Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

While intrepidly exploring comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, Andy Mulhearn
rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:05:25 +0100, Derek wrote
> (in article <Xns94DB9986E9AF7dagwinn@130.133.1.4> ):
>
>> While intrepidly exploring comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, Andy
>> Mulhearn rolled initiative and posted the following:
>>
>
> [snipped]

The above taken as permission to snip.

[ snip ]

>> But the only place I use it is at my desk, hence the reason I
>> don't even need it with me.
>
> OK, you can have that one. But how secure is that identifiable
> desktop. If the data is that sensitive should there be more
> physical security around it? On a file system in a server room
> perhaps, with access limited to you?

In the basement of my house where my wife and I are the only ones who
use it? Pretty secure.

However, the actual data is on a server on campus in a locked room
which I access through FTP, even though nobody's supposed to know how
to do that.

So I don't think we're that far apart on this one..

[ snip ]

>> I think you missed the idea. I was suggesting that the data,
>> which does not need to travel with me, would reside on an
>> external drive. When I got back and dropped the handheld in the
>> cradle, I'd have access to the drive and the data. No syncing
>> of data would be necessary.
>
> No, like synching currently allows you to update an address on
> your PDA and synch the changes to Outlook. I would want to do
> that with more data than the PDA currently supports - documents
> I'm working on for example. The newsgroup post I made because I
> want to win a bet in 10 years time. That sort of thing.
>
> Hmm, but then if mobile comms are good enough, would you need a
> local store? Let me think about that one.
>
> Anyway, if you have data that you take with you that is
> important you keep you'd want some way of backing it up at the
> very least.

I see what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that working with
the data comfortably takes a screen larger than any handheld
currently on the market. I don't need the data to go with me because
the size limitation of the screen increase data entry and management
errors.

But if my handheld were closer to a real PC, I'd like instant access
to the server information as soon as I plunk it in the cradle at my
desk.


>>>> A cradle that works as a docking port would have immediate
>>>> connectivity to the monitor, keyboard and mouse, as well as
>>>> any network connections, printers, or external harddrives.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sort of like you get with a shrunk laptop but with added
>>> syncronisation of data to ensure your mobile and server side
>>> copies are kept up to date.
>>
>> Not really, because the stuff on the server would be the stuff
>> I don't want to take with me.
>
> See above, you'd need to partition your data into what you take
> with you and what you don't. But you still need to synch the
> stuff you take with you so it doesn't get lost.

Why sync it if it can just reside on the harddrive? If the handheld
is a complete stand alone unit, like my laptop, I've got the files
with me at all times. I don't sync my laptop with my desktop,
although I do periodically back them up.

>> As for the "Shrunk laptop" idea... http://www.oqo.com/
>
> I was thinking more of this in the short term
> http://www.windowsfordevices.com/a [...] 69474.html
> thought the company seems to have gone AWOL.

Ok, that's actually really neat. But... it's a little big to keep in
my pants pocket.

--
Derek

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But it rocks absolutely, too.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

While intrepidly exploring comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, Derek rolled
initiative and posted the following:

> But if my handheld were closer to a real PC, I'd like instant
> access to the server information as soon as I plunk it in the
> cradle at my desk.

Rescinding my own comment.

My handheld IS a real PC. What I meant to say was that if it were
closer in capability to a desktop or a laptop computer, then I'd
want it to instantly reconnect with the network when placed in its
cradle.

My bad.

--
Derek

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But it rocks absolutely, too.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On 1 May 2004 10:34:19 GMT, RonB <RonBNOspam@bliz.org> wrote:

|ECM wrote on 29 Apr 2004:
|
|> I've recently read an article about the "flat" PDA market (sorry, I
|> can't recall where... Wired, or Slashdot, perhaps?) and how PDA's are
|> going to disappear in the next few years, as the functions they
|> perform become more successfully combined with cell phones, etc.
|
|I, personally, don't think so. How often have you seen people talking on
|their cell phone while simultaneously accessing information on their
|PDA? I've read reports from several people who've gone back to a PDA
|after finding the combo doesn't work that well for them. Smart Phones
|may cut into the number of PDA models, but I don't think they will ever
|completely replace them.


what's needed is a wireless ear piece like the jambra that allows
verbal communication while simultaneously accessing the smartPDA with
a stylus/fatfinger

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

While intrepidly exploring comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, Alien at Large
rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On 1 May 2004 10:34:19 GMT, RonB <RonBNOspam@bliz.org> wrote:
>
>|ECM wrote on 29 Apr 2004:
>|
>|> I've recently read an article about the "flat" PDA market
>|> (sorry, I can't recall where... Wired, or Slashdot, perhaps?)
>|> and how PDA's are going to disappear in the next few years, as
>|> the functions they perform become more successfully combined
>|> with cell phones, etc.
>|
>|I, personally, don't think so. How often have you seen people
>|talking on their cell phone while simultaneously accessing
>|information on their PDA? I've read reports from several people
>|who've gone back to a PDA after finding the combo doesn't work
>|that well for them. Smart Phones may cut into the number of PDA
>|models, but I don't think they will ever completely replace
>|them.
>
>
> what's needed is a wireless ear piece like the jambra that
> allows verbal communication while simultaneously accessing the
> smartPDA with a stylus/fatfinger

Most (if not all) smartphones have a headset jack, so people can
actually talk on the phone and use the unit at the same time (at
least theoretically).

The truth of the matter may be that while headsets are efficient,
they can be a hassle. The result being that the average user, even
with a smartphone, doesn't like using them.

IMHO, if I've got to carry two items, I'd rather have a phone and a
handheld (which is what I do now) than to have to deal with
untangling a cable every time I want to make a call.

Yes, I know that "wireless" was the suggested remedy. Having spoken
with people (that is, more than one) whose Jabra bluetooth headset
can't maintain a connection when the phone is in the breastpocket
of their shirt, it's not much of a remedy (yet?).

--
Derek

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But it rocks absolutely, too.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Ed Hardy" <edhardy3@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<AJckc.17049$RE1.1457537@attbi_s54>...
> "ECM" <thedeepabyss@whoever.com> wrote.
> >
> > Anyways, I know I'm preaching to the converted in this forum, but I'm
> > just fishing for some thoughts from the community - what do YOU think?
> >
>
> I did an editorial on this subject recently:
> http://www.brighthand.com/article/ [...] _Handhelds
>
> -Ed

Excellent article. The reason why we have decided to call handhelds
with mobile phone capabilities "smart phones" is because:

1) Far more people own mobile phones than handhelds. It is a piece of
technology that even those people who do not own it are totally
familar with.

2) The phrase "smart phone" is catchy. We all know what a phone is. A
"smart phone" must mean that it is better than a plain old ordinary
phone. Besides "handheld with mobile phone capabilities" is a
mouthful.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Hello,

AaL> several, SL C750, SL C760 and the SL C850, the only
> caveat is that they are not being exported by Sharp
> (all 3 are 640x480)

Thanks, I hadn't seen those. They're prohibitively expensive
at present, but perhaps that will change over time.

- Andy Ball

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

they cost no more than the UX50 and are about 4 times better, bigger
screen, better resolution, keyboard with ALL the keys, CF and SD,
longer battery life, portrait and landscape in BOTH clamshell and
tablet mode, no wi-fi or bluetooth yet but add-ons are available

On Sun, 02 May 2004 17:12:06 GMT, Andy Ball <ball@not.valid> wrote:

|Hello,
|
| AaL> several, SL C750, SL C760 and the SL C850, the only
| > caveat is that they are not being exported by Sharp
| > (all 3 are 640x480)
|
|Thanks, I hadn't seen those. They're prohibitively expensive
|at present, but perhaps that will change over time.
|
|- Andy Ball

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Andy Mulhearn <unxmully@netcomuk.co.uk> writes:

> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:51:38 +0100, Andy Ball wrote
> (in article <_exkc.583$Hs1.422@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> ):
>
> >
> > Hello Andy,
> >
> > AM> Who says a keyboard is the only way to get data into and out of
> > > a device?
> >
> > It's not the only way, but it is a familiar, accurate and fast way to
> > get data into a device (I s'pose the CapsLock LED counts as output ;-)
>
> It may not be in 10 years time. By that time, voice may be the most
> familiar.

