I thought he wanted a laptop that used an XScale chip. To me, as opposed to a PDA, that means big keyboard, big screen, big disk.
And i don't think any manufactures are going to bring such a device to market until there is broad demand. eg until it runs WindowsXP (or perhaps in 5 or so years if linux has made strong inroads on corporate desktops).
Intel did not buy ARM. Intel obtained DECs StrongARM unit to settle a lawsuit. ARM is an independant company that makes chip designs. ARM based chips are made by many different companies. StrongARM is a particular ARM based chip made by Digital/Intel.
"Only they never got there, so the StrongARM has basically been stagnant"
StrongARM is not stagnant, it simply received a new marketing name for the latest version. They call them XScales now, and they are very popular in networking equipement and PDAs. I've got a 400Mhz Xscale based Sharp Zaurus SL-C700 in front of me right now and it doesn't feel stagnent at all.
Wireless in chip indeed. Let me guess you'd prefer a wireless card that has no chips on it?
The Centrino packages consists of a processor, a chipset, and a wireless chip.
you will be able to get laptops with this new pentiumIII-M processor that do not use the whole 'centrino' package. The package is just a marketing gimmick really.
If you get a laptop that does have built in wireless you can always put in a PCCard when 802.11b is no longer fashionable.
The C700 is also reflective but i can't quote the specs cause they are in japanese...
The C700 is perfectly readable in my office under flourecent lighting with the light completely off. To read it in sunlight you will need the frontlight on though.
Yes. i don't think there are any 802.11b cards now that will not work. Most of them all use the prisim chipset but the symbol spectrum cards are also supported.
In christchurch, New Zealand, the bus stops themselves have LCD displays. And they do not display when the bus will arrive according to the schedule. The buses have GPS units to track their current location and the bus stops display the actual time the next bus will arrive based on its current location.
in the article they make comparisons with the same application running on a WinNT JVM to show that it is the solaris JVM in particular which has a largeness problem.
Using linux i would agree that the windows JVM had a much better footprint.
Pentium-M is a processor. PowerBook is a complete notebook computer
It's like saying the 2003 Subaru Imprezza world rally car is pirellis answer to michelin range of rally tyres.
More likely this is a move to stay one step ahead of AMD who have recently started penetrating the notebook market. Or perhaps a response to transmetta CPUs, which are very sucessful in the notebook market in Japan. I doubt intel really have motorolla in their targets with this one.
How in the hell did this get modded insightful? Seeing past that none of these figures are correct, i.e. Safari is NOT 7.2MB but closer to 3MB and Mozilla is nowhere near 38.3MB
you're right, it's no where near 38Mb, it's only a mere 37Mb,:p
du -s/opt/mozilla-1.2.1/ 37M/opt/mozilla-1.2.1
They are comparing the size of the application. Not the size of the download archive. The problem with comparing the download size is that it can be influenced by factors such as the size of the installer (if any) and different compression methods.
I'd guess that 99% of users never have and never will visit a page the uses MathML.
and XML+CSS or XSLT are usually used on the serverside to format data for display e.g. by turning XML data into an HTML document that web browsers can render. The webbrowser itself doesn't need to know anything about XSLT.
Plus a cellular phone requires an ongoing expense. Depending on how they set it all up, they may pay a relitavely high price for the phones and low price for service or vice versa for one to offset the other, but I doubt this solution will be much cheaper than the Simputer even if they share one mobile phone for text messaging.
The ongoing expense of a cellphone is to pay for communications.
How does the simputer remove the need to pay for communications?
More likely senario is that you need to buy simputer + CF cellphone modem + cellphone service.
yeah, why not get the Dell and reformat it with linux and their special software for illiterate people?
I could understand it's niche if it were a simple but cheap device. But it seems to me it's a simple but not cheap device, for about the same price you can get a cheap PPC or palm that has better battery life, better screen, expansion options.
Also, there is no mention of what communications it supports.
The article talks about things like a farmer using it to check the price of cotton.
OK so it's got a CF slot, but it's not like you're gonna get WiFi reception in the middle of rural india. So you'll need a CF modem... why not just get a WAP capable cellphone, much simpler.
So, come on, be specific and concrete: where exactly is the Qt/Embedded architecture supposed to save memory compared to the X11 architecture? Tell us.
Because it writes directly to the framebuffer, instead of passing things around to someone else and asking them to write it.
Client/Server always involves more overhead. Abstracting things out into different layers always adds more overhead. It's often a good idea to do this, it gives you more flexibility, more encapsulation and thus independance. But it's still a tradeoff.
But i see your point that you can view QPE simply as QT with an X11 equivalent folded inside of it.
The "flab" comes from KDE/Qt, not X11. And it simply turns out that KDE/Qt with flab removed is still much more heavy-weight than X11
OK so the flab is what was cut out, and what remains is "bloat", not sure i can see the distinction between the two terms but let me correct my statement anyway: To my reading this implies that Qtopia contains bloat from KDE. However, there is no KDE "bloat" in Qtopia. There is no KDE at all.
No matter how you apportion it, QPE is worse than X11 in terms of resource usage. Face the facts.
Yes, QPE is worse than X11 in resource usage. GNOME is also worse than X11 in resource usage. Your comparison is flawed. X11 is a windowing server, Qtopia is much more.
Lets suppose we decided you were right, and instead of using QTEmbedded on top of the linux framebuffer, we used regular QT and stuck an X11 server inbetween QT and the linux frame buffer. You are saying this X11 solution is a ligherweight solution than QT straight on the framebuffer?
the QPE process uses more memory than the entire Agenda software environment uses, including X11 server, toolkit, input methods, task bar, wireless LAN monitors, desktop synchronization, etc. The Agenda only has 8Mbytes.
So the QPE process, including shared memory, at 6.7Mb, uses more memory than the entire agenda environment? How much does the entire agenda enviroment use? This review i dug up says it uses 6Mb.
http://www2.math.uni-potsdam.de/agenda/reviews.p hp ?op=showcontent&id=1: Incidently, 8 megs is not enough RAM, considering that 75% percent of it is used up by the time the VR3 boots
I am also curious, when you made your side by side comparisons, and observed that the QPE process uses more memory than the entire Agenda software environment uses, including X11 server, toolkit, input methods, task bar, wireless LAN monitors, desktop synchronization, etc which wireless LAN monitor did you use? And why exactly did someone write a wireless LAN monitor for a platform that has no wireless lan capabilities?
The tolltech guys decided QT would make a good base for a palmtop environment. They decided, that for a palmtop the network seperation of the X11 environment was unnecessary and they could write straight on the framebuffer.
Writing direct to the frambuffer is a ligherweight solution than writing to X11 and then having an X server write to the framebuffer.
Yes you can write an X11 server that is smaller than the entire Qtopia environment, but such a comparision is irrelevant.
Yes you can make a small feature limited toolkit that writes to an X server, and create a small feature limited XServer, and create a small feature limited plamtop environment based on this, and it will be smaller than Qtopia. But would it be smaller than the same feature limited toolkit writing directly to the framebuffer? No.
Likewise you can create a large, feature rich (aka bloated) toolkit that many developers praise (QT), that writes to an X Server, and create a large, feature rich palmtop environment based on this. But would it be smaller than the same toolkit writing directly to the frambuffer (QPE)? No.
the QPE process alone is several times as large as X11, the window manager, and the terminal application combined
The QPE process provides much more functionality than X11 + windowing manager.
Does comparing XFree86 + twm + xterm with KDE make much sense? twm is 50 times smaller than KDE, twm must be better right?
I didn't claim that Qtopia was based on KDE. Please read my message more carefully.
I did read your message carefully, specifically this point
The "flab" comes from KDE/Qt, not X11. And it simply turns out that KDE/Qt with flab removed is still much more heavy-weight than X11
To my reading this implies that Qtopia contains flab from KDE. However, there is no KDE "flab" in Qtopia.
Well, given that the QPE process alone is several times as large as X11, the window manager, and the terminal application combined, the question really isn't whether Qt/Embedded is worse in terms of resource usage than X11, but only how much worse. Certainly, claims that Qt/Embedded is smaller or faster than X11-based environments are just erroneous.
I disagree. My point is that your measurements are incorrect. The QPE process alone is using 1.7Mb, not 6.7Mb. The rest is shared libraries.
And comparing it to an X11 server + window manager is also incorrect. Can you tell me how much ram the QPE windowing server uses? I don't know because it is part of a process for which that is only one small part.
If you want to say which is smaller you either need to compare the agenda X11 + window manager with a stripped down QPE with no application launcher, no task bar, no input methods, no wireless lan monitors, no desktop syncronisation code etc etc etc.
Or find out how much the equivalent agenda applications (if they exist) use and then compare that.
As for speed, i have seen no benchmarks myself, and you have provided none, so in the meantime i'll presume such claims as "X11 is faster than QT" are pure speculation
And I personally find the fact that Qt/Embedded doesn't work with standard X11 applications a major problem for my needs. And that is why, as I pointed out, I won't be upgrading my SL-5500.
Fair enough, but i suspect Sharp doesn't see that as much of a market, the average PDA user doesn't know or care what X11 is.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought he wanted a laptop that used an XScale chip. To me, as opposed to a PDA, that means big keyboard, big screen, big disk.
And i don't think any manufactures are going to bring such a device to market until there is broad demand. eg until it runs WindowsXP (or perhaps in 5 or so years if linux has made strong inroads on corporate desktops).
But when will we see an XScale processor based computer in a laptop form factor?
:P
When you can run WindowsXP on an XScale
"I was very disappointed when Intel bought ARM"
Intel did not buy ARM. Intel obtained DECs StrongARM unit to settle a lawsuit. ARM is an independant company that makes chip designs. ARM based chips are made by many different companies. StrongARM is a particular ARM based chip made by Digital/Intel.
"Only they never got there, so the StrongARM has basically been stagnant"
StrongARM is not stagnant, it simply received a new marketing name for the latest version. They call them XScales now, and they are very popular in networking equipement and PDAs. I've got a 400Mhz Xscale based Sharp Zaurus SL-C700 in front of me right now and it doesn't feel stagnent at all.
Wireless in chip indeed. Let me guess you'd prefer a wireless card that has no chips on it?
The Centrino packages consists of a processor, a chipset, and a wireless chip.
you will be able to get laptops with this new pentiumIII-M processor that do not use the whole 'centrino' package. The package is just a marketing gimmick really.
If you get a laptop that does have built in wireless you can always put in a PCCard when 802.11b is no longer fashionable.
It is a reflective colour screen!
, 10 58,698,00.html
"The SL-5500 has a 3.5" 65,536 Color Reflective TFT Front-Lit Screen with 240 x 320 resolution for outstanding graphics and clarity, indoors or out."
http://www.sharpusa.com/products/ModelLanding/0
The C700 is also reflective but i can't quote the specs cause they are in japanese...
The C700 is perfectly readable in my office under flourecent lighting with the light completely off. To read it in sunlight you will need the frontlight on though.
Yes. i don't think there are any 802.11b cards now that will not work. Most of them all use the prisim chipset but the symbol spectrum cards are also supported.
a classes package IS its namespace
Few more tech details here:m l
http://www.lgnz.co.nz/news/pr1024465783.ht
In christchurch, New Zealand, the bus stops themselves have LCD displays. And they do not display when the bus will arrive according to the schedule. The buses have GPS units to track their current location and the bus stops display the actual time the next bus will arrive based on its current location.
e alTimeInformationAtBusStopsPilotThisWeek.asp
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/MediaReleases/2002/April/R
what namespace are apples osx extensions in?
I bet they are not in the java.* namespace that microsoft used, which impled they were a core part of the java standard.
2. The JRE is very large
in the article they make comparisons with the same application running on a WinNT JVM to show that it is the solaris JVM in particular which has a largeness problem.
Using linux i would agree that the windows JVM had a much better footprint.
Have you tried looking at an iPhoto album with a couple hundred picture? Suddenly things slow down...
Ever tried view a folder in KDE with a couple thousand files? Suddenly things slow down....
toms hardware are long refered to integrated graphics as 3D decelerators
Pentium-M is a processor.
PowerBook is a complete notebook computer
It's like saying the 2003 Subaru Imprezza world rally car is pirellis answer to michelin range of rally tyres.
More likely this is a move to stay one step ahead of AMD who have recently started penetrating the notebook market. Or perhaps a response to transmetta CPUs, which are very sucessful in the notebook market in Japan. I doubt intel really have motorolla in their targets with this one.
How in the hell did this get modded insightful? Seeing past that none of these figures are correct, i.e. Safari is NOT 7.2MB but closer to 3MB and Mozilla is nowhere near 38.3MB
:p
/opt/mozilla-1.2.1/ /opt/mozilla-1.2.1
you're right, it's no where near 38Mb, it's only a mere 37Mb,
du -s
37M
They are comparing the size of the application. Not the size of the download archive. The problem with comparing the download size is that it can be influenced by factors such as the size of the installer (if any) and different compression methods.
I'd guess that 99% of users never have and never will visit a page the uses MathML.
and XML+CSS or XSLT are usually used on the serverside to format data for display e.g. by turning XML data into an HTML document that web browsers can render. The webbrowser itself doesn't need to know anything about XSLT.
But not too long ago, IBM shipped all their machines with OS/2 WARP - their own attempt at a multi-tasking environment.
i think you mean their own attempt as a desktop multi-tasking environment for the PC
IBM had written pleanty of multi-tasking operating systems before OS/2.
The only IBM machines i saw IRL with OS/2 preloaded were dual boot machines with windows also preloaded.
Plus a cellular phone requires an ongoing expense. Depending on how they set it all up, they may pay a relitavely high price for the phones and low price for service or vice versa for one to offset the other, but I doubt this solution will be much cheaper than the Simputer even if they share one mobile phone for text messaging.
The ongoing expense of a cellphone is to pay for communications.
How does the simputer remove the need to pay for communications?
More likely senario is that you need to buy simputer + CF cellphone modem + cellphone service.
yeah, why not get the Dell and reformat it with linux and their special software for illiterate people?
I could understand it's niche if it were a simple but cheap device. But it seems to me it's a simple but not cheap device, for about the same price you can get a cheap PPC or palm that has better battery life, better screen, expansion options.
Also, there is no mention of what communications it supports.
The article talks about things like a farmer using it to check the price of cotton.
OK so it's got a CF slot, but it's not like you're gonna get WiFi reception in the middle of rural india. So you'll need a CF modem... why not just get a WAP capable cellphone, much simpler.
So, come on, be specific and concrete: where exactly is the Qt/Embedded architecture supposed to save memory compared to the X11 architecture? Tell us.
Because it writes directly to the framebuffer, instead of passing things around to someone else and asking them to write it.
Client/Server always involves more overhead. Abstracting things out into different layers always adds more overhead. It's often a good idea to do this, it gives you more flexibility, more encapsulation and thus independance. But it's still a tradeoff.
But i see your point that you can view QPE simply as QT with an X11 equivalent folded inside of it.
The "flab" comes from KDE/Qt, not X11. And it simply turns out that KDE/Qt with flab removed is still much more heavy-weight than X11
p hp ?op=showcontent&id=1 :
OK so the flab is what was cut out, and what remains is "bloat", not sure i can see the distinction between the two terms but let me correct my statement anyway: To my reading this implies that Qtopia contains bloat from KDE. However, there is no KDE "bloat" in Qtopia. There is no KDE at all.
No matter how you apportion it, QPE is worse than X11 in terms of resource usage. Face the facts.
Yes, QPE is worse than X11 in resource usage. GNOME is also worse than X11 in resource usage.
Your comparison is flawed. X11 is a windowing server, Qtopia is much more.
Lets suppose we decided you were right, and instead of using QTEmbedded on top of the linux framebuffer, we used regular QT and stuck an X11 server inbetween QT and the linux frame buffer. You are saying this X11 solution is a ligherweight solution than QT straight on the framebuffer?
the QPE process uses more memory than the entire Agenda software environment uses, including X11 server, toolkit, input methods, task bar, wireless LAN monitors, desktop synchronization, etc. The Agenda only has 8Mbytes.
So the QPE process, including shared memory, at 6.7Mb, uses more memory than the entire agenda environment? How much does the entire agenda enviroment use? This review i dug up says it uses 6Mb.
http://www2.math.uni-potsdam.de/agenda/reviews.
Incidently, 8 megs is not enough RAM, considering that 75% percent of it is used up by the time the VR3 boots
I am also curious, when you made your side by side comparisons, and observed that the QPE process uses more memory than the entire Agenda software environment uses, including X11 server, toolkit, input methods, task bar, wireless LAN monitors, desktop synchronization, etc which wireless LAN monitor did you use? And why exactly did someone write a wireless LAN monitor for a platform that has no wireless lan capabilities?
The tolltech guys decided QT would make a good base for a palmtop environment. They decided, that for a palmtop the network seperation of the X11 environment was unnecessary and they could write straight on the framebuffer.
Writing direct to the frambuffer is a ligherweight solution than writing to X11 and then having an X server write to the framebuffer.
Yes you can write an X11 server that is smaller than the entire Qtopia environment, but such a comparision is irrelevant.
Yes you can make a small feature limited toolkit that writes to an X server, and create a small feature limited XServer, and create a small feature limited plamtop environment based on this, and it will be smaller than Qtopia. But would it be smaller than the same feature limited toolkit writing directly to the framebuffer? No.
Likewise you can create a large, feature rich (aka bloated) toolkit that many developers praise (QT), that writes to an X Server, and create a large, feature rich palmtop environment based on this. But would it be smaller than the same toolkit writing directly to the frambuffer (QPE)? No.
Thanks for your comments. They have made quite an impression on me.
I now realise my argument that a vegetarian diet requires less plant production to be false. Your point about the taste of meat clearly refutes this.
Have you considered a career as a science teacher? I wish more of todays youth had your clear grasp of critial reasoning.
But isn't the ratio of human:bovines,swines,etc higher than 5/1?
Could be, i didn't look up the exact figure when i made that post, but you get the idea...
the QPE process alone is several times as large as X11, the window manager, and the terminal application combined
The QPE process provides much more functionality than X11 + windowing manager.
Does comparing XFree86 + twm + xterm with KDE make much sense? twm is 50 times smaller than KDE, twm must be better right?
I didn't claim that Qtopia was based on KDE. Please read my message more carefully.
I did read your message carefully, specifically this point
The "flab" comes from KDE/Qt, not X11. And it simply turns out that KDE/Qt with flab removed is still much more heavy-weight than X11
To my reading this implies that Qtopia contains flab from KDE. However, there is no KDE "flab" in Qtopia.
Well, given that the QPE process alone is several times as large as X11, the window manager, and the terminal application combined, the question really isn't whether Qt/Embedded is worse in terms of resource usage than X11, but only how much worse. Certainly, claims that Qt/Embedded is smaller or faster than X11-based environments are just erroneous.
I disagree. My point is that your measurements are incorrect. The QPE process alone is using 1.7Mb, not 6.7Mb. The rest is shared libraries.
And comparing it to an X11 server + window manager is also incorrect. Can you tell me how much ram the QPE windowing server uses? I don't know because it is part of a process for which that is only one small part.
If you want to say which is smaller you either need to compare the agenda X11 + window manager with a stripped down QPE with no application launcher, no task bar, no input methods, no wireless lan monitors, no desktop syncronisation code etc etc etc.
Or find out how much the equivalent agenda applications (if they exist) use and then compare that.
As for speed, i have seen no benchmarks myself, and you have provided none, so in the meantime i'll presume such claims as "X11 is faster than QT" are pure speculation
And I personally find the fact that Qt/Embedded doesn't work with standard X11 applications a major problem for my needs. And that is why, as I pointed out, I won't be upgrading my SL-5500.
Fair enough, but i suspect Sharp doesn't see that as much of a market, the average PDA user doesn't know or care what X11 is.
Where i live (new zealand) it is common practise to divert rivers to irrigate pasture for cows to eat.