Slashdot Mirror
Details Of Palm OS 6 - 'Cobalt'
Splezunk writes "Looks like Palm has finally released some details on Palm OS 6 a k a 'Cobalt'. Palminfocenter has more on it, and I have just noticed that there are now screenshots. Highlights are a 32,000x32,000 screen support, BeOS like multitasking and threading. Currently 256MB memory, but this will be upgraded in time."
I've wanted multitasking since I got my palm! Pocket PC users get it, why can't we? One less thing for the PPC crowd to brag about!
</TROLL>
On
...existing Tungstens will be able to upgrade. Probably not, but they've done it before with OS 5...here's hoping.
With support for up to 256MB of RAM and 256MB of ROM...
I suppose this is a lot for a Palm, but what's the imitation? Address space/overhead? Nowadays you can fit a gig into an area that the first Palms fit 512K into, so size isn't an issue... voltage/battery life might be a consideration, but probably not a showstopper.
Eh, I suppose the design of the Palm is really not meant to handle things requiring that much memory. But guys at work are cramming 512meg memory cards on their iPaqs and watching movies; does the 256MB limitation in the OS mean that "external memory" cannot exceed that amount as well?
the info on that is vague.... it's possible Apple will make it work straight through with iSync. Hopefully they will, and add some way to upload Palm OS apps? Maybe Palm desktop is not worth them working on when iCal and Addressbook are on every Mac now running OS X (unless the user deletes them).
Why would they build it off the Linux kernel when they already own BeOS? Yeah, I'd say that's a rumor alright.
That doesn't mean the screens themselves will support that resolution (yet). But in the article it is abundantly clear that they're really, REALLY targeting multimedia applications for this OS, and very much want to push PalmOS into the "true modern operating system" realm. So big numbers like 32,000 x 32,000 sound good to people who don't know any better. At least I'm not aware of any technology that can deliver that many pixels in the size of current palm screens.
SO they have added some BeOS functionality to this thing. I owned a Palm. I thought it was brilliant, but as i saw the prices of PDA's drop and the Palm price stay the same for less features, it didnt seem like such a good buy anymore. I wonder what they will charge for this. I think the resolution is a bit of overkill. I'm not gonna hook this thing up to a television to play Galaga on an emulator. My Zaurus does all the things this thing can and probably a hell of a lot more. The tungsten's werent too impressive, this one doesnt seem to be either. And why dont they gave us the names of the "industry leaders".
Those with network support can be used as terminals, effectively allowing you to keep any computer at your fingertips wherever you are. "Palmtop" operating systems always try to limit what you do, and a thinclient/dumbterminal design seems better for a phone, which is nearly always connected to the network.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
there are some interesting discussions at the bottom of the page regarding the naming of "Palm OS Cobalt" instead of "Palm OS 6".
the CCO's reply was "As for the naming, numbers were a problem because in the PC world a higher number means the lower number is obsolete (Windows 98 immediately replaces Windows 95). Palm OS Garnet is just fine for many users and will persist a long time, so licensees asked us to move away from numbers."
so maybe the naming also implies the confidence in a product? the company sees no need for users to UPgrade unnecessarily in the future. eg Mandrake Almighty instead of Mandrake 1241.12.102
As a Mac user, extremely disappointed that Palm has decided to completely nix the Mac market with OS 6, I'd now seriously consider a linux based PDA. If I'm forced to buy a PDA that doesn't support the Mac out of the box I'd rather give my money to a company supporting open-source. The Sharp Zaurus line is appealing, but the last I heard there was no syncing solution at all for the Mac, even from 3rd party's. Has this situation changed yet?
--- What?
Is it me, or does there seem to be an overabundance of old CPU's floating around out there? I'm sitting on at least 6 pentium 1 class CPU's here in my garage with speeds varying from 75-200mhz.
Looking at these old CPU relics, I remember how nice BeOS ran on the machines of the time. PalmOS=(PalmOS + some BeOS IP)
I think it would be a neat idea if someone made an affordable, upgradable, palm like device that could use these old CPU's. I mean, I know there must be millions of these things being used in less usefull roles, such as doorstops and monitor stands. It's a shame that all these pentium CPU's have more or less been "retired" or tossed into a landfill.
Sure a p-200 isn't that powerful of a CPU by todays standards of P4's and Athlons, but they have enough power to decode mp3's, compose e-mail, and surf the web.
I don't think it would be that expensive either to build a socketed palm device. Sure it would be a bit bulkier than new palms, but for small form factor geeks or just guys like me that have 30 years of computer crap in his garage it would be a godsend. Something the size and dimensions of a 3.5" hard drive only slightly thicker would be perfect.
Now go ahead and tell me about pc-104 devices, blah blah... Yes I know they exist, but they're not a single integrated device in sleek packaging.
How is that possible. You get only 1 bit per pixel
since you need some memory for OS too. I never
thought someone would even think of giga pixel b/w display.
What kind of dpi would I need to be looking at on a display before I couldn't tell it was a display? E.g. what is the resolving power of the typical person's eyes?
[Assume it is before beer-o'clock]
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Well, they may be able to address 32000 x 32000 pixels (actually, I'll bet it's 32768 x 32768), but good luck getting it to actually drive that big of a screen. At 256 megs of maximum memory, you'd need 31 palms just to store that much screen real estate in memory.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
I'm curious. What do people use? I like the idea of Address Book and iCal, but there are still a lot of compatibility warts there.
What do MacOS X users prefer?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I know third party hardware existed to allow powerpoint slides (no motion or sound) be carried and transmitted from a palmpilot.. this may have built in vga output for road warriors.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Forgive my ignorance, but what's distinctive about "BeOS like multitasking and threading"? I know Palm bought the BeOS IP, so presumably it's exactly like BeOS's, but what does that mean? Is it generally considered better than, say, Linux or BSD's? Better for certain purposes? Or what?
CC
I just figured that 32k x 32k would be the maximum resolution in the noncolor modes. As you add color I would assume the maximum screen dimension would shrink as the color depth increased. So maybe with 32bit color the max screen size would be 800x600 or something?
:(
I'm sure there are some math genius out there that can do the math for me... that reminds me I need to go study for a math test
~Z
- Backup to multiple locations so you aren't screwed if you lose your PDA. How often do you photocopy your day planner?
- Encrypt passwords/PIN# private information.
- Search for all occurances of a string
- Store/index reference books
- Actively remind you of deadlines
- Cache content from your computer/web
Check out my journal entry on what I want in a PDA. Palm OS Cobalt seems like a sideways step at best.There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
I don't know where this stuff about lack of Mac support is coming from. I'm here at the PalmONE conference and everyone is going out of their way to say that there is/will be mac support at every opportunity.
While currently there are few gaps in the mac developer tools, they seem comitted to remedying this situation. It's eclipse based, but the resource editor and simulator are windows only. They talked about moving the resource editor into eclipse, but I don't see the simulator getting ported any time soon.
It's also worth remembering that it's going to be some time before there is going to be any Cobalt (OS 6) devices on the shelves, so it's a little premature to complain about hotsync when there's no hardware.
On the whole, Cobalt looks awsome. The demos of the multi-media capabilities are fantastic. This is a proper growed-up operating system that bests anything else on the market for the forseeable future.
I was prepared to be underwhelmed by the new OS, but I'm totally won over now.
The transition is going to suck a little for developers, but they've put a great deal of effort into making it as easy as it can reasonably be.
I'm also very disappointed with PalmSource decision to stop development for the Mac OSX platform. I've been a Handspring Treo 180 user for a while now and regularly use iSync and the Hotsync tools to back up my Treo and synchronize my Addressbook and Calendar with the Mac OSX built in apps. I couldn't be happier with the whole configuration and interoperability of the two devices. Personally I think its the best damn thing since slice bread and I pity the masses who still have a separate devices with addresses, numbers and calendars in their mobile phone, PDA, home computer, work computer with out a single button solution to synchronize all that data.
Where did you hear this? That isn't how the eye works at all.
I've heard this in a few documentaries about human sight. I was sceptical until I experimented with my own sight. I tried moving my head to a random location, while my eyes were shut and then opening them with the intention of not moving them after opening (Ha! that's funny! I think I can completely control my brain!). The image that forms seems instant and extends to my peripheral vision. I believe the eye needs to detect movement only in the peripheral areas to form an image there and the movement can be extremely small. So small that I do not notice and why would my brain allow me to notice anyway? BTW, this test is flawed because the act of opening ones eyes, causes an image change within the eye, which is the same as detecting movement.
I think when people hear this theory, their first thought is "small area of detection" and "large movement required", whereas I think the truth is "moderate area of detection" and "extremely small movement required to complete peripheral image".
Curiously, I see colour all the way to the peripheral edges using this method. Which goes against what I have learned about peripheral vision (no colour) and this image "build up" through movement theory (colour added by brain through what it knows is there).
To get a dramatic demonstration which adds weight to this theory... Ever tried staring at the same spot for an extended period of time (without even blinking)? You (well I do) get a flashing image (ring) where the peripheral vision is, which eventually blacks out completely. I find this state very hard to sustain. My eyes normally move a tiny little bit (seems to be horizontal movement) which causes the peripheral vision to suddenly appear again. This is difficult to do, your eyes will be stinging and begging for mercy because they have become dry due to no blinking and you will find that whether you like it or not, your eyes usually step from side to side ever so slightly, undoing the effect. The easiest way to do it is to lay down on your back with your head well supported so that movement of your head is less likely to ruin your chances of this working.
Based on this effect alone, I think the theory is correct.
I have been doing this since I was a child. I can also voluntarily change the focus of my eyes. Every person I have asked about this (bringing eyes in and out of focus), claim they cannot do it. Anyone else able to do these things?
It's as if our brain contains a frame buffer (the image we perceive) which gets updated by the eye as it moves around under brain control. I guess we are like this because using our entire retina as the frame buffer for our brain, would not be feasible due to the huge amount of information that would have to constantly traverse the optic nerve. It's like using a video card with local frame buffer to get around bus interconnect (PCI/AGP) bandwidth limitations (I am serious by the way).
You can test this yourself by writing a program to flash a word on the screen for a short amount of time. (like a 30th or 60th of a second. You should still be able to read it.
Hang on, there are far too many things at work here that might muddy the facts. There is persistence of an image on a CRT screen due to light emitted from the phospors slowly decaying after they have been switched off (perhaps slow LCD response could cause a similar effect) and then there is also the persistence of vision due to slow response of the human eye itself.
What's more, how big is this word you are flashing on your screen? The fact that it is flashing means that it will be detected as movement to the eye, voiding the test.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?