Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48
  1.    #1  
    Just checking something quick ... the plan for Nova is to be compatible Palm OS software, correct? It's hard to imagine Palm OS would abandon 20,000 titles (arguably the best thing they have going for them) with the new OS. It's also hard to imagine it would be taking so long if they weren't working to make this happen.

    I've not heard anything official, so just curious as I continue my waffling on what platform to go to next.

    Thanks!
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cascade View Post
    It's also hard to imagine it would be taking so long if they weren't working to make this happen.
    Well, operating systems aren't built overnight.
    Did you know:

    webOS ran on a Treo 800 during initial development.
  3. #3  
    ask the guys who are supposedly making saguaro. lol
  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by dkirker View Post
    Well, operating systems aren't built overnight.
    I hope that's the reason. Overnight is quite awhile in this case, however. The Palm OS hasn't changed in a very, very long time - they've had the equivalent decades in the tech world to put it together. Heck, Android seems to be coming together in months. OS 5 was introduced in 2002, I believe - 6 years ago! Even that wasn't a huge change from OS 4. I'm just saying I hope there's a good reason it's taking forever....
  5. #5  
    I am kind of lost with your statement...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cascade View Post
    I hope that's the reason. Overnight is quite awhile in this case, however.
    It takes more than a month or two to get an OS going (either brand spanking new with its own new kernel, or one based off of an existing kernel).

    Quote Originally Posted by Cascade View Post
    The Palm OS hasn't changed in a very, very long time - they've had the equivalent decades in the tech world to put it together. Heck, Android seems to be coming together in months.
    Google has been working on Android ever since they acquired the company, Android, in 2005. It has been 2 years, which would imply that Google has had > 1 year in development.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cascade View Post
    OS 5 was introduced in 2002, I believe - 6 years ago! Even that wasn't a huge change from OS 4. I'm just saying I hope there's a good reason it's taking forever....
    OS 4 != OS 5 != Palm's next thing.

    The development times for OS 4 and OS 5 as well as the life times for the OSes cannot be used as a factor in the development time of Palm's next thing.

    And, there is far more changes from OS 4 to OS 5 than visible. OS 5 runs on a completely different CPU architecture than OS 4, and, to my understanding, has a completely different kernel (the core of the OS).

    I wouldn't say that it is taking forever. As I stated before, there is a lot going into writing an OS. You can't just give the user a kernel and send them on their way. You need device drivers, a UI, support applications and support services that developers can use. These take time and effort. Then of course, there is testing.... And more testing... And.... Yeah, you get the picture. More testing.
    Did you know:

    webOS ran on a Treo 800 during initial development.
  6. #6  
    I understand what you are saying but there is no excuse for the lack of development at palm for the last three to five years.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by got-hosting View Post
    I understand what you are saying but there is no excuse for the lack of development at palm for the last three to five years.
    Management change?

    They did change CEOs in 2003/2004. I am sure that many projects were axed and things stirred around.

    Managing a company isn't like driving a car. Decisions can take months and even years to manifest.

    Sometimes a company will spend two or three years on a project then the decision will be made to abandon everything relating to the project and start somewhere else. Sometimes for very good reasons.
    Did you know:

    webOS ran on a Treo 800 during initial development.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by got-hosting View Post
    I understand what you are saying but there is no excuse for the lack of development at palm for the last three to five years.
    PalmOS (Garnet) has been owned by an entirely separate company (PalmSource/ACCESS) since 2003. Palm was able to acquire the rights to modify Garnet only in December 2006. Before then, they could modify Garnet no more than they could modify Windows Mobile.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    PalmOS (Garnet) has been owned by an entirely separate company (PalmSource/ACCESS) since 2003. Palm was able to acquire the rights to modify Garnet only in December 2006.
    Those facts only compound the sheer stupidity on the part of Palm for losing control of something so vital for its future. Palm has known and *supposedly* been working on a successor to PalmOS for at least 8 years if not more. Of course the failure of Cobalt has a lot to do with the predicament their in right now...

    Here is what was said about Cobalt in 2004 (has a familar tone to it no?):
    PalmSource CEO David Nagel called Cobalt, "the most important piece of software [PalmSource has] ever delivered, a revolutionary OS that will have as big an impact as the original Palm OS."
    Can't keep making these huge blunders and expect to survive...
  10. #10  
    Spinning off PalmSource was stupid. That was the mistake that Palm made in 2003.

    Palm has known and *supposedly* been working on a successor to PalmOS for at least 8 years if not more.
    You know this is untrue, right? You seem to be in denial about the fact that Palm and PalmSource became independent companies.

    Can't keep making these huge blunders and expect to survive...
    You're talking about PalmSource? They got acquired by ACCESS.
  11. #11  
    The fact remains that for whatever reason, a new Palm OS failed to be developed in a timely manner by Palm. No amount of excuses changes that. Whatever choices they did or didn't make contributed to this.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  12. #12  
    Not for whatever reason. No excuses. Eric Benhamou made a mistake in spinning off PalmSource. That led to all their OS problems.

    It's simply false to say that Palm has been working on an update to PalmOS for 5+ years. It's wrong to imply that Palm could have updated PalmOS after 2003 and before December 2006.

    If you took over as CEO of Palm in 2004, there's nothing you could have done to produce an update to PalmOS.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by The Phone Diva View Post
    The fact remains that for whatever reason, a new Palm OS failed to be developed in a timely manner by Palm. No amount of excuses changes that. Whatever choices they did or didn't make contributed to this.
    You are blaming the wrong corporate entity.

    Palm had ZERO ability to legally develop an OS after PalmSource was spun off in 2003. PalmSource continually failed to deliver: Cobalt, PalmOS on Linux, contractual obligations, etc.

    As samkim stated, Palm only recently got the rights (through a $$$ perpetual license agreement with Access, successor to PalmSource) to do so. But, they do not have rights to develop on Palm Desktop, thus the crapulous Vista version from Access. Palm can pay Access more $$$ for that privilege and then waste resources on bringing in the enhancements they made to Palm Desktop 4.1.x or Palm can use their resources to bring us a new OS, which has no ties to Access.
  14. #14  
    PALM is the one who made that spin-off decision right? Therefore PALM is responsible for up Palm OS development! Now whether or not they thought PalmSource would do a better or faster job, I don't know, but the fact remains PALM screwed up and lost control over it's own OS. When it did that, look what happened, absolutely no progress whatsover!

    No amount of excuses avoids that. Now should we feel sorry for Palm and cut them slack for making a mistake? I don't know, because they seem almost as slow moving and ineffective as PalmSource! We'll see by 2009 if the wait was worth it.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  15. #15  
    Palm Shareholders had to approve the spin-off.
  16. #16  
    No excuses. No slack. Palm made a mistake. Actually it was Eric Benhamou and the Board of Palm from 2001 to 2003. Benhamou is gone. I don't know how much of that Board is left.

    As for slow, they've been working on the OS for less than a year and a half.
  17. #17  
    Foleo 5 years in developement, OS 1 1/2. OK.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Spinning off PalmSource was stupid. That was the mistake that Palm made in 2003.

    You know this is untrue, right? You seem to be in denial about the fact that Palm and PalmSource became independent companies.
    So that's like saying Bob and Alice "became" pregnant... Hello?!? it takes an ACTIVE decision... Palm DECIDED to split off PalmSource... they didn't just "become" independent companies.

    But Palm/PalmSource was working on a successor to PalmOS BEFORE they decided to split (i.e. before Palm stupidly decided to spin off PalmSource)... something that would eventually become the failure known as Cobalt. So yes, Palm *has* been working on a successor (several in fact) to PalmOS for many years... AS WELL THEY SHOULD HAVE...

    because if you argue that Palm hasn't been working on a successor for many years, that only increases even further how stupid Palm has been...

    And calling it a "mistake" (singular) just doesn't cut it... you can't call a 5-8 year period of stupidity a "mistake"... it is a series of continuing blunders, miscalculations and general incompetence... not just one "mistake"...
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by neurocutie View Post
    So that's like saying Bob and Alice "became" pregnant... Hello?!? it takes an ACTIVE decision... Palm DECIDED to split off PalmSource... they didn't just "become" independent companies.

    But Palm/PalmSource was working on a successor to PalmOS BEFORE they decided to split (i.e. before Palm stupidly decided to spin off PalmSource)... something that would eventually become the failure known as Cobalt. So yes, Palm *has* been working on a successor (several in fact) to PalmOS for many years... AS WELL THEY SHOULD HAVE...

    because if you argue that Palm hasn't been working on a successor for many years, that only increases even further how stupid Palm has been...
    You said, "Palm has known and *supposedly* been working on a successor to PalmOS for at least 8 years if not more." That's untrue. But instead of admitting that you made a false claim, you proceed to argue that they've been working on it "for many years." As if that's the same thing. Now would be a good time to admit that you were wrong.

    And you violently agree with me that Palm's decision to spin-off PalmSource was a mistake.

    And calling it a "mistake" (singular) just doesn't cut it... you can't call a 5-8 year period of stupidity a "mistake"... it is a series of continuing blunders, miscalculations and general incompetence... not just one "mistake"...
    I agree that Palm made many mistakes over the years. But we're talking about Palm's lack of a new OS. My point was that this was the result of a decision made in 2003.