I don't think so. Even if great progress is made in voice recognition
software during the next 10 years, I can't see how it would be
possible to use it to design an efficient input system for computers.
Editing text is much more than typing the words. You also need to be
able to select blocks of text, copy and paste, move around in your
document, search, replace, and lots of other editing operations.
Doing all such operations by speaking commands to the computer would
be extremely tedious and annoying.

> Who knows if the only way we get out of using this wretched keyboard
> designed to slow down users of manual typewriters is voice
> recognition.

This is a remarkably widespread and long-lived urban legend. Contrary
to popular belief, the QWERTY keyboard layout was *not* designed to
slow down users, and more than 130 years after Christopher Sholes
invented the QWERTY keyboard, nobody has managed to prove that any
other arrangement of the keys is significantly faster.

In the age of mechanical typewriters, it was a problem that two
typebars would collide when the corresponding letters where typed in
rapid succession. One way to attempt to solve this problem would have
been to design the keyboard layout in a way that minimized the typing
speed, but Sholes chose a different and much better approach: He
located the most frequent letter pairs far away from each other. This
results in a high frequency of alternating hand sequences, which
actually tends to *increase* the typing speed.

The truth is that it is remarkably difficult to improve upon the
standard US QWERTY keyboard layout. It is not so hard to invente
alternative layouts which are similarly efficient, but a significantly
better layout has still not been found.

For much more information about the QWERTY keyboard layout and its
fascinating history, try the following URLs:

http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html
http://reason.com/9606/Fe.QWERTY.shtml
http://home.earthlink.net/~dcrehr/

What the future will bring is always hard to predict, but I hope it
will not be voice input. As explained above, I don't believe in the
idea, and besides I hate the thought of speaking to a computer.
Chording keyboards look like a more attractive idea to me.

--
Tord Romstad

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sat, 1 May 2004 16:19:23 +0100, Derek wrote
(in article <Xns94DC69024CB91dagwinn@130.133.1.4> ):

> While intrepidly exploring comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, Andy Mulhearn
> rolled initiative and posted the following:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:05:25 +0100, Derek wrote
>> (in article <Xns94DB9986E9AF7dagwinn@130.133.1.4> ):
>>
>>> While intrepidly exploring comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, Andy
>>> Mulhearn rolled initiative and posted the following:
>>>
>>
>> [snipped]
>
> The above taken as permission to snip.
>
> [ snip ]

Seemed to be getting a bit too long to me.

>
>>> But the only place I use it is at my desk, hence the reason I
>>> don't even need it with me.
>>
>> OK, you can have that one. But how secure is that identifiable
>> desktop. If the data is that sensitive should there be more
>> physical security around it? On a file system in a server room
>> perhaps, with access limited to you?
>
> In the basement of my house where my wife and I are the only ones who
> use it? Pretty secure.
>
> However, the actual data is on a server on campus in a locked room
> which I access through FTP, even though nobody's supposed to know how
> to do that.
>
> So I don't think we're that far apart on this one..

No, we seem to be on exactly the same page.

