The March

I’m writing this on my recycled Compaq Armada, in AbiWord, a lightweight word processor that I use on several of my systems (it works in both rich and plain text). So far, it’s enjoyable enough.

I’m here trying to see what sort of “serious” work can be done with this setup. As it happens, my old ThinkPad 760XD, running Windows 98SE, is also setup to do “serious” work, with the understanding that its OS is a decade and a half old. Both machines are quite capable of serious work, but the one area where they both suffer is the Internet.

I am at least running the Chromium browser on this Compaq, and it is fairly modern by today’s standards. It was installed after the OS was setup. It is slow, as should be expected considering the tight confines of the RAM overhead (192 MB) and processor speed (366 mHz). It still runs, albeit a little sluggishly. So while just a few years ago I would have considered my old ThinkPad 760XD to be the bare minimum requirements, my thoughts have now shifted; 166 mHz, 64 MB RAM may be sufficient for Windows 98SE, but is simply too old for today’s demands.

Both of these machines appeared a couple of years apart, yet they are vastly different. The advent of the Pentium II chip was the breakthrough that changed things back then. IBM did follow suit, but the simple fact remains that this machine, with more than twice the CPU speed and three times the RAM, is a heavyweight compared to the older ThinkPad.

The days when those sort of jumps occurred, when Moore’s Law seemed to be in full play, are probably over. That particular generation of machine saw rapid, bordering on chaotic, growth. The dominant areas of concentration these days are in mobile computing, with tablets and smart phones leading the pack. The days of concentrating strictly on CPU horsepower might not necessarily be behind us, but the emphasis of late has shown signs of change in other directions.

Still, as I write this, the march of obsolescence continues, older machines being relegated to the closet or the dump. Machines that just a short time ago amused and amazed us. Machines that are probably still capable of doing so, provided the means.

Bridging The Digital Divide - The Hardware Problem

One of my sincerest desires and hopes lay in bridging the so called digital divide. The idea was put forth recently for the creation of free national wireless Internet. The telecom industry, in its near religious embrace of free market, of course balked. The idea is a great one, and I support it, but it will not help to bridge that gap.

The problem isn't necessarily one of access to the Internet. The problem is one of hardware. 

Providing free internet to those who do not have access is a pointless exercise if they do not have the requisite hardware.

And even if they do, is it capable of being useful?

For a few years, I experimented with various Linux installs on older computers. The goal was to see how useful they could be made. It saddens me to see dozens, perhaps hundreds, of capable old computers sitting idle in thrift stores and flea markets. They can drop the prices on these down to $5 or $10 USD, and still, they sit idle. Why? Because, from an OS standpoint, they are obsolete.

With a simple, lightweight Linux install, and using lightweight applications, I made these older machines useful, except where heavy Internet usage was concerned. Forget media on the Internet; sites as seemingly simple as Blogger eventually reached a point where they wouldn't load. 

You see, for most of my tests, I chose two simple milestones - Facebook and Blogger. If Facebook couldn't load in complex form (not mobile), then how well does Blogger load? I expected Facebook to fail more often, not Blogger. Yet now, I can reach Facebook in mobile mode in most browsers, especially older ones. Blogger? 

Nothing.

And that's just for starters.

Some sites are designed to work with one browser. Still. In this day of what should be open standards. We set up one of the household computers with Ubuntu 10.4 LTS, and it runs great. Except for going to a site that our then middle school student needed for school. 

"Site requires Internet Explorer 7 or higher."

This is very poor thinking on somebody's behalf, in my opinion.

Low cost, capable hardware is really the bigger issue. If we expect our children to have access to media rich content, and some school districts are beginning to do just that, they need more than just access. They need machines that are capable. 

The easy answer is to say that they can use computers at libraries. With all the cutbacks in funding for libraries, and the resultant cut in their hours, this sort of thinking is shortsighted. We say they can buy used computers, but even ones that can be considered moderately modern have the potential to costs a couple hundred US dollars; most poor families have bigger concerns.

What about school supplied computers or tablets? Some schools are doing this, but for the most part they are private or located in communities that are doing fairly well. Locally (Jacksonville, Florida), there is a program to supply some pre-k students with iPad tablets. It's a start, but not nearly enough.

No, of course not.

There are some low cost computers that have become available the past few years. I was quite excited about the Smartbooks when they began showing up in late 2009. These little Windows CE and Linux devices costs between $100 - $200 USD. 

Based upon my tests, the Windows CE Smartbooks had a failure rate of 33%. There are tales on the Internet of exploding batteries; in my remaining machine, the battery is down to less than fifteen minutes of life, with the WiFi turned off (with it on, less than ten). Sylvania has discontinued importing them. You can at least read about my initial experiences with it here .

There are other Netbooks and now Chromebooks, which at least have the promise of providing an inexpensive alternative. But they normally run between $240 - $300 USD. There are plenty of smartphones out there as well, but can these truly substitute for computers?

Clearly, another solution has to be found. We can build a free Internet Super Highway; we just need to make sure the on ramps are easier accessed by those whom we seek to help. Otherwise, it becomes an exercise in futility.

So, now that we know

So, now that we know that messages can be sent via a mobile device, the question becomes one of how big a message.

Going Primitive

This is being sent via my Jornada. Why, you ask? This is a test. I believe
that the Internet should be open to all, including those of limited means.
So, here we are.

Apple, Tablets & Hybrids

Tim Coook has weighed in about the future of tablets, at least those that are not Apple's. He feels that tablet/laptop hybrids have no place in the marketplace. 

While he may have something of a point, given the checkered history of tablet computing, he may have a point. I suspect that there is more to this. Obviously, simply adding a keyboard to an iPad makes it a fairly decent laptop replacement (with caveats). The most inexpensive laptop that Apple produces is on average nearly twice as expensive as an iPad, so perhaps Cook is looking out for another product line, though the iOS products are Apple's biggest sellers. 

It has also been suggested that Apple may be planning such a device. To be honest, I doubt that. The iPad is such a well designed gadget that simply adding a keyboard suffices for that "hybrid".

I think that what we're really seeing here is marketing, plain and simple. Apple would rather have you purchase their masterfully crafted devices than those less refined from their competitors. 

Still, I also suspect that such devices are coming. 

Breaking Connections

I had the misfortune of spending too many hours this today trying to get my eMate to talk to my Windows XP laptop. This was never an issue before; three months ago, it synched up just fine. Today, it simply wouldn't budge. It would connect, but whenever I tried to export a NewtonWorks document, it would encounter a communication error. 

This is problematic. 

The only computer in the house that the eMate will connect to now is our Bondi iBook running OS 9.2.2. 

While I am keeping my three Newton devices for various reasons, this is disconcerting. The recently acquired MP100 is a great e-reader, the 2000 will probably be as well, but I've used the eMate as a portable word processor almost exclusively. It has a number of items on it that sorely need to be moved. They can be moved, but only to that iBook. 

This is nothing against the iBook, it is a great old computer. But it has a hard time connecting to the Internet, and for me that is a make-or-break matter. It can connect, thanks to a great browser called Classilla, but is somewhat limited. It can move files that way, though, and today that's what I did. But it is inconvenient.

While I may be a big advocate for older systems, we are trying to eliminate some of the older systems we have due to space. The iBook was not slated to be retired, but was to be stored. Now, it appears as though that can't happen, at least until I off load the rest of those files from the eMate. The sad thing is that the eMate has been cutoff from my main computer directly. 

I may believe in older systems, but I am a bigger believer in simplicity.

Moving Right Along

Once upon a time, I wanted this blog to be dedicated to the notion of keeping and using older computers, to keep them from obsolesence. 

It turns out that obsolesence is mainly a state of mind.

Many computer enthusiasts continue using older machines for a variety of reasons, personal and otherwise. A friend of ours still uses an Amstrad PCW8256 for writing. Another uses their old game computer for gaming. Then there's a fellow in Pakistan who uses an older IBM for publishing a paper. 

As for myself, I use a number of older computers for a variety of reasons, though mainly for curiosity's sake. I have, once more, begun using my Tandy Model 102 (and 200) as well as my eMate for writing, since they are superb for that, with very minimal distraction. I also have a couple of typewriters, one manual the other electric, that I could use as well, and enjoy, but far be it from me to recommend that everyone follow my lead.

To say that I will end writing about these older machines and my adventures on them would be an untruth. Recently, however, my focus has been focused on not just what these computers are capable of, but getting them on the Internet. To varying degrees, I've found success. The rub is that while most of these computers can access the Internet, the results are less than satisfactory for most. The Internet has moved well past what these computers are capable of.

When I picked up a Newton 2000 for a song recently, it made me painfully aware of some of the problems I was facing. The only computer it can dock with was my PowerBook 5300c. This computer has been very cranky of late. A few years back I noticed that it would have an occasional bus error. The infrared port is basically useless, not capable of using the IrDA protocol, and the only way to move data is via a floppy drive that is becoming iffy. The painful truth is that the computer has become redundant, though I hesitate to say obsolete. It isn't alone. My first color laptop, my PowerBook 540c, runs beautifully but it can no longer write data reliably to the floppy drive, currently its only connection to the outside world. A lack of modern ports, namely USB, severely restricts both. 

As difficult as it is, both machines have lost their usefulness. They still work, mind you, even with their problems. Their utility, though, has passed. 

Ironically, a solution exists that will not only allow the Newtons to be used, but allow all my devices to be docked to one machine, incredibly my iBook Clamshell. While still old, it is far more useful. The iBook represents what may actually be the rearguard, the oldest machine capable of using the Internet, yet modern enough to have a USB port. 

Yes, we will revisit the older computers. But for now, there's plenty to do, doors to knock on, noises to make. 

Thinking Again...

I like both Google and Facebook and feel that the competition between them is actually slowing things down. Let’s be honest here; they both collect information and both have the potential to expose your personal information unwittingly. Unfortunately, that is what happens when you put your information out there. We had the same gripe about AOL and CompuServe back in the 1990’s, but of course we were also paying for the privilege.

It comes down to what one is willing to pay and tolerate. Both Google and Facebook offer services that are free; these are paid for by advertisements. A fair chunk of these ads are targeted, and guess what? The only way that can happen is if they know a little about you. Since I’ve had to tolerate worse shenanigans since earlier days on the Internet, I just shrug these things off and think, “things could always be worse, and once, it was.”

If you don’t want to have to deal with issues like these yet still want to be involved with the social Internet, you have options, but one set relies upon beefing up your computer skills, the other paying for these services. For instance, you could always learn how to use open source alternatives and work with Telnet and some of the alternative services that you can find in shell accounts. While once fairly mainstream for die hard computer enthusiasts, this is pretty much beyond the scope of what the regular user might want, or even be capable of. While it’s true that this method allows you to use older, system restricted systems, the experience is far different than what the Internet normally offers.

Or, you could always sign up for services such as The Well. I’m a fan of The Well, and really admire the work they do, but I do not have an account with them at this time.

The problem with both of these options is that they have the potential to shield you from the greater Internet, and this goes both ways. Of course, that seems to be happening anyway.

The bickering between the two giants, though, has got to stop.

This Instrument (Facebook) Can Teach...

Are Mark Zuckerberg's interests in the education potential of Facebook self-serving?

It would be so very easy to dismiss them as just that. However, after reading this article at CNN Money, I get the feeling he's being genuine.

Children learn best in an environment that has fair degree of social interaction, and in order for a child to function in this world, social skills need to be honed. In addition, there has to be play, creativity, imagination. Could Facebook be used for something like this? I'm going to skirt around the various concerns that there may be, and instead focus on the what-if.

Imagine an educational Facebook (Kinderbook? Edubook?). The interface would not be so different from what normal users of the service see at this time. However, the number of distractions are lower. Instead of games like Farmville or, gasp, Mafia Wars, the children would access games that teach skills; math, language, critical thinking, even programming. The site could be written in such a way that the child can modify it to suit their needs and interests, down to the font and colors, with a considerable amount of drag and drop of the various widgets.

As the child grows and matures, other areas of the site would open up to them, and they can explore anew. Exploring equals learning. Their user ID would contain traits and profile information that could dictate where the child can go, what they can do. This user ID would have parental controls, naturally.

There is potential here.

Edward R. Murrow famously said (during an editorial about television) that "this instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire." The same is true of the Internet, of course, and especially Facebook.

So Close To Awesome

In May 2011, I received my first Apple Newton Message Pad 2000.

The 1990's saw rapid growth in personal computing, primarily for portable and handheld devices. The PDA explosion started in 1992, with John Sculley's introduction of the term to the world.

PDA-like devices, though, had already been around since at least the mid-1980's. By 1990, the market had seen several small computers, such as the Atari Portfolio, come to the market, and they all had functions that would classify them as PDA's by today's standards. All Sculley really did was to apply a name to the category.

The device that he specifically referred to as a PDA was Apple's Newton Message Pad.

What wasn't mentioned is that this was not the path that the Newton team envisioned. When the Newton was under development, it was seen as the next phase in personal computing, a small, easy to carry device that could perform all the functions of a regular computer. Apple sunk millions of dollars into the division, and somewhere along the way, the scope of the project grew, apparently too much. In order to keep the Newton line from interfering with Apple's Macintosh line, the Newton was scaled back to become a computer companion device.

By this time, other devices were waiting in the wings. Jeff Hawkins and his team had worked with Tandy in development of their handheld line, the Zoomer, and were now looking at starting a company of their own; Palm Computing. While Sculley may have created the term PDA, it would be Palm that defined it. Other companies planned similar devices as well, based on systems like Windows CE (which bears more than a passing resemblance to Microsoft's PC operating system).

All of these competing devices, though, paled compared to the Newton line. While Sculley may have cut the scale of the Newton back, the devices themselves remained as powerful as ever. They may have been "PDA's", but actually fell in the space between that class and laptops or even regular computers. From processor speed to storage, the Newton had more in common with a regular computer than simply a digital companion it was sold as.

This blurry line between PDA and regular computer contributed to the difficulties encountered in marketing the device. It was also more expensive.

In 1997, the Newton division released the final three models; the Message Pads (MP) 2000 and 2100, and the eMate laptop. Of the three, the laptop had the most potential but was deliberately set to lower specs than the two Message Pads.

The MP2000, the first model released in 1997, had startling specs -

162 MHz StrongARM processor

8MB ROM

1MB RAM

4MB Flash memory

2 PCMCIA slots

480x320 resolution backlit screen

Infrared port

Interconnect port

It was as powerful as many laptops of the day, and the processor alone put it well into regular computer territory. Compare these with the PalmPilot Professional, also released in early 1997 -

16.58 MHz DragonBall MC68328 processor

1MB RAM

160x160 resolution screen

Serial port

The deal killer was the price; the Newton retailed for $950, the PalmPilot Professional was $399.

The MP2000 series, as well as the eMate, weren't PDA's. What is evident in the last Newtons is that they were entering new territory; true mobile computing. The 2000 series compare wonderfully with many of today's tablet computers. There is an active community, one might even say rabid, that still support the Newton.

We can only speculate as to what the Newton could have become. The division was briefly spun-off in 1997, only to be brought back into Apple after Steve Jobs returned. The Newton division was then closed down in February 1998. Many of its brightest minds left Apple, never to return. Some stayed, while others did eventually return, speculatively after being asked to; Steve Jobs had this little idea he was working on.

But the Newton was a spectacular misfit, and a pretty damned awesome one.

(A very nice article on the Newton division can be found at Low End Mac -  "The Story Behind Apple's Newton" by Tom Hormby )

In The Cloud

I have a few concerns about cloud computing. In mid-2000, I saw a wonderful Internet computer called the I-Opener. This was an Internet-only device, basically a web appliance, that would allow anyone access via a built-in 56.6k modem. The idea fascinated me immensely, and I began looking for ways to make applications for these devices. By the time I had given it any consideration, however, the notion of an Internet-only device had died; the I-Opener and a few other related devices were commercial flops. The notion of Web-based applications, however, stuck with me, though I never went further then than thinking about them. By 2005, though, it was evident that there was a surge in cloud based computing, and soon I was using Google Docs for quite a bit of my work.

I like the term "the cloud". It conjures up wonderful images of a vast, hovering, somewhat ambiguous place where everything is connected. Cloud computing has arrived in full force now, and with recent advances in mobile computing, it is here to stay.

But, and that is a big 'but', there may be too much thinking about the cloud being the end-all-be-all of personal computing. There is increased emphasis on doing everything via the Internet, if only for portability's sake. The idea here is that access to the Internet/Web/Cloud would always be convenient. While the word may not have been used in that last sentence, that is a mighty big 'if'.

There are really three concerns here. The first is the assumption that the cloud will always be within reach of these devices. This is one of the reasons why Google and many of the other content providers are behind the National Broadband Plan and the National Wireless Initiative. That they want to make it more widespread is not a bad idea. Even if they succeed, though, there will be places that it may still be restricted, either deliberately or by geographical circumstance.

My second concern is the nature of the Internet/Web/Cloud; while there may be efforts to keep it neutral, the truth is that any agency or group can shut it off, or at least your access to it. Don't think that the government of the United States would ever shut it off? Guess again; if there was a big enough crisis, you bet they'd throttle it down or kill it entirely. The whole of the Internet is built upon the skeleton of a government-backed program to link crucial data centers together. They built it, they can wreck it. Or, worse, somebody else could.

My final concern is simply this; whose data is it, anyway? If I create it, I want to be able to store it where I can, and not only, or strictly, in the cloud.

Whose Stuff Is It, Anyway?

The one thing that bothers me most about the concept of Cloud computing is that total lack of control you have. Yes, you can have a paid account to your online storage and yes, it may be accessible from any computer.

The truth is, though, that this illusion of control is just that, an illusion. A few problems exist -

1. The belief that access to a network is universal. It is not, as there are several factors that could impede Internet and other Cloud access; geography, architecture, technical issues. If you need to work on a document but have neither access to the document or potential online applications (I'm looking at you, Google), you are effectively screwed.

2. The belief that access to the network is unimpeded. Don't think for a moment that some pissy body of souls out there, be it an access provider or a government, won't cut it off. It might one day be truly neutral, but we should never assume that it can't be shut off.

3. The belief that you own some of the apps. As this article at CNN points out, riiiiight. All your apps are belong to them, at least those that you acquire through "official" channels (app stores).

4. Whose OS is it anyway? Time to re-read those agreements.

So, no matter how cool and neat-o those mobile devices are, the idea of control that they offer is very much an illusion. What's to be done? Google, at least, is making some steps in returning control, even going so far as to include rooting tools in the upcoming Chrome-based netbooks. Our friends in Cupertino, though, don't seem to be as interested.

Which is really sad, and kinda sucks in a big way.

You Almost Lost Me At The Inability To Save To My Own Internal Storage...

I have one little complaint about the Android operating system, and by extension the Chrome OS. Both of these operating systems originated for the mobile device market; phones (smart or otherwise), tablets and lightweight netbooks. Both operating systems are very light for what they do, they have fast boot times and low memory overhead.
They also lack a true file system.
That is the part that really bothers me. Both Android and Chrome run on Linux-based operating systems; they are not really operating systems per se but interfaces. Linux is a hierarchal operating system. Everything is a file, and files are stored in folders. Most operating systems use file systems, except for the earliest ones or those designed for the simplest devices.
That last couple of words there is the catch; simplest devices. You see, the developers do not view Android and Chrome as real computer operating systems but mobile device operating systems. Which is horse hockey; there are folders in there, you can bet. Restricting access to them kind of blows.
Restricting access to external storage devices blows even harder.
My Sylvania tablet runs Android 2.2, and has almost a gig of internal storage. Yet I can't save to documents directly to it. I can access a Micro SD or thumb drive, but I can't save a file internally?
Not cool.
To me, Android is not mature enough for anything but simple mobile devices at this point. It may look cool, and I love the interface. Restricting access to storage, though, is not cool.

Caveat Emptor

Cheap technology is cheap. Sounds witty, right? Not terribly funny, however. Cheaply made electronics are as much a problem now as they have always been. The trouble is that these days they are more prevalent due to the number of them arriving on these shores. When I was a teenager, my parents bought for me an inexpensive Setico radio from Pic-n-Save; this item was made in Japan, not a country we associate with inexpensive electronics these days. That wasn't always the case. While good products could be had from Japan even then, discount chains such as Pic-n-Save would import from lower quality sources. These items would inevitably fail after a few months. My radio lasted for just shy of a year before there was a pop, the acrid smell of burning epoxy followed by blue smoke. Right in the middle of Peter Frampton.
Today, cheap electronics come primarily from China as well as southeast Asia.
We have more consumer electronics than ever, and the vast majority come from these sources. Too often, the quality in these products is lacking, and there is inevitable failures. This occurs from the component level up. Like the old saying about chain links, one minor failure can bring down the entire device.
So all it takes is one minor hardware glitch to kill a system. Caveat emptor; you get what you pay for.
It is only logical, therefore, that a $99 netbook would be a risk.
I purchased two more of them for testing purposes. One of them, a slightly older model, turns out, barely booted the first time. The second time... nothing. Not even the initial start up screen.
Nothing.
So, failure rate of 33%, at least for my set of three.
Just a bit disappointing.
When compared to older Windows CE handhelds such as the Jornada palmtop computers, the Sylvania laptop seems a little flimsy. Other inexpensive laptops also seem flimsy as well, to be honest. Keep in mind, though, that the Jornada really was really a pricier machine for its time, as much as $900 in 1999. It is rock solid; you got what you paid for.
This is not an indictment of the $99 netbook. It is a concern. These little netbooks have quite a bit of potential. The failures are disconcerting, though, and a look through the Internet reveals that there have been plenty.
So far, mine has run 100%, and the second machine appears to be doing well. Perhaps the manufacturers have gotten their acts together. With any luck, perhaps, they might even spur a rennaissance in the operating system that most of them come equipped with, Windows CE. In the mean time, caveat emptor.

PDA's and Tablets and Computers, Oh My!

I am writing this on my Sylvania netbook. It is a computer, regardless of what the box says. If I so choose, I could replace the operating system, add or remove software, do pretty much everything that you can do with other small computers (with the understanding that, by its nature, it is somewhat limited).

Still, it meets the qualification; it is a computer.

The term computer, though, is being used and misused in interesting ways these days, especially where mobile devices are concerned. Much of this goes back to the early days of these devices and the divergent evolutionary courses they took. One of the best examples is the Apple Newton. Quite a ways into its development, the deliberate corporate decision was made to cut back on its capabilities; it had the potential to cut into Apple's flagship, the Macintosh computer line. In 1992, then Apple CEO John Sculley coined the phrase "PDA" to describe the Newton. With that, a whole new genre was born, satellites for your main computer. Now, a device that held much promise as a stand alone unit is relegated to secondary.

The first Newtons were amazingly powerful little devices, though they could hardly be considered satellites (even though they were). The first Message Pads were as powerful as the early Macintosh computers and has as many features. The problem was that they were too powerful for their size.

They were also too big. The original Message Pads could not fit easily in shirt pockets, unlike similar devices of the day (the Tandy Zoomer, for instance; we'll cover that shortly). It needed a case. In the early and mid 1990's, it was not unusual to see professionals with Newton cases hanging from their belts.

The Newton was, in fact, a tablet computer.

Not so the first true PDA's, though like the Newton they were not originally named such. Various companies had in fact been making digital assistants in various forms since the early 1980's. There was software that would allow some of the early notebook computers such as the Tandy Model 100 series to even act as large digital organizers. The first devices that truly fit the name PDA, even in function, were much smaller though in no way less powerful. One such line was the Tandy Zoomer.

The Zoomer was developed in the early 1990's, partly by the team that would go on to release the even more successful Palm line. When the Zoomer was being developed, the term PDA didn't exist; it was a handheld computer that relied on pen or stylus input. The operating system it ran was a variation of the PC-GEOS desktop running on top of a very lightweight DOS. While it was not as powerful as the Newton, it was in many ways a kindred spirit.

It was also a commercial flop.

And sadly the Newton did not do much better. It's biggest problem was that it was orphaned. It was not a "PDA", even if Apple's CEO coined the term. But it had been deliberately crippled so as not to interfere with their flagship Macintosh line. It never really fit either category.

In reality, the Newton wasn't a PDA. It was a tablet computer, more or less.

So, for that matter, are almost all PDA's.

For instance, I have a GoType keyboard for my Palm IIIxe that turns it into a more powerful computer than my old Macintosh Plus. The Palm OS, though, is interesting in that it really is just a fancy GUI on top of a database, and aside from some fancy applications, doesn't really have a file system like most other operating systems. It's still a computer, as it fits all the classic definitions of one. It's just a small one.

When Microsoft came up with the Windows CE and the Pocket PC concept, they didn't hide behind fancy terms; they were computers, are computers. Some are PDA-like, some are clamshell, some are regular computers, laptop and otherwise.

So you see this becomes a real mess in a hurry.

Okay, we can safely assume that they are all computers. Then why can't we just say that they are all computers? We're letting the corporate powers that be decide? Of course we are! That makes it easier for us to pigeon hole the devices, and it certainly makes it easier to dispose of them when the time comes. After all, they aren't computers.

But they are computers. and capable of a lot more than they want us to think. All of the essentials are there; processors, RAM, storage, methods of input, displays.

You can call it a wireless tablet, sure, go ahead. That little Windows CE laptop can be called an Internet device. And the thing in your pocket? Sure, it's a PDA.

Rest assured, though, they have all the power found in computers that we coveted just a few years back.

Ergo, computers.

Satellites

For me, a netbook really represented a satellite computer, one that would work with a larger computer, that would be easier to carry but would not be left with the burden of the work.

Many viewed the early laptops as just that, satellite computers. As each successive generation of computer became smaller, so did our satellite machines.

Now we enter a period where satellites have the potential to be our primary devices. This arises as the nature of computing is changing. Quite a bit of work has been done to create an environment that these devices interact with, the Internet. At its heart, the very essence of cloud computing is making it easier for the user to do day to day task.

The trouble is, quite a bit of the creativity that defined the Internet is also vanishing as a consequence. Personal web pages have given way to blogs, and the information contained therein has likewise diminished. Social networking sites allow us to share a few hundred characters of information at a time. Concurrent with this is a surge in netbook and tablet sales. Meanwhile, the desktop computer has begun to disappear, relegated more and more to business and various institutional uses.

We live in a time when our phones can do more than our laptops did just a few years ago.

But there appears to be a price to pay for this.

Many have noted that mobile and personal computing have become more consumption and less creation. While there are still many places that allow us to be seen and heard, the focus of many of these newer devices seems to be consumption. This is not a bad thing in and of itself. However, market forces, always working in their cold, methodical way, are shaping our choices for us, and if left unchecked, will continue to erode the ability to create, collaborate and contribute.

Which brings me to my initial point. As I play with my mini netbook, I've discovered that with some simple modifications, it can create content adequately enough to be almost ready to be used on its own; it is its own machine. The satellite becomes a world.

The tools to do this are very basic; really, just a light word processor and a better browser. Software for tasks such as image manipulation can be found, and is perhaps a long way off in its basic, Windows CE, form. However, just the addition of a means to create text and move that up to the Internet is powerful enough.

To that end, I am planning on trying a little experiment. I am considering trying to live off the netbook alone for a few days. Currently, I have not set a date for this, but it will probably run for a period of a few days or a week. If I'm right, it may open doors for those who cannot afford larger, more powerful machines. It may, indeed, put the Internet back into the hands of those who use and depend upon it.

It certainly is worth a try.

Control & Usability

Ease of use versus level of control. This is a bit of a conundrum. While I'm a believer in open source and free software, I am also concerned about how to make it easy. Make no mistake, easy to use software is seldom free. There are exceptions, of course. The Sugar interface found on the OLPC XO-1 laptop is very easy to use. However, installing it requires certain skills, namely a better than average knowledge of Linux. Perhaps this will be addressed soon. In the meantime, however, we are left using the lightweight operating systems that come on our various devices, and this makes for some strange bedfellows.

For instance, While I am not a particularly big fan of Microsoft, I will say that I like Windows CE, though the lack of true productivity applications concerns me. This operating system is the standard on most of the current batch of lightweight, inexpensive netbooks coming out of Asia, such as the one I am currently using. There is plenty of potential here.

Then there are all the Android tablets that are appearing on the market. They are exceedingly easy to use. What they lack are productivity applications; whereas Windows CE has relatively few, the Android field is almost non-existent.

Yet both operating systems are easy to use.

The alternative is always Linux, which has the trade-off of being harder to learn yet comes with plenty of applications. This could be resolved in two ways -

make Linux easier to use

-or-

create more Windows CE/Android productivity applications.

This is surely something that needs to be revisited, time and time again.

Getting There

I'm typing this on Cody, my Sylvania "bento" laptop. I do really like this machine, even if it has a few quirks. I am still using Windows CE on it as well, since it does run natively just fine. It's that that has gotten me to think; what is the message I need to convey? More to the point; what matters more, the goal of getting more people online or the way they get there?As it is, this little computer is perfectly capable right out of the box, even if it lacks a few necessary pieces of software (it really needs a text editor or light word processor, for instance). It might not be able to do a lot of high powered operations, but it is certainly the equal or better of some computers just a few years older.

The problem is, of course, that progress marches on and it is a given that this machine will be left behind if adequate updates can't be had. Microsoft seems to be heading down the Windows Mobile road, and possibly leaving CE behind. Which is a shame, of course; Windows CE 6 is quite a capable operating system. And the one true competitor, Android, is really designed for touch screens, and also lacks simple things like editors.

This brings us back to getting there.The Internet thinks it needs to change all the time. Websites constantly push new standards, and everything from browsers to operating systems to hardware have to play a game of catch-up. When Cody was unwrapped in early December, some of its Internet software was already obsolete.

Will this cycle continue?

Of course it quite probably will.

And that is a bit sad.

Making It Easy, Making It Work

As I've written before, the Android OS is beautiful, yet really not particularly useful for older computers; between its Linux kernel that requires Pentium series processors, to the lack of device drivers for older equipment, as it comes out of the box it still has a long way to go. There is also a lack of real applications that can store information locally on the device itself.

While I haven't tried it, it seems that the Chrome OS seems to have the same short comings.

Yet, they both have real potential. They have low RAM overhead, they can run on somewhat older equipment, and both have real easy to understand interfaces.

Definitely a step in the right direction.

What is desperately needed is that sort of thinking applied to more mainstream Linux. Imagine a lightweight interface similar to Android or Chrome running on trim, yet somewhat complete, kernel that supports older equipment. An entire generation of machines could be made useful once more.

Now imagine going one step further and taking this thinking to the other primary processor of that period, the PowerPC. Imagine an old iBook clamshell running a modern operating system effectively and smoothly.

Imagine if this interface could support lightweight Linux applications that normally require X Windows and would be capable of real work.

That is the direction we need to go.

Certainly sounds easy enough...

It's Not A Big Request, Really...

For the past few weeks, I have been curious about the two Google operating systems, Android and the Chrome OS. For the task of repuposing old computers, both seemed to hold much promise.

Of course, that was only on the outside. After playing with Android on my ThinkPad T23, I am no longer sure. It really does seem to be tailored for mobile devices only, not computers. It had a hard time with most basic tasks that would be handled on a regular computer. Most of the applications designed for it are meant really network centered. In fact, the entire operating system seems to lean that way.

Sadly, it seems that Chrome is also designed around doing everything on the Internet. Without a connection, as one commentor wrote, you essentially have a brick.

But the interface on both seems so lovely. Android, especially, is lightweight and somewhat nimble. Its complete lack of support for older hardware, however, is problematic.

This brings us full circle back to a more regular Linux with a windows manager.

Which is sad.

Not because most of these window managers are bad, not at all. What's sad is the fact that what the novice computer user needs is a simple, easy to understand interface. Android and Chrome have that. The ones that have that in Linux tend towards top heavy in requirements.

Years ago, there was a GUI known as PC GEOS. This was a derivative of the original 8-bit GEOS that was released in the late 1980's for the Apple II and Commodore 64 series of computers. Unlike its 8-bit roots, PC GEOS was very advanced and modern and boasted some amazing features. One of those features was a scaled interface. The user selected the level of interface they desired, from beginner to advanced. This made for a great way to advance at a pace that the user was comfortable with.

That's what we need now.

And it needs to be lightweight if this is to work.