    If you took over as CEO in 2004, what would you have done differently to have produced a successor OS faster? Please list these many blunders, miscalculations, and acts of incompetence that Palm made after the spin-off that specifically contributed to the lack of a new OS.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You said, "Palm has known and *supposedly* been working on a successor to PalmOS for at least 8 years if not more." That's untrue. But instead of admitting that you made a false claim, you proceed to argue that they've been working on it "for many years." As if that's the same thing. Now would be a good time to admit that you were wrong.
    You haven't produced one shred of evidence to support your claim that Palm didn't start working on a successor to PalmOS until 1.5 years ago. In fact as I said, that assertion alone is ridiculous en face... to think that Palm hadn't thought about, starting conceiving, spec'ing and design a new PalmOS until 1.5 years is absolutely insane...

    Just a cursory search reveals a number of reports and PRPRPR'$s$ $in$ $the$ $2001$ $and$ $2002$ $time$ $frame$ $in$ $which$ $PalmOS$ $6$ ($Cobalt$) $is$ $discussed$, $and$ $the$ $future$ $roadmap$ $of$ $PalmOS$ -- $obviously$ $Palm$ $had$ $to$ $have$ $been$ $working$ $on$ $the$ $future$ $PalmOS$ $for$ $at$ $least$ $months$ $prior$ $to$ $any$ $such$ $reports$.

    Furthermore, I'm sure you'll remember that Palm acquired BeOS in mid-2001 (7 years ago), with the express purpose of building a foundation for a new PalmOS. Here is what was written in 2001 about it:
    The technology and people from Be are highly regarded,'' said Carl Yankowski, Palm chief executive officer. "We look forward to them joining forces with our own outstanding engineers on future versions of the Palm OS."
    ...
    According to a report in SD Times, Palm intends to use BeOS code for a new 32-bit Palm OS operating system to be released in the second half of 2002...Nagel said that the new OS will have support for ARM 7 processors, incorporate extensive multithreading and multitasking capabilities, and offer improved security.
    ...
    David Nagel, president and CEO of Palm's newly formed Platform Solutions Group, said that with the acquisition of the BeOS operating system, the company is on the way to adopting a 32-bit operating system to compete with Microsoft.
    Now, you don't just decide to acquire a whole company and OS technology in one day. But if you want to call me "wrong" in believing that Palm had been planning their new OS strategy for at least many months (i.e. 8 years ago) prior to their acquisition of Be, Inc in mid-2001, fine, call me "wrong"...

    In any case, since you asked... you also stated:
    It's simply false to say that Palm has been working on an update to PalmOS for 5+ years.
    Maybe you'd be willing to admit that that statement of yours is wrong...

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I agree that Palm made many mistakes over the years. But we're talking about Palm's lack of a new OS. My point was that this was the result of a decision made in 2003.

    If you took over as CEO in 2004, what would you have done differently to have produced a successor OS faster? Please list these many blunders, miscalculations, and acts of incompetence that Palm made after the spin-off that specifically contributed to the lack of a new OS.
    I never said that all of these blunders were made after the spinoff... obviously the waste of BeOS and the failure of Cobalt were two big blunders made before *and* after the spinoff.

    Yes, we agree that the spinoff was a HUGE mistake, but my issue with your viewpoint is that you seem to think that its "okay" to blame EVERYTHING about their current OS problems on that ONE mistake -- a single-point failure, as it were... and I think that's nonsense. Palm made serious mistakes *before* 2003 and *after* 2003.

    Its obviously difficult to be able to accurately pin point specific mistakes on issues like this unless you have insider knowledge -- certainly even Palm admits the Foleo was a mistake that drained precious resources from their main missions (which includes the PalmOS successor). And whether Palm could have worked things out much better with Access/ALP than simply snub their noses at ALP and decide to roll their own new Linux PalmOS... again hard to guess.

    But as Phone Diva has argued... that was 2003... Palm says no new OS til 2009... that's SIX YEARS!!! It really doesn't matter whether we on the outside can accurately pinpoint specific mistakes and blunders... the bottomline speaks for itself... if it takes SIX YEARS (or 8 years) to come up with a successor to PalmOS, then ipso facto, *huge* mistakes and blunders were made (not just one mistake in 2003)...

    How long did it take Apple, Google, Limo, Motorola, etc to produce each of their new phone OS's ? Not 6 years... I know... (string of excuses about Garnet compatibility, Access licensing, limited resources of Palm as a small company, yadayada...)... sorry, doesn't cut it, bottomline... just ask the market if it will accept Palm's excuses...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions