Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 72
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_memory View Post
    ...or on top of Windows Mobile, which they already have running and certified on their hardware platform.

    Just sayin.
    I think you've got the right idea.


    Q. Does this mean Palm, Inc., can use Palm OS Garnet on a Windows Mobile-based device from Palm, Inc.?

    A. Yes. However, it should be noted that Palm will only be able to use the Palm OS trademark for products that meet the compatibility requirements, verified through the compatibility test harness used by ACCESS and Palm.


    http://www.access-company.com/develo.../palm_faq.html


    Perhaps there will no longer be a distinction between P and W Treos!


    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta
    Actually, how cool would it be to have a 420x420 Palm Treo running say WM5 Crossbow and have it include/integrate StyleTap for running PalmOS?
    I'm not familiar with how StyleTap works, but I imagine Palm would be able to make Garnet apps run much more seamlessly than StyleTap can since they'll be able to integrate at the OS level.

    I've already decided; that's going to be my next Treo.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Time to market is actually a Linux vice, due to the amount of customization that needs to be done by OEM's. That is actually the balance between using "free Linux" (with longer and costlier development) or costly licensed software (but less development costs).
    Do you have some info on that? This what Access has to say:

    "We believe that ALP combines best-in-class open source Linux components with proven mobile technologies developed by PalmSource and ACCESS' Linux expertise," said Toru Arakawa, president and CEO of ACCESS, Co., Ltd. "As a commercial-grade, flexible, open, robust and standards-based mobile Linux based platform, ALP is designed to provide handset manufacturers with faster time-to-market while supporting the goal of operators to offer revenue-generating services, applications and content."


    It's not completely clear as to what Arakawa is comparing ALP. He might just mean it will be faster than other Linux solutions or he could mean that it will be faster than non-Linux OSs too. Either way, given his position, a large pinch of salt is obviously required.

    EDIT. Link: http://www.palmsource.com/press/2006...xplatform.html
    Last edited by marcol; 12/08/2006 at 03:46 AM.
  3. #43  
    EDIT: Deleted duplicate post.
  4. #44  
    What Palm has to say:

    http://investor.palm.com/pressdetail...leaseID=221399

    Of note:

    No direct reference to the 'test/compatibility harness' mentioned by Access but they do say:

    The company plans to ensure that applications now compatible with Palm OS Garnet will operate with little or no modification in future Palm products that employ Palm OS Garnet as the company evolves it over time to support Palm's product differentiation strategy.

    A clear acknowledgement that a change to the underlying OS is on the radar:

    In addition, Palm has secured an expansion of its existing patent license from ACCESS to cover all current and future Palm products, regardless of the underlying operating system.

    They're planning a two OS future:

    Just as it will continue to enhance Palm OS, Palm will continue to support and further innovate on its implementation of Windows Mobile 5.0 Pocket PC Edition, which it licenses from Microsoft. By supporting both operating systems, Palm gives its customers -- from carriers and enterprises to consumers and small businesses -- a choice of operating environment.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by marcol View Post
    Do you have some info on that? This what Access has to say:

    "We believe that ALP combines best-in-class open source Linux components with proven mobile technologies developed by PalmSource and ACCESS' Linux expertise," said Toru Arakawa, president and CEO of ACCESS, Co., Ltd. "As a commercial-grade, flexible, open, robust and standards-based mobile Linux based platform, ALP is designed to provide handset manufacturers with faster time-to-market while supporting the goal of operators to offer revenue-generating services, applications and content."


    It's not completely clear as to what Arakawa is comparing ALP. He might just mean it will be faster than other Linux solutions or he could mean that it will be faster than non-Linux OSs too. Either way, given his position, a large pinch of salt is obviously required.

    EDIT. Link: http://www.palmsource.com/press/2006...xplatform.html
    This is pretty old, but whatever advance Linux may have made in intergration, obviously has happened on the Windows CE side also.

    A survey of embedded device developers claims a 4:1 development cost advantage in using Windows embedded platforms over Linux ones. By happy coincidence the report was funded by Microsoft, and will no doubt therefore be playing its part in Redmond's current 'get Linux' campaigns, but nevertheless it should not be dismissed out of hand - its numbers do have a certain validity, and warrant examination, although the report may not ask all of the right questions.

    The obvious question it doesn't ask Linux developers is, if it's so darned expensive, why are you doing this to yourselves? It claims average total cost of development for using Windows XP Embedded, Windows CE.NET and embedded Linux respectively at $438,000, $510,450 and $1,888,458. Within this, Linux development tools are more expensive, time to market is almost double (14.3 months versus 8.1 months), Linux developers are paid more, Linux development teams are bigger, and total runtime licensing costs are far higher, because while much comes free with Windows, Linux projects typically require more components to be bought in.

    Pretty damning stuff? You can get Jerry Krasner report with all the raw data here, then join us in taking a shot at the 'why are they doing this to themselves' question.

    Krasner surveyed 50 outfits developing for Windows and 50 for Linux, covering the standard range of devices. For reasons of commercial confidentiality it clearly wasn't possible for him to go too far in identifying particular products, but given the fairly small number in each category (e.g. one each for consumer electronics and gateway/server for Windows, also just the one for Linux POS/kiosk) there's a lot of scope for single projects to screw up the averages, and there's no way to match the level of resources expended with the relative complexity of particular projects, aside from crossing your fingers that distortions will average out.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07...aster_cheaper/

    ALP wont be free, so i would not consider it virgin Linux.

    Surur
  6. #46  
    As far as Palm "ensuring compatibility", have we all forgotten how many apps are broken from one Garnet Treo to the next? Developers usually step in to "fix" what Palm broke, but I seriously doubt that high-end apps will work on the PalmLunix OS without some serious effort by Marc Blank etal.
    A new Avatar to commemorate Silly Season.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    This is pretty old, but whatever advance Linux may have made in intergration, obviously has happened on the Windows CE side also.
    Thanks. In the source data the 'Handheld Computer' device category ('PDAs, portable data terminals, mobile phones') includes 7 CE and 12 Linux devices. Mean times to market: CE 7.57 months, Linux 12.25 months. Unpaired t test with Welch correction (which I think that is the right test: Kolmogorov and Smirnov says both data sets have Gausian distribution) gives two-tailed P value of 0.0687. My stats package says this is 'considered not quite significant'. Also, lumping together PDAs, portable data terminals and phones is rather silly and there are a host of other variables that aren't detailed in the report. A cynic might put it this way. If Microsoft gave me a bunch of cash to compare embedded devices I'd go and find experienced CE device developers making simple devices and compare them to inexperienced Linux developers making complex devices - and be pretty certain of giving Microsoft the answer they wanted
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by skfny View Post
    As far as Palm "ensuring compatibility", have we all forgotten how many apps are broken from one Garnet Treo to the next? Developers usually step in to "fix" what Palm broke, but I seriously doubt that high-end apps will work on the PalmLunix OS without some serious effort by Marc Blank etal.
    You think that's bad? Going from S60v2 to S60v3 Nokia broke them all!
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by marcol View Post
    Thanks. In the source data the 'Handheld Computer' device category ('PDAs, portable data terminals, mobile phones') includes 7 CE and 12 Linux devices. Mean times to market: CE 7.57 months, Linux 12.25 months. Unpaired t test with Welch correction (which I think that is the right test: Kolmogorov and Smirnov says both data sets have Gausian distribution) gives two-tailed P value of 0.0687. My stats package says this is 'considered not quite significant'. Also, lumping together PDAs, portable data terminals and phones is rather silly and there are a host of other variables that aren't detailed in the report. A cynic might put it this way. If Microsoft gave me a bunch of cash to compare embedded devices I'd go and find experienced CE device developers making simple devices and compare them to inexperienced Linux developers making complex devices - and be pretty certain of giving Microsoft the answer they wanted
    True, but I think the flood of cookie cutter WM smartphones from any different ODM's (Quanta, Asustek, Compal, LG etc) now entering the market does suggest its rather easy to make one. Also Win CE is widely used in other devices e.g. GPS PND's and medical machines etc. Its apparently very easy to get up and running.

    Surur
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    True, but I think the flood of cookie cutter WM smartphones from any different ODM's (Quanta, Asustek, Compal, LG etc) now entering the market does suggest its rather easy to make one. Also Win CE is widely used in other devices e.g. GPS PND's and medical machines etc. Its apparently very easy to get up and running.
    I guess it will be interesting to see how quickly similar smartphones are delivered on Crossbow and ALP. I'd guess more quickly on the former because of all the experience ODMs have with WM5 (and Crossbow doesn't look to be very different). A better comparison might be ALP and Photon or even ALP 2.0 and Photon. All this assuming of course that ALP ever gets finished and someone actually wants to put it onto a device. Even more fun: which will be a) first to RTM, b) first available on a device, ALP or Palm's (heavily rumoured) Linux offering? It's quite possible that the answers to a) and b) will be different. Perhaps Apple, Nokia (to some extent) and Palm-as-was have spoiled me, but I'm a fan of companies making both the OS and the hardware.
  11. #51  
    I read about it some more. It sound like its a good deal to Palm as it gains more control of the old code base. Basically it means whichever OS wins, Palm still has access to the old user base and can offer smooth upgrade path to the current users.

    Doesn't mean Palm will have cutting edge technology to expend the market, but it probably will make people who has invested in a lot of Treo software and accessories happy.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    Actually, how cool would it be to have a 420x420 Palm Treo running say WM5 Crossbow and have it include/integrate StyleTap for running PalmOS?

    Eh, that'd never satisfy the PalmOS die-hards but it'd still be cool
    It'd be a kind of bitter pill to swallow for the Palm partisans, and I count myself among those...

    ...but **** it. It's been over four years since Palm bought Be and started the Cobalt project, and we have exactly nothing to show for it. At this point, my personal benchmark for "is it really a Palm" has dwindled down to:

    • will it continue to use my Palm addressbook and phone apps?
    • will it continue to speak HotSync?
    • can it run Vindigo, STRIP, SnapperMail and GoogleMaps natively?
    • is it less ugly and screen-wasting than WM5?
    • does it have threaded SMS?

    It's not a high bar to pass, and if they can do it by rehosting Garnet on top of WM5 or WM6, I'll suck it up and buy it.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_memory View Post
    is it less ... screen-wasting than WM5?
    I thought WM consistently fitted more info per screen than native POS?

    Surur
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I thought WM consistently fitted more info per screen than native POS?

    Surur
    Since you use WM, you may know better, but doesn't it have the soft keys on the bottom and the persistent title bar on top?
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever7 View Post
    I will say this. If ALP is released on a different phone with the POS competibility layer, I will get that before I get a Treo 700p++. In the long run I don't care if the Palm/Treo brand name will survive.
    I think it is little to soon to say that. I have heard from developers that ALP is nothing to write home about.
  16. Jdoc's Avatar
    Posts
    150 Posts
    Global Posts
    152 Global Posts
    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Since you use WM, you may know better, but doesn't it have the soft keys on the bottom and the persistent title bar on top?
    Yes it does. But:

    1. Basically all WM native apps have an option to go Full Screen, for example Pocket IE can completely eliminate both bars for a full screen view.

    2. The fonts with ClearType and the way the information is presented make sure to use every pixel of the screen.

    PalmOS at 320x320 UI is like a glorified 160x160 Display UI. It just makes the images and icons crisper.
    Last edited by Jdoc; 12/08/2006 at 08:52 PM.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandorr View Post
    I think it is little to soon to say that. I have heard from developers that ALP is nothing to write home about.
    The beauty of Linux is that one developer doesn't have to take up the burden of writing good codes. And I want ALP just becuase this is going to be the first "real" Linux PDA phone. Motorola's Linux phones don't count becuase it's closed platform, you can run nothing but java app on it. When a ALP phone is available, it will be more hackable and more modable in term of UI and that's good enough for me.

    Linux phone will eventually become popular regardless of ALP, since there is a need for an alternate platform to rival WM and Symbrian (if you count it as a smartphone platform). Kind of like how the western video game developers are gravitate toward xbox because there is a need for an alternate gaming platform to keep Sony honest. It's just a matter of time, how success will ALP be we don't know.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever7 View Post
    ... there is a need for an alternate platform to rival WM and Symbrian (if you count it as a smartphone platform).
    I'd be interested to hear your definition of 'smartphone' if it excludes Symbian!

    Here's what Steve Ballmer has to say:

    When it comes to smart devices, there really aren't that many players. Basically, you have Nokia/Symbian, you've got us. Actually, I'll be so bold as to say that the two of us stand out in that area.


    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6...ml?tag=st.next
  19. #59  
    Who care what Ballmer say, he doesn't buy christmas gift for me. I want touchscreen on my phone.
  20. #60  
    I wish Steve would stop buying gifts for me. I hate wearing v-neck sweaters.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions