Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Mar 2006 21:32 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless In a preview of Tuesday afternoon's demonstration, Intel Marketing Director Brad Graff showed CNET several of the Ultra Mobile PC devices, including an example of the kind of hardware that will ship in the next few weeks as part of the Microsoft effort. As earlier reported, the first devices have a 7-inch touch screen, standard x86 processors, and can run full versions of desktop operating systems including the Windows XP variant being used for Origami.
Thread beginning with comment 102310
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: blogged about it
by ormandj on Tue 7th Mar 2006 22:33 UTC in reply to "blogged about it"
Member since:

I won't question the link to a blog post from today's date, but I'm a bit curious about your post (having read said blog.)

"So why is this new Origami project generates so much buzz while Be/QNX have both failed, I don't know. The only difference between the two systems were that the BeIA and QNX RtP OSes they were running were not full featured, but instead strip-down web-related software (just a picture viewer, a web browser, email, etc). Maybe this variant of WinXP is more complete. "

Because MS has huge amounts of money, so does Intel. They made sure everybody and their mom has heard about this new "project." Supposedly secret, but *somehow* it seems like every media outlet on earth got ahold of information about it. Be and QNX never generated said buzz, they didn't have the money (read: power) to do so. It's never about technical superiority, or even innovation. It's about convincing consumers you offer something they want, and getting them to pay for it. There are lots of *technically* superior products in all kinds of catagories floating around that flop compared to inferior products, with better marketing. That's life in the free-market!

Hope that clears up some things. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: blogged about it
by Peragrin on Tue 7th Mar 2006 22:55 in reply to "RE: blogged about it"
Peragrin Member since:

The problem has never been software features or else we would still have the Newton. It's been a combination of processing power to deal with media, battery life and weight.

It's the only thing holding back Tablet PC's. 3 hours of battery life doesn't cut it in an 8-10 hour day.

Also Tablet's where highly publicized in 2002 and 2003 . Companies are still making new ones, and Tablet edition of XP has been updated but you don't hear advertising about them much.

I want three things in a tablet. handwriting recognition that works for me(okay that's hard I admit it), A battery that can last all day between charges with Wi-FI enabled. And Under 3 pounds in overall weight. why can't anything come close? The Nokia 770 is tempting but I have to find out if i can add software to it. Like a Bash shell, and SSh client, and an IRC client.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: blogged about it
by ormandj on Tue 7th Mar 2006 23:02 in reply to "RE[2]: blogged about it"
ormandj Member since:

You seem to be pretty much on the mark to me. I think the biggest issue is battery technology, as you mentioned. If I could buy a tablet that would run a full day, I'd spend thousands for it. I wouldn't spend a dime on a tablet that runs 3. ;)

Well, another issue with Tablets, they really aren't any more/better than a laptop. It's quicker to type for *most* people who use a computer fairly often than it is to hand-write things. It's basically a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist. That's why all incarnations of it have failed. Not to mention some people like myself (and it seems you) have terrible handwriting. We might as well forget having any kind of character recognition for our writing. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: blogged about it
by hobgoblin on Wed 8th Mar 2006 01:35 in reply to "RE[2]: blogged about it"
hobgoblin Member since:

about newton:
last time i read anything about that device, it still have a community around it. what killed it was not batterylife, apple killed it (or maybe steve jobs). basicly they just pulled the production of it, on something that was making them money from what i have read.

not a apple fan. but i may be going of fan-written material so please, fact check my statements ;)

about the 770:

bash shell, check
ssh client, check
irc client, check (xchat. alltho i guess a terminal based on should work fine ones you get bash going)

its a fully working linux enviroment, in you hand. is the homepage of the platform/interface the 770 uses. go have a look around.

Edited 2006-03-08 01:35

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: blogged about it
by Eugenia on Tue 7th Mar 2006 23:02 in reply to "RE: blogged about it"
Eugenia Member since:

Isn't this what I said on my blog too? You didn't quote the next paragraph on my blog, which is exactly what I say about the issue too. So, I don't get this reply of yours. You are just duplicating what I said about money and power.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: blogged about it
by ormandj on Tue 7th Mar 2006 23:08 in reply to "RE[2]: blogged about it"
ormandj Member since:

You specifically said: "So why is this new Origami project generates so much buzz while Be/QNX have both failed, I don't know."

Then: "But nevertheless, the Origami project is not a new idea, but it does get all the hype in the world, because it is backed by MS and Intel. This is a good example how lots of money can create lots of interest. You need money in order to make more money. Having a cool idea is *not* enough."

I answered your question, nothing more. You ask why Origami gets buzz, and Be/QNX failed in this market.

You toss out a (thought? I'm not familiar with blogging terminology) that suggests Origami is an old idea rehashed with lots of marketing funds, and state having a cool idea is not enough.

Yes, my response is very much parallel to your (thought?) However, you said you do not know what the answer to your question was. So I answered it.

Honestly, I didn't even remember reading that in your blog. I must have had a brain-fart and completely skipped your last paragraph (odd... but I won't rule it out). My apologies. If I had read it, I simply would have replied "read your fourth paragraph for the answer to your question in the 3rd paragraph."

It seems my problem is my non-understanding of how a blog works. I suppose you can postulate questions, as if speaking to the sky, and answer them in the next paragraph instead of simply correcting your question into a statement? Pah, I knew I hated blogs for a reason. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1