>
> [ snip ]
>
>>> I think you missed the idea. I was suggesting that the data,
>>> which does not need to travel with me, would reside on an
>>> external drive. When I got back and dropped the handheld in the
>>> cradle, I'd have access to the drive and the data. No syncing
>>> of data would be necessary.
>>
>> No, like synching currently allows you to update an address on
>> your PDA and synch the changes to Outlook. I would want to do
>> that with more data than the PDA currently supports - documents
>> I'm working on for example. The newsgroup post I made because I
>> want to win a bet in 10 years time. That sort of thing.
>>
>> Hmm, but then if mobile comms are good enough, would you need a
>> local store? Let me think about that one.
>>
>> Anyway, if you have data that you take with you that is
>> important you keep you'd want some way of backing it up at the
>> very least.
>
> I see what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that working with
> the data comfortably takes a screen larger than any handheld
> currently on the market. I don't need the data to go with me because
> the size limitation of the screen increase data entry and management
> errors.
>
> But if my handheld were closer to a real PC, I'd like instant access
> to the server information as soon as I plunk it in the cradle at my
> desk.

I'm sort of thinking ahead to when physical screen size is not a restriction.
A screen could be generated holographically or projected onto eye inserts
perhaps. Maybe not in 10 years but there's already a 3D screen laptop on sale
in the UK.

>
>
>>>>> A cradle that works as a docking port would have immediate
>>>>> connectivity to the monitor, keyboard and mouse, as well as
>>>>> any network connections, printers, or external harddrives.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sort of like you get with a shrunk laptop but with added
>>>> syncronisation of data to ensure your mobile and server side
>>>> copies are kept up to date.
>>>
>>> Not really, because the stuff on the server would be the stuff
>>> I don't want to take with me.
>>
>> See above, you'd need to partition your data into what you take
>> with you and what you don't. But you still need to synch the
>> stuff you take with you so it doesn't get lost.
>
> Why sync it if it can just reside on the harddrive? If the handheld
> is a complete stand alone unit, like my laptop, I've got the files
> with me at all times. I don't sync my laptop with my desktop,
> although I do periodically back them up.

That's true. Or the other case would be none of the data goes with you and is
available through secured wireless - your pda is then just the access and
presentation device. With little or no storage, other than perhaps cache and
authentication, and it's own OS.

>
>>> As for the "Shrunk laptop" idea... http://www.oqo.com/
>>
>> I was thinking more of this in the short term
>> http://www.windowsfordevices.com/a [...] 69474.html
>> thought the company seems to have gone AWOL.
>
> Ok, that's actually really neat. But... it's a little big to keep in
> my pants pocket.
>
>

Too big for that, and the site of the company who makes it has dropped off
the internet. I would have seriously considered combining my iBook and T3
into one device somewhat like that.

Andy

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sat, 1 May 2004 06:01:13 +0100, Andy Ball wrote
(in article <taGkc.1115$V97.242@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> ):

>
> Hello Andy,
>
> AM> I think that would place you in a power user class,
> > people for whom there is no alternative to the command
> > line and a shell because they support or use
> > applications that only work that way. But that very
> > much makes you not one of the man-in-the-street users.
>
> I make no claim to be normal, let alone typical! ;-) BTW,
> you're right about my having to support command-line (and
> full-screen) text applications, but it's also true that I
> sometimes choose those over a graphical alternative because
> they're faster (especially over a slow wireless link) and
> often more powerful in any case.

All of that is true, but wireless comms are getting faster - Vodafone have 3G
connection available in the UK now.

>
> AM> Two that a desktop PC is inherently less stealable
> > than a laptop.
>
> That's what I meant. Perhaps it's not what I said though.

I guessed as much.
>
> AM> Hmmm, well any Laptop that uses any of the Lithium
> > variant batteries won't do that. Because those
> > batteries don't work like that.
>
> I'd have to test that before I was convinced.

My iBook doesn't charge if the battery is between 95 and 100%, it's a well
known and often commented on feature with new iBook users. Confuses the hell
out of people and is designed to avoid shortened battery life due to frequent
top-up charges.

>
> AM> As for bolting down laptops well isn't that a bit
> > silly?
>
> Uh... yes, that's why I meant that desktops were more apt to
> be bolted down, even if that's not what I said.
>
> AM> Joe doesn't share his laptop with anyone, he has it
> > with him all the time. If he's sick at home and needs
> > access to data he has it with him. If he has a desktop
> > that's at work, he doesn't have that access.
>
> Why not? When I'm out of the office and need something from
> my desktop, I just VNC into it (through an SSH tunnel).
>

Which is possible from any kind of device that supports the client - most
Pocket PCs would I think, though driving the client might be a challenge.

Andy

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Mon, 3 May 2004 09:15:05 +0100, Tord Kallqvist Romstad wrote
(in article <gqkad0q6i5y.fsf@aload.uio.no> ):

> Andy Mulhearn <unxmully@netcomuk.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:51:38 +0100, Andy Ball wrote
>> (in article <_exkc.583$Hs1.422@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> ):
>>
>>>
>>> Hello Andy,
>>>
>>> AM> Who says a keyboard is the only way to get data into and out of
>>>> a device?
>>>
>>> It's not the only way, but it is a familiar, accurate and fast way to
>>> get data into a device (I s'pose the CapsLock LED counts as output ;-)
>>
>> It may not be in 10 years time. By that time, voice may be the most
>> familiar.
>
> I don't think so. Even if great progress is made in voice recognition
> software during the next 10 years, I can't see how it would be
> possible to use it to design an efficient input system for computers.

I think we would need to make a huge change in direction to move away from
keyboards for a lot of information access. One of my earlier examples was how
I would find the time of the next train home. Currently I open the Railtrack
web site and do a search. In future, why could I not just ask my PDA to ask
the Railtrack services for the times. I may have to initially pre-configure a
query but only initially.

> Editing text is much more than typing the words. You also need to be
> able to select blocks of text, copy and paste, move around in your
> document, search, replace, and lots of other editing operations.

Though voice input may be appropriate for entering large quantities of text,
you're right about editing. That is a pain. On the other hand, you'd not need
to worry about spelling corrections

For this, some kind of graphical selection process would be needed, though
the input could still be by voice.

> Doing all such operations by speaking commands to the computer would
> be extremely tedious and annoying.
>
>> Who knows if the only way we get out of using this wretched keyboard
>> designed to slow down users of manual typewriters is voice
>> recognition.
>
[snipped excellent information about QWERTY I didn't know]

That must make that the oldest Urban Myth ever )

I quite like FITALY which I user on my PDA's - it was the reason why I spent
so much time with PPC, the lack of a decent Virtual Graffiti based device on
which I could use it.

I still think voice is the way to go, but bow to your valid points on the
correction of edited text.

Andy

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

While intrepidly exploring comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, Andy Mulhearn
rolled initiative and posted the following:

>> But if my handheld were closer to a real PC, I'd like instant
>> access to the server information as soon as I plunk it in the
>> cradle at my desk.
>
> I'm sort of thinking ahead to when physical screen size is not a
> restriction. A screen could be generated holographically or
> projected onto eye inserts perhaps. Maybe not in 10 years but
> there's already a 3D screen laptop on sale in the UK.

Or even when the flexible displays actually make it to market.

I can imagine a PDA the size of a portfolio. Or, in fact, a PDA
*in* a portfolio. PDA on one side, pad of paper on the other.

--
Derek

Then there was the guy who loved his wife so much, he almost told
her.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Tord Kallqvist Romstad wrote:

> This is a remarkably widespread and long-lived urban legend. Contrary
> to popular belief, the QWERTY keyboard layout was *not* designed to
> slow down users, and more than 130 years after Christopher Sholes
> invented the QWERTY keyboard, nobody has managed to prove that any
> other arrangement of the keys is significantly faster.

I thought this was pretty interesting:

http://www.visi.com/~pmk/evolved.html

Perhaps the guy has chosen a poor fitness function, but it's
interesting to me that even with two different fitness functions,
qwerty still came out at about 1/2 as good as the best layout
that the program found each time.

Of course, it's really difficult to really prove something
more efficient than qwerty. Most people have experience typing
on qwerty, so that will tend to bias the results of tests.

- Logan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Logan Shaw wrote:

> Tord Kallqv