Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1.    #1  
    Blazer 3.0 is a proxy-less browser. There are pros and cons to the current Blazer setup, which relies on a Handspring proxy for all requests. However, taking that proxy out of the picture we will be hit by an explosion of traffic compared to what we have today.

    I think someone is going to make money selling subscription proxy service for the Treo 600, something that (at least) reduces the depths of images.

    I tried the Treo 600 simulator from the SDK on my 2GHz laptop with net traffic routed through a T1 line. Going to cnn.com and watching 170+ K download so fast then watch it get rendered into the tiny screen took several seconds. Now squeezing that much traffic through a GPRS connection, you can imagine how long that would take!
  2. #2  
    I know. I was watching the byte counter

    Wow let me expand on that.

    Blazer 2.0 to www.fark.com -- single connection, 15K out, 137K in.

    Blazer 3.0 to www.fark.com -- 12 connections, 86K out, 258K in.

    On the bright side I think the incoming side is more compressed, I suspect primarily due to .gif .jpg graphics instead of those WAPpy ones. But on the down side there's a lot of connections, and that's what a proxy would help with.

    Still I think if you used your own caching proxy it might improve things. I'll have to try that.

    Wow I just tried with a crappy proxy. The above Blazer 3.0 test was showing 12 connections *with* HTTP 1.1. My crappy proxy doesn't have Keep-Alive support, and Blazer 3.0 made 76 connections!!!

    I tried squid which has Keep-Alive, and it still made 5 connection to the proxy. Better I guess. I really don't know why it didn't just use a single connection.
    Last edited by potatoho; 07/24/2003 at 07:07 PM.
  3. #3  
    I don't think the simulator is an accurate judgement of what the speed will be on the actual device. The simulator always runs much slower than the actual device, and has more to do with the processor on your computer than it does with the processor on the Treo 600.
  4. #4  
    The simulator is faster than the actual device in many ways. The simulator is built x86 native so the ROM apps are cruising at a pretty good clip.

    The one thing that is hard to gauge is the performance of the radio and its interaction with the device's network stack. I would say that the way Blazer 3.0 is using the network would not be workable on the Treo 300. Too many connections and too much outgoing traffic. Perhaps this is a good sign that the 600 has a better working radio/network.
  5. #5  
    Venturi Wireless [ http://www.venturiwireless.com ] (which does wireless compression for internet traffic) had avoided Palm-based clients in the past (probably because Blazer already did compression). Their client software does a pretty good job for Windows and Mac. They really need to reevaluate creating a Palm client.
  6. #6  
    According to Handspring the carriers do not want to hassle with proxy servers (understandable) thus Blazer 3+ won't be using them.

    Which, necessarily, begs the question:

    == How long will the CURRENT proxy servers be in place?

    Anyone read anything anywhere about their disappearance?
  7. #7  
    Actually, i am starting to see hints that carriers more wanted blazer not to hve a proxy, so they could either use their own already on the network, or so that they could charge extra for it. The SDK talks a bunch about proxies, but iit s unclear on what exactly them mean..
    -Michael Ducker
    TreoCentral Staff
  8. #8  
    The following service was featured on zdnet some time ago, it took me a while to find it again. It will work with the new Treo and will allow you to view the full screen mode or a pda view. The cost is very reasonable at $10 a year.
    http://www.greenlightwireless.net/services/skweezer.asp

    They have a demo that let's you actually see what websites will look like on different devices.
  9.    #9  
    Originally posted by miradu
    Actually, i am starting to see hints that carriers more wanted blazer not to hve a proxy, so they could either use their own already on the network, or so that they could charge extra for it. The SDK talks a bunch about proxies, but iit s unclear on what exactly them mean..
    It's clearly easier for the carriers to to not have to deal with an external requirement like a HS proxy, so I can see their point of view. I only hope that