tap&hold, simply pop up a task manager menu to give the user a choice of action. This could double as the task manager, if it had a list of the running programs, etc.

• Anonymous
  October 09, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 09, 2006
  It is a great concept and yes the software should manage it but if it doesn't do it fairly flawlessly then it is useless and should not emerge past the beta stage. I'm running 2003SE and the memory just drains. Closing the applications fully using wisbar advance delays the need for a reset. It is silly to make a stance like this when you can't demonstrate it's benefits by making it work. Useability is not a microsoft strength. For example why is the 'X' in the top right hand corner. With many phones running WM, people are using thumb on screen rather than stylus, I'm cramped up trying to play an impossible guitar chord going for the 'X'. Put everything that runs the system in one place and let people choose where that is, It's not that hard to code. Making users not manage their memory is a fluffy feature, something that is a bonus if you can get it to work. Fact is the speed at which programs load nowadays is very quick anyway. More effort should be concentrated on making the applications not so thin on the ground with regards to features. I couldn't beleive it took until WM5 to get photo contacts for example. The ethos should always be intuative useability. At the moment you seem a bit blinkered on the memory management feature.

• Anonymous
  October 10, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 10, 2006
  Since Mike is being calm and reasonable, I'll play bad cop. It seems like we can agree that this functionality is primarily useful for people that like to use 3rd-party apps. And there is at least one third party app that nails this feature and people recommend it. So it seems like it's not really useful for us to integrate that functionality into the platform. We'd be adding a feature that already exists in the ecosystem. And even if we stopped the world and implemented it today, you wouldn't see it for months and months and might need to buy a new device to get it. But you can install a 3rd-party app even on Daedalia's 2003SE device.

• Anonymous
  October 10, 2006
  scyost ...that is not a very intelligent statement. I'll give you an analogy to it: "There is no need to add better security to windows vista because you can already pay a 3rd party company some more money to have the holes fixed for you, even way back down till win95."

• Anonymous
  October 10, 2006
  I don't think your analogy is fair. Security is for everyone. This is more of a niche feature. People have already said that the primary culprit is misbehaving 3rd party apps. Even if we were to follow your analogy, people do get quite mad when we add features that 3rd parties are currently supplying. Just look at Symantec's reaction to the Security Center in Windows.

• Anonymous
  October 10, 2006
  It's not quite fair, but only in the sense that it is more extreme. >"security is for everyone." I hope you do not mean to tell me that being able to close programs, and not having a confusing UI is only for a minority. Try this: Imagine if the same scenario was playing out on the desktop. Suppose 3rd parties were cashing in on software that helped close programs because windows only minimized them. Imagine that the only included task manager were hidden deep inside the start menu. Go form there. "It makes no sense to include a task manager and [x] button because symantec is already doing it, and they would sue us." I don't intend to sound angry or mean. One more thing: When you look to see across how big a market share a certain feature would increase satisfaction, you have to add more than those who buy 3rd party software. You probably will see the .5% {im just a feature) who hate the change. Keep in mind the gazillion people who got rid of their PPC and went for Palm/RIM/Nokia because it was too hard to use. And the people who would gladly have the functionality but don't want the hassle of installing 3rd party apps which often slow the device speed to a crawl and cause it to crash more.

• Anonymous
  October 10, 2006
  Oh, I also think it could be very accaptible to have a minimize AND a close button on the top bar. This could hit home for most desktop users. The only think I would have against that is if you, for whatever reason, chose to invert them so the x is leftmost. (or whatever)

• Anonymous
  October 10, 2006
  A also should add that many OEMs actually preinstall task manager applets, although they are usually trashy and ugly. dell, hp, toshiba, comapaq. some HPs even had a pre-programmed hardware button for calling the task switcher. If you are looking for statistics of how many people regularly "really close" applications... the actual numbers are quite fuzzy.

• Anonymous
  October 10, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 10, 2006
  Shannon, thank you very much for the detailed feedback on what you like about SP vs PPC.  It is definitely the case that we spent more time designing the SP to be phone-like than we did with PPC Phone.  Since the first SP, we've been slowly merging the two platforms.  But, largely, that's meant making the PPC more like SP.  You can expect us to continue to bring SP functionality to PPC until at, some point, it will be hard to tell the two apart. Zacho, walk through this exercise with me.  I'm in a room with a bunch of other engineers.  We've got ten different features that we know that a lot of people want.  But we know that we've only got time to do one of them.  We've got to decide which nine to not do.  Five of the ten features can't possibly be implemented by anyone but us.  The other five could potentially be implemented by OEMs or ISVs.  One of those five has already been implemented multiple times by both ISVs and OEMs, comes bundled on some devices, and is highly available to the subset of users who want it. Remember that I've got to find nine features to cut.  Which do I cut first? Mike

• Anonymous
  October 10, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 11, 2006
  I just made a shortcut to Running Programs, assigned it to a button, that was that. Mike, if you could add Running Programs to Program folder or something, so that it could be added to the Start Menu or a button, I think it would really help.

• Anonymous
  October 11, 2006
  Mike, first off, thank you very much for this posting. This opportunity to get an insight as to why something something works/doesn't the way it does is helpful even if we don't like it. I also appreciate the opportunity to be able to leave a comment. I am an ex-Palm power user and used to wear one out every year from usage. Our corporation is now evaluating MS Mobile 5 Smartphones and I'm on the pilot so it is important to understand what we will be facing for training of users. Though I prefer the dual minimize / close icon, we can get around it through training. It is a nuisance not to have consistency, but then again that has not always been MS' forte. Thanks.

• Anonymous
  October 12, 2006
  I have to agree that a user should not be =required= to manage their own memory. But why remove a user's ability to do that memory management (close an app) if the user desires to? Removing the ability to close apps removes the users ability to manage a part of their world. This sort of do-it-our-way-or-go-somewhere-else policy has done more to irritate people than almost anything else about the Windows expeirnece. I don't avocate changing the current UI, just adding an easy way to exit apps if I want to. Carl

• Anonymous
  October 12, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 12, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 12, 2006
  It's just a matter of prioritizing. Problems for which there is a clear customer workaround tend to get prioritized below problems for which there are NO workaround. I'm not saying the problem isn't interesting or that we're not listening. But for this problem, I can say "Go install Magic Button, you'll love it". For some other problems I can only say "Sorry, there is no workaround in this version of Windows Mobile.". That second class of problems bubbles up in our priority list faster.

• Anonymous
  October 13, 2006
  It's pretty obvious we are never going to convince the PTB that this is a necessary, good addition to the OS.  I personally don't mind the default function being minimize.  What I HATE is that it is too difficult to close apps if I want to.   Many third party applications have added an Exit or Close function to thier menus and I find that an acceptable solution. I think many of us would find it an acceptable compromise if EVERY application, including the built in apps from MS offered this option. Mike, my personal experience is that you are greatly over-estimating the number of users that don't want an easier way to manage memory.   Many users don't know why their device is slow or not responding, just that it is. I have had to show many co-workers how to navigate through the multiple steps to get to the memory applet to close the Cr## that hasn't been gracefully closed by the OS. They almost always look at me like I'm insane when I explain all of the steps and ask why isn't there an easier way?  How many WM devices have been returned because they are "too slow" simply because the OS wasn't properly managing memory, and the user didn't know how too?

• Anonymous
  October 13, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 13, 2006
  Don't take my comments to mean that that we're not listening or that this will never change. There is lots of heated internal discussion on this topic and the topic is not closed. We appreciate all your detailed comments and feedback.

• Anonymous
  October 13, 2006
  I've been using third-party products to CLOSE my apps since my first PPC device in 2002 (can't remember if I had to use apps to close programs on my BE-300), hoping that MS would come around.  The extra apps always seem to obscure some info I need on the taskbar.  Now that I know that I should give up hope, I can look in another direction.  Still, I would like to add my voice to the chorus that says that allowing a user a choice doesn't have to force a user to act.  If the option was there only there for some of us, minimize could still be the default.  I love my WM5 phone, but you guys must know it doesn't handle memory the way it should.  Until the OS stops forcing some of us to manage the memory via workarounds and resets, we should have an easy way to close our apps.  Sure, it's easy to say we are a tiny minority, but I can't tell you how many times this little support tech has "fixed" a user's problem with a PDA or phone by doing a reset.  Do you think the majority of users will inform MS every time they have to do resets to get their devices working again?  How would MS know about it, if they didn't?  The answer might be that MS WOULDN'T, and would then assume that all is perfectly dandy. Yeah, I know; we keep buying the things.  I didn't say they were awful.

• Anonymous
  October 13, 2006
  MiniMage, did you even READ the rest of the comments?   It's not just about "wow, this feature is a great idea, it should really be in there." It's also about "wow, these 10 features are great, we don't have time to implement all of them, these 5 (like the CLOSE stuff) have workarounds, so let's fix the 5 that don't instead." Check out this other entry, "I'm A Feature:" http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/archive/2006/09/11/749942.aspx

• Anonymous
  October 14, 2006
  You keep the "X" button, but for closing, and add a "-" button, for minimizing. Just it. So simple, farewell.

• Anonymous
  October 14, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 15, 2006
  Using the argument that users shouldn't need to manage the operating system's memory usage to justify the current functionality of the |X| button is unjustified. Users already manage and have control over memory usage - after all, they're able to load an application into memory, so why shouldn't they be able to perform the reverse of that action? In other words, if users are given the capability to bring applications INTO memory, then they should be given the capability to release applications FROM memory easily. What I want to know is why are "optimisations" such as leaving idle processes resident in memory on devices with extremely limited memory necessary anyway?

• Anonymous
  October 16, 2006
  As a matter of fact, BeanSprout, I did read all the comments. However, I won't claim my memory is all it should be.  Seems teams at the big M are always running out of time to do this or that.  One group didn't have time to put themes in XP; another group doesn't have time to put non-Aero themes in Vista; there's no time for us to close our apps in Windows Mobile. I imagine development is difficult. I sure can't do it. I just get to sit back, use and support the final products and wonder where the time went.  Tell ya what, though, I'm on my 5th CE-based device since 2002, so I'm obviously loving, not hating.  I did say I wanted to add my voice to the chorus. It has been implied in beta testing that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Obviously, other issues squeaked louder last go-round (and perhaps deservedly so).

• Anonymous
  October 18, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 18, 2006
  Doug, I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If you've got hard data that shows that literally millions of people hate the feature, please share it with us.  I would happily take that data to product planning and use it to convince them to change the behavior.  The trouble is, despite what people believe, such data does not exist.  In fact, there's a good deal of data that says the opposite.   It's human nature to say, "I hate this, and I've talked to 10 other people who also hate this, so everyone must."  Unfortunately, the world doesn't actually work that way.  Even if you personally knew 10,000 people who disliked the feature, you'd have only talked to a tiny fraction of the user population.  Remember that the vast majority of users don't hang out on this blog, don't read PocketPC newsgroups, and don't load third party programs.   Mike

• Anonymous
  October 18, 2006
  Avec la sortie des premiers Pocket PC, un mystère est apparu : pourquoi la croix placée en haut à droite

• Anonymous
  October 21, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 21, 2006
  While you are at it, would you care to comment on the fact that the Windows Mobile Blog site is not PIE friendly? ;-)

• Anonymous
  October 21, 2006
  With respect to the "Close" issue, I think that not doing somethins like modifying the "X" so that a tap/hold gives the users the exit option reenforces the strong feeling in the user communities that MS doesn't really care what the user feels he/she needs to use the device productively. Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

• Anonymous
  October 21, 2006
  Now, about Windows Mobile's Connection Manager ("URL Exceptions", "The Internet", "Work" )... The guy who designed it, is he here? I'd like to have 5 minutes with him and this pencil. An eternity with Beelzebub and all his hellish minions will be nothing compared to it. (With apologies to Blackadder fans).

• Anonymous
  October 21, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 21, 2006
  Two other things, Mike:  I don't hang out on this blog.  I only got pointed to it because my brand new, extremely expensive WM SmartPhone was running dog slow.  After searching a few boards for a solution, I found out about the "X doesn't close, it only puts it in background" issue, and also found that the topic was being discussed here.  So that's why I came here.  But believe me, I don't make it a habit. (Also, as an aside, you kind of make my point when you yourself point out that most users "don't load third party programs."  Exactly why they shouldn't be required to just so that they can close programs in WM and keep their devices from bogging down!) Second, if it would do you folks any good, or be helpful in any way, I'm happy to share my opinions as an "experienced software guy who is new to the WM environment."  I've got a list. [laughter]  Feel free to send me email, so's we don't bore to death the folks who do hang out here. Doug

• Anonymous
  October 23, 2006
  First of all thanks for the nice and informative article. It seemed to clarify a lot of things. Now if I need to permanently close an app, I will either choose exit / close from the app menu if there is one, else use the task manager and end it. Otherwise I am happy to keep small memory apps which I use frequently, run in the background. I have recently started using a Windows Mobile device, HTC Hermes, and it is my first WM device. I have to say that it is a BIG refreshing change from the boring interface of Nokia and similar phones which I was literally fed up with. This phone gives a lot of flexibility and I actively hunt for the 3rd party app which will make my usage more personal. If I don't find one, being a professional MS developer, I can also decide to go ahead and write one. But there are a few irritating aspects which cannot be dealt with third party apps ( as per my limited knowledge). Things like, when I get a message which is short, and I have read it on the main screen itself, and click dismiss, it still remains as an unread message in my messages folder. I have to open it up fully and then close for it to be flagged as read. Lack of profiles to set, and hence I end up setting my speaker off almost the entire time during the day. Would love to see profile support, and if possible programmable program support to say monday - friday 9-5, is metting mode, rest is normal mode. Activesync is one of the biggest headache's I have. It is liveable, but definitely can be made to give a better experience. To add a contact, I have to scroll down to access the home phone fields. Basic contact like name, phone, email should be topmost and the rest can go below. Small things like this will refine this platform even better and give it the polished look it should have. Regarding the issue of closing programs, I am a bit of a perfectionist, and prefer to close all programs and keep the system lean and fast. I end up finding myself going to the running programs list and closing all. But it is not too much of a problem. Can't you just add a setting in the config somewhere which lets us choose if we want to close or minimise on clicking x. So by default it minimises on clicking x, but if I choose to, I can toggle the behaviour to close on clicking x. Saves a LOT of hassle, pleases everyone ( well, no change pleases everyone I guess, but this one at least gets some of the unpleased to the pleased group ). Gives users options without drastically changing the way they are used to. Will read this team blog closely, so thanks for the explaination and keep posting. Some info about the life of my phone with Vista and Office 2007 would be very reassuring. Not sure if I will be able to use the contact / notes / tasks sync features of the new platform with my phone, and so a bit hesitant to upgrade my main machine. Some news about you guys working on it would be very reassuring.

• Anonymous
  October 23, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 23, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 23, 2006
  Doug, I'm pretty sure I've covered that point in both the original blog entry and in comments here.  Some people (both internally and externally) consider the decision to use an X "brilliant" and others consider it "unforgivably stupid."  I've been careful to not reveal which side of that fence I'm on.  (-: Mike

• Anonymous
  October 25, 2006
  Mike, of course we can install a 3rd party app to close programs and of course we can go to memory management in the control panel but this is an inconvenience, it would be far better to have an option within the control panel that sets application behaviour. The default behaviour would be for the X to put the application to the background as it does at the moment and for there to be an option that makes the X close the app, wouldnt this be a win win situation for all?

• Anonymous
  October 25, 2006
  Dave, no it would not be a win win.  To do that we would have to cut some other feature that more people want.  Those people would consider this a "lose," not a "win."   Mike

• Anonymous
  October 25, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 27, 2006
  So, as a .NET developer I have a question.  I "get" the reasoning behind the no-close feature.  But suppose my app needs to have the ability to run in the background, and the user is likely to want to leave it running while doing other tasks?  Two common scenarios would be GPS and RSS readers.   The user, knowing the 'X' doesn't really close the app clicks it.  Sometimes it works fine- the RSS reader updates itself in the background and the user can come back an hour later and his news is there.  Sometimes, though, they come back and the app wakes up and immediately starts downloading.  In this class of apps, the memory management feature introduces some inconsistency to the user experience.  This has been my experience with the pocket RSS readers out there now- what I'm hoping is you'll tell me there is a 'never-close-me' api call...

• Anonymous
  October 27, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  October 28, 2006
  When I use a program that I want to remain in memory while I use another program, I make that decision. If I want to exit it, because I won't be using it again, I think I am capable of making that decision too. What makes Microsoft think we're not capable of making those kinds of decisions. Fortunately when it wasn't built into the operating system, we had alternative choices. Wisbar for example.

• Anonymous
  November 02, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  November 03, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  November 04, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  November 05, 2006
  feawing - 32 processes is a limit of CE 5.0 but it's gone in CE 6.0. So the next Windows Mobile release that's based on CE6+ won't have a 32 process limit. On modern devices though, RAM is more scarce than the process table.

• Anonymous
  November 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  November 06, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  November 06, 2006
  [Heaves a deep sigh.] THANK you. So.  Now shall I send you my bug list for WM5?  [laughter] Doug

• Anonymous
  November 06, 2006
  Mike:  in all seriousness, if you have a standard bug filing format, and if it would be useful for you folks to get my list of bugs, I am happy to send them in.  I have been keeping track as I go along, not because I like to make people miserable, but because I'm a software guy, and hold out hope that bugs can get fixed.  (And I'm talking real bugs here, not features; Comm Manager doesn't close unless you close it by hand in the Memory Manager, for example.) So, if you want me to send in these bugs, I'm happy to do so. Doug

• Anonymous
  November 10, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  November 14, 2006
  This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard... there’s no way that the majority of people prefer not having the ability to close an app other than by performing a process analogous to ctr alt del on a desktop pc, but maybe even more tedious. This must be fixed. Good effort on trying to give some reasoning on the topic mike, however I think it’s impossible.

• Anonymous
  November 15, 2006
  Look at this, an official Microsoft Windows Mobile site says the following: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/mobile/render.aspx?url=/windowsmobile/mobile/pocketpc/memory.mspx "Free Up Memory If you've occasionally run into an error message on your device that says your memory is low, you may need to close some applications. Unlike a PC, the apps on your device don't necessarily stop when you think they have–leaving multiple programs open which chew up memory. This speeds up access to them, but reduces the available memory. Stop programs to free up memory On the Home screen, tap Start. Tap Settings. Tap the System tab. Tap the Memory icon. Tap the Running Programs tab. Under Running Program List, select the programs you are no longer using and then tap Stop. To stop every program running, tap Stop All. Tap OK. " Hehe :-) Nice, isn't it? To reach this page: run PIE/Favorites/Explore Windows Mobile/Free Up Memory. So, why should I manage memory then? You can read the official answer from Microsoft right on your Windows Mobile device. Kazi

• Anonymous
  November 16, 2006
  Well, so now we know, why it does not close. But what about an extra Icon, additionally one. So we have 2 Icons for an Program... a "", which does the same as "X" does now, and a "X" for close. Old Programs are happy, coz, internally the "" icons appears under the same names and associations as the "X" does now. The new "X" has then an default way, which does use the same method as the Memory control panel. And it should be overrideable, just in case.

• Anonymous
  November 19, 2006
  Make WM like wXP, let users close with the 'X'.

• Anonymous
  November 26, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  November 27, 2006
  Very interesting arguments. I agree that Windows Mobile SHOULD handle memory but this can be easily deconstructed in the real world. Here is a simple test: open any 6 different programs in your Windows Mobile / Pocket PC phone. Now, try to run your camera. This results in a "not enough memory" error. Shouldn't Windows Mobile have freed up some memory for your camera application? It's the right idea, but until it can actually be implemented, don't you think we should have the ability to free up the memory ourselves? I do know plenty of users who do experience slow-downs. But where are all these millions of perfectly happy users? If you've got hard data that shows that literally millions of people never experience memory problems on their Windows Mobile devices, I'm sure I speak for everyone here when I say that we would all like to see it.

• Anonymous
  December 02, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  December 05, 2006
  Your logic makes sense but really it makes better sense to have the minimize button just windows desktop. X and _ give us the choice ... It does not really bug me cause I forked the cash up for SPB Plus, a windows Mobile 5 addon that adds today screen functionality and the ability to close apps when you press X But seriously it seems like you guys are trying to be dictators with both this and the ActiveSync issue.

• Anonymous
  December 13, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  December 18, 2006
  Actually, consistency is everything. If you wanted it to go into the background why did you not just make it the minus sign and a minimize?   That's what it is doing anyway. No GUI is intuitive, they are just conventional break the convention and what do you get. Bad GUI!

• Anonymous
  December 19, 2006
  Hi, Thanks for the article and discussion. I appreciate the openness. An argument that has been repeatedly stated was about the harsh realities of feature prioritization, and "leave it to third parties". As quite a few people have pointed out, the fact is that MS apps are not perfect, 3rd party apps are not perfect, and WM5 is not perfect. Resources getting hogged happen, daily. Due to this, closing applications by digging into the utterly inconvenient menu or resetting the device to recover functionality is a necessity. This makes this close story a basic useability and reliability issue, not a nice-to-have feature. I don't know how things are done at MS, but I've been in SW development for 20 years in fairly major companies. Everywhere I know of, basic useability/reliability issues (especially cheap ones of course) are given priority over new features. Also, the issue is on a standard UI element and basic platform usage: Microsoft's own field, not third parties. The fact that a large number of third parties have been implementing workarounds to this issue is not an indicator of a healthy ecosystem. It's rather a clear sign that something's wrong. And should be taken as such.

• Anonymous
  December 21, 2006
  Having read this I now understand why it works like it does. But it is very frustrating. I've experienced "file in use" issues, and slow downs with my Wizard because of a lack of memory.... and had to go through the 10 taps to close programs before I can get performance back... which kinda makes me wonder about the comment that WM5 manages it's own memory closing apps as required... Maybe WM6 will improve the memory management, or the next round of devices will start shipping with GB rather than MB ;)

• Anonymous
  December 21, 2006
  One thing that has always confused me about the Windows Mobile platform is why the close button (that

• Anonymous
  December 29, 2006
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  December 29, 2006
  Hopefully we’ll get there... http://mobilitytoday.com/news/007124/HTC_TASKMGR_WM

• Anonymous
  January 01, 2007
  I use the Dell Axim X51v that comes with a small program called Switcher Bar that gives you the option to do a "true close". This seems to work well for me.

• Anonymous
  January 02, 2007
  Now I understand why 'X' doesn't close the app.  Sounds fine.  My question is this: I have a UT Starcom Pocket PC.  I've found that the battery life is horrible.  I turn it off at night, on in the morning, and it's used 10% battery life.  Doing what?  I turned off the phone.  Could it be all those little apps that I 'thought' I was closing when I clicked on 'X'?  Could those minimized apps possibly be draining the battery?  Why can't I completely stop this thing so nothing runs except the clock?

• Anonymous
  January 03, 2007
  Marco, for the most part, when you press the power button on a PocketPC, it suspends all applications and stops the CPU.  In that state, it doesn't matter if the application was "closed" or "minimized."  It's not running in either case.   While suspended, only a hardware interrupt can wake the system back up.  The power button is is one example of something that can wake wake the system up, but other things like cellular radios can do so as well.  This is how your phone can wake up when a phone call comes in. There is also a real time clock that can wake the system up, and software can make use of that RTC to run itself.  This, for instance, is how a calendar appointment can wake the system up.  The calendar program told the system, "wake up at 1:45 and run me."  The software interface for this launches the app if it's not already running.  So if you have an app doing this, it wouldn't matter if the X button actually closed it or not.  The behavior would be the same. I don't know the specifics of the device you're using, but the most likely case is that the cellular radio is burning power over night waiting for phone calls.  Pressing the power button doesn't turn the phone off.  People can still call you then.  If you want to make it so that no one can call you (and also so that you're not using power to enable them to), you need to put the PocketPC into "flight mode."  That's a mode where the phone is actually off and not communicating with the cell towers around you. Mike

• Anonymous
  January 03, 2007
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  January 04, 2007
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  January 04, 2007
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  January 08, 2007
  After getting my new phone in November, I started searching all over for information about mobile development.

• Anonymous
  January 19, 2007
  is there a free force close app out there? :) rodrigoratan (at) gmail (dot) com

• Anonymous
  January 24, 2007
  >As for Tap and hold on OK, if we added that >feature, how would we teach users that it works >that way?" The same way you taught them that [X] doesn't actually close applications anymore...? (Sorry, but you were just begging for this one.)

• Anonymous
  January 31, 2007
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2007
  re: The Emperor Has No Close On Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:28 PM scyost writes: "...So it seems like it's not really useful for us to integrate that functionality into the platform. We'd be adding a feature that already exists in the ecosystem...." No, you wouldn't want to do that.  That'd be like adding antivirus or firewall functionality to the OS, and MS would never do that when there were already perfectly viable 3d-party apps in the ecosystem.

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2007
  Oh, one other thing: this entire discussion has looked at closing programs from the perspective of memory management for device usability; but for me, battery life is a significant issue as well, and it seems to me that I get better battery life when I keep the number of programs running to a minimum.

• Anonymous
  February 04, 2007
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 05, 2007
  Shame, I'm sorry to hear that we're not meeting your needs.  Fortunately there are many competitors in this space.  Hopefully one of them will make a phone that you like. I will say that back in 1996 we made a mobile device that did all of the things you're describing.  We called it "Handheld PC" and it had close boxes that really closed, a desktop equivalent browser, a full PC-style explorer that let you manage your storage cards, and a desktop you could drag icons to.   We've sold well over 1000 TIMES more WM5 devices than we ever did Handheld PCs.   When Handheld PC came out, the overriding feedback was that we were foolish for thinking that handheld devices should look and act like desktop machines.  So the same architects who originally did all the things you've said that you want, sat down and started redesiging everything to be more appropriate for a mobile device.   Our success today is founded in the work those architects did.  And, when you're growing as fast as we are, it's hard to claim that we're anything but successful.   This isn't to say that the device you want isn't a valid one.  Just that there are considerably more people who want devices like we make than who want devices like you've described.   You've made what you think of that abundantly clear.  But, as a business, we're going to do what the majority of the people want, even if one or two of them think it's "stupid." Mike

• Anonymous
  February 12, 2007
  There is a reason that every Dell Axim ships with a task manager. It is because WM falls short and Dell got tired of people calling and complaining that there we running out of memory. Mike, you went from being open and candid to being definsive and insulting. Because WM does not provide a close button, ALL WM programs should include a 'Exit' or 'Close' menu item. Having to go though 6 or 7 steps to close A BUILT_IN_PROGRAM is stupid. So if you are going to say that 3rd parties should add exit menu options, add them all the built in programs. "that there are considerably more people who want devices like we make than who want devices like you've described." Yea because all those people only want the device you make because the X button minimized. Give me a break.

• Anonymous
  February 13, 2007
  Jorgie, I'm sorry to be insulting.  I'll try to do better next time. Mike

• Anonymous
  February 13, 2007
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 27, 2007
  Hi. Not sure if its the right place for this - but it is about Windows MObile Usability I just acquired a WM5 device (the Treo 750) and the problem is that I can't read the default fonts (since I use reading glasses ). Although I have WM set up to max font sizes (with ClearType on), when I type in a name and it gives me a choice of phone numbers - I can't read those options due to the font sizes

• anyway to customize this??? Thanks Dinesh

• Anonymous
  March 09, 2007
  There are many reasons why it's bad (they all in comments) - to move apps to background. Another one bad idea is to place the "ok" button to the same place as "x" - what differents?

• Anonymous
  March 23, 2007
  So why not make it a device setup option where the device asks you during the initial setup if you would prefer to use the x button as a close button or to use it to minimize? How easy would it be to please all users with this option. Also I can understand how the decision to make the today screen over a desktop could have affected sales years ago, but what about now? There are tons of 3rd party apps out there that give you a desktop environment. I suppose that the programmers would be bankrupt if their software wasn't selling.

• Anonymous
  April 13, 2007
  I use HandySwitcher - good little app for this

• Anonymous
  April 25, 2007
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  April 25, 2007
  Thanks for the kind words, becky.  I'm glad you found the article useful. Mike

• Anonymous
  April 25, 2007
  I forgot to mention, it would be good if the close button was customisable.  Give people a choice whether they want it to close or minimise and then everybody would be happy, or if you are feeling really adventurous, allow people to choose the option on a per application basis.  That would probably require efforts on individual program developers aswell though and might be too complicated.

• Anonymous
  April 26, 2007
  Is there a way to prevent the OS from shutting down a program that is running in the background?  I frequently run my GPS software with voice navigation in the background and switch to another app for a few mintues...only to find the OS shut down my GPS program entirely when I didn't want it to.  I then have to run the app again, re-acquire satellites, choose my destination again, and start all over!  What a waste of time!  For me, I would be much happier if I could control when my apps close!!

• Anonymous
  May 16, 2007
  Mike, thanks for reasonably good explanation of why things are as they are. I suggest to replace the confusing "X" icon with a "Today" icon, which will bring up the Today screen (like Start>Today does) and thus put the active app to the background. I think being able to quickly get to the Today screen is more important for a PDA than the "Minimize". And then on the Today screen, implement a Today applet ("item" as it is called in the UI) that will be docked under the Date & Clock applet and show icons of currently running apps and give you the ability to switch between them as well as to close them. (and if you don't need it -- you can always uncheck it and remove from Today screen) Also good idea to include "Exit" or "Close" menu option in EVERY app that may consume significant resources in the background -- let the user decide whether to close or not. The new "Live Search" from MS already implements this, bravo! My suggestion is very easy to implement technically. It won't change the behavior for majority of users (when you click "Today", the active app window will go away), but will also avoid the confusion associated with the "X" icon not closing apps anyway. And for advanced users, the Today applet will serve as the much asked-for task manager. Everyone will be happy. Also, please insist that hardware manufacturers add two dedicated buttons below the screen for the soft keys, just like they do on phones!

• Anonymous
  June 21, 2007
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 26, 2007
  Just add a minimise button AND a close button. Then people who want to come back all the time can, and so can those who want to free up resources. People buy Pocket PCs instead of Palms because they want PC behaviour. That's basic marketing strategy. The article is good, and thanks for the bravery (honest!) but much of the basis is outdated. Time to change. Nuff said.

• Anonymous
  June 28, 2007
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  July 01, 2007
  The real problem seems to be the trade-off between memory and battery.  Memory is cheap but drains battery. Could additional ram be managed like a power conserving mobile cpu.  Always on when connected to power.  Optionally on by user when needed.  Hard off when battery is low.

• Anonymous
  July 02, 2007
  Mike, it's very likely that your battery life problems are the result of one of your programs, not all of them.  If you figure out which program is causing the trouble, you'll have an easier time using your device.  You can decide if the value the program is giving you is worth the battery life it's costing.  At the very least, you'll be able to just close that one program rather than needing to do all of them.  I suggest starting by investigating programs that you added after you got the phone, as they are the likely culprits. Mike

• Anonymous
  July 25, 2007
  Thank you for taking the time to explain why things are the way they are. That said, things need to improve as they go forward.  To me, the operative metaphor for a mobile computer is the desktop computer.  Accordingly, a mobile computer should provide the same choices to a user that the desktop computer does to either minimize an application or close it out.  If a user has too many minimized applications and memory needs to be freed up the OS can pop up a dialog to that effect and allow the user to choose what to close. I am astounded that WM6 hasn't added this in.  Thank goodness for SPB Pocket Plus!

• Anonymous
  July 27, 2007
  You are misleading people here. I think what most people are concerned is not the "x" button. It should be totally ok that "x" button doesn't close application. What we really don't like is that we cannot find a feature to really to exit the program. not via a single "x" button, but please, give that to me in the menu!! You have so many commands in the menu of a program, why are you so shy to add a single exit command in the "file" menu to every application?! Actually this feature can make us more conveniant and doesn't hurt any people that belong to the group that don't like to manage memory theirselves. Now I have to enter the memory manager via "settings" all the time. I do think you don't have an exit in the app menu is really awful consideration. Before I read this article I though microsoft people just happened to not have designed this feature but now I'm angry, because you really sticked on this. You didn't know what people really need in the first place.

• Anonymous
  August 01, 2007
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  August 23, 2007
  HTC have started shipping devices with a close button patch. Looks like the largest Windows Mobile OEM is in disagreement with Microsoft's stance and starting the fix the problem themselves.

• Anonymous
  September 12, 2007
  Is there any way to capture the event when the X button is pressed?

• Anonymous
  September 16, 2007
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  September 18, 2007
  It's a shame that such a simple misunderstanding could have been addressed a long time ago but was not. By the way Mike, your writing, diplomacy and tact are excellent. Thank you for improving your team's relationship with the community.

• Anonymous
  October 10, 2007
  "Users have moaned about this for a long time. Give the people what they want." With MS technologies, it is less about what the people want and more about what MS feels you should want. With the sad state of poor quality, responsiveness, and performance of WM devices to date, and combined with the reality of poorly written third-party applications, changing the way 'X' has operated on MS desktop OS's just doesn't make sense. Only a company with a monopoly and a large enough cash stash could choose to ignore user requirements and rather choose dictate what the user should want.

• Anonymous
  October 11, 2007
  cf we're nowhere near a monoploy is the phone space.  We're complete underdogs here.  I know this is hard to believe, but we do just about everything we do based on user requirements.  And when we decide where to spend our time making changes, we do the features that users want the most.   In the end, the things we're doing are more important to more of our users than the operation of the X button.  I recognize that this is a difficult message if you're a user who cares more about X buttons than exchange servers, but that's reality.  We can't just do what a few hundred users want when we have a few hundred thousand who want something else.  That's even true when the minority is vocal and willing to write angry messages on our blog. Mike

• Anonymous
  October 30, 2007
  It seems to me that, while 99% of users may indeed be perfectly happy with the 'X' button functionality, that's not saying very much.  To typical users, an application is either on or off.  They have no idea what the 'X' button really does (let alone what closing or minimizing an app really does), so how can you expect them to have an opinion on it one way or the other? In any case, it all comes down to usability and performance.  Regardless of what you do with the 'X' button, you guys have a long way to go if you want me to buy one of these devices.

• Anonymous
  November 15, 2007
  Hi, I must say I agree with Anonymous. this is my first time using a windows device and honestly speaking, I thought that the "x" does actually completely close the program.   Aside from a slower response on the PDA (annoying) due to background appcaitions running, the battery life is affected as well.   Instead of investing time on this blog which seems to be almost one year into comments, I personally think it might have been easier to change the functionality of the x to close (like windows desktop) instead of justifying it for so long.

• Anonymous
  November 19, 2007
  Answering comments on a blog is easy, takes very little time, and never breaks any users or applications anywhere.  Changing code in the product is none of those things.   Also, this blog is something I largely do in my own time.  So, even if I had spent that time doing something else, it wouldn't have gone toward changing the behavior of the X button.  That's not my code to change. Mike

• Anonymous
  December 19, 2007
  Well, Well, Well... all these people complaining about such a small thing, but seem to be VERY upset by it... If this one little thing is such a huge deal, why are you using Windows Mobile?  You know the X doesn't close programs and you have to do that yourself or with a third party app or something... So, knowing all this, why did you buy a WM device? If it hurts so much that the programs only minimize, get a different phone / OS or quit the whining and get over it. Me...

• Anonymous
  December 27, 2007
  In case I missed it...using Ctrl Q on the on screen keyboard closes programs.

• Anonymous
  February 05, 2008
  I didnt see any discussion or effect on battery consumption.... all those apps that i dont see are eating up the battery on the phones.... /s

• Anonymous
  March 09, 2008
  I agree with much of what Mike has said, my only comment is in regards to the contention that not putting a close option of Windows Mobile apps is because, "users shouldn’t need to manage their memory."  My argument would be that the value would be in having both "Close" and  "Minimize" options.  It isn't that users shouldn't need to manage their memory as much as it is that users should be "allowed" to manage their memory.  The idea that the "X" would not really close the app but send it to the background is an insult to the user.  If I want to be able to close an app, I should be able to close an app. My other argument is that, if your operating system is so good at managing memory, how come your operating system is so much slower that the Blackberry OS and even the Palm OS?  

• Anonymous
  March 13, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 17, 2008
  Microsoft missed the boat entirely here. The win-win solution is obvious: Give USERS the option and control. If I want to change the default behavior of the X button, allow me the option. Why must the default Microsoft corporate behavior be "our way or the third party?" The rationale provided above is lovely, but at the end of the day it doesn't hold water with me. I want the behavior I want, because it's my device and my behavior pattern. If Microsoft gave me my i760 for free, maybe I'd be more inclined to take what I'm given. As it stands... to quote Eric Cartman, "Whateva! I'll do what I want!"

• Anonymous
  March 22, 2008
  Come on, tap 'X' when a key is down to close the app, this is simple!

• Anonymous
  April 07, 2008
  This article explains the basics of building a simple but useful application using the .NET Compact Framework

• Anonymous
  May 09, 2008
  So programs on a device, either SmartPhone or PocketPC should not close. Great idea! There's plenty of resources on a device anyway, right? What does it matter if you have 10 programs running, you've got all the RAM in the world. Isn't that what a device is all about? Endless resources? In fact no. Get a close button and close menu item in all programs that ships with Windows Mobile 7 please. Get the X to close programs on Pocket PC's. Get a _ to minimize a window. Get a task manager that is the first thing you see in the today screen. Make it screem at you where it is. As for .Net CF 4.0, add a TableLayoutPanel so it's possible to layout controls for both Standard and Professional devices in the same application! As simple as that. Very simple in fact. There's so much useless things that I'll never use getting added for each version, while there are simple, usefull things missing. Get it sorted.

• Anonymous
  May 12, 2008
  You have made a nice attempt to explain the thinking behind this decision but this decision has changed the meaning of the 'X' symbol and created any number of problems for application developers and the users of their applications. I have just started using Windows Mobile using c# so I am new to coding on a mobile device.

1. I have written an application which creates a thread. The thread needs to be closed when the application in no longer running (or is minimised). There is no minimise event (please correct me if this is wrong) on a Windows Form so I cannot close the thread if the user clicks X. The solution to this problem is to set the forms minimizeBox property to false so that it now acts as close. However, this now changes the 'X' to 'ok' which seems to be the wrong way round. 'ok' normally means 'accept this input' whereas 'close', 'quit' , 'exit' would actually tell you that this will close the application.
2. Until MS made this decision 'X' meant close and '_' meant minimise. Until today I was under the false impression that 'X' still meant close. One of the functions of a GUI is to make it obvious to a user what they are doing. 'X' has always meant close, except now it doesn't.

• Anonymous
  May 14, 2008
  I really think that choice is the best thing here. I totally understand not wanting to even give users the option of _ and X.. they would always choose X, and then complain about the slowness. You can never get users en mass to all realize something like the need to click _ instead. But I think it would be nice to have some deeply menu'd option to either make X close apps, or create a _ to min and X to close on top. That way everyone is happy.

• Anonymous
  June 07, 2008
  I came to this site after having googled for solutions to some problems I had on my Samsung SGH-i780, purchased about a week ago. It entered into a state where in almost all cases, answering a call would not truly answer it even though it looked like that on the display. Instead, I could hear only silence, yelling "Hello?" repeatedly until the other side terminated the call. I missed some potentially important work-related calls this way. Through a series of experiments, I realized that the problem was almost consistently reproducable at the time. I initially believed the problem occured only in sleep mode, but that did not turn out to be the case. The problem only disappeared after I closed the currently running applications: Opera (included with the phone), the RSS reader, and Calender. I also killed the Wifi connection but am unsure if that had an effect. I don't know whether the underlying problem is due to a bug in Windows, some Samsung software layer or the hardware itself. But I now make sure to frequently close unused applications manually. I guess this is a long way of saying that I agree with just about every other poster in that we need X to close (or at least having that option). Automatic memory management is fine in theory, but if it doesn't work in practice, causing very serious problems with the phone functionality (it is supposed to be a phone, after all!), then I cannot agree with the argument put forward in this blog entry. Still, thanks for communicating with the community about this and other issues. This blog looks excellent and I have added it to my RSS feeds for now. / Robert Software developer and somewhat frustrated first-time owner (possibly soon former owner) of a Windows phone.

• Anonymous
  June 20, 2008
  I've gotta say, when I bought my T-mobile Dash this week, I decided to ignore the complaints about Microsoft Mobile.  For the most part, I'm glad I did.  But I absolutely hate having to open the task manager every time I want to use my camera because I don't have enough memory to do so.  It's irritating and wastes my time.  Why would I want to have games or contacts running in the background, when now all I want to do is take a picture?  I'd much rather wait an extra second or two for an app to load again 5 minutes later when I need it again, than keep it running in the background the whole time, doing nothing.  The only way I can quit apps on this phone is through the task manager.   Because of this one irritating design flaw, I will never buy another WM device.  As I regular Jane consumer, I think the way this platform manages memory is profoundly stupid.

• Anonymous
  July 15, 2008
  Why does this point have to be so contentious? It's just software! Why can't Microsoft just offer a system setting to toggle between closing apps when the clicks the "X" or Minimize apps when the user clicks the "X"? This isn't rocket science....Then, Microsoft can go along on their merry way managing memory for "users" and the rest of us can change the setting to close and manage our own memory. I would REALLY like X to close Internet Explorer as when it's left running, it keeps the data connection open, and that burns up the battery, irreguardless of whether or not I'm actually doing i/o on the web.

• Anonymous
  July 16, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  January 09, 2009
  I just ran across this article while trying to find the maximum number of contacts supported on WM6.  I have been a Pocket PC fan since Pocket PC 2000 was released.  I rather liked the desktop motif because I was used to it and knew how it should "think", but I also realize space considerations being what they are such may not be feasible.  My first thought would be to reduce the size of icons, but I also know people already complain about the platform being difficult to read.  I have used the freeware Magic Button since it was first released...even paid a whopping $10 for their decent, context-sensitive dictionary plug-in for Magic Button.  I still use it today on Windows Mobile 6, although it hasn't been updated because the author got tired of having to tweak it with each revision of WM.  Having the icons on the notification bar (which is on top on the PPC) move around depending on what has focus is killing this little task switcher which effectively adds a task bar to the notification area on the left, making it very easy to switch tasks and has an option to make the X actually close an app, which I prefer.  The worst design decision I've seen is when MS decided to move the "tray" to make room for the soft buttons.  I understand the need to keep the OS as similar as possible to the SmartPhone, but this violates screen real estate so terribly I grumble every time I look at it.  I very much dislike the softbutton requirement, the windows key requirement, and other things that take away from the once "almost there" Pocket PC platform.  If PPC 2003SE had persistant store I would never switch PDAs.  Mike in Houston

• Anonymous
  March 06, 2009
  Microsoft defined the interface standard that says "X" closes and app and minimize runs it in the background.   Someone needs to tell Microsoft about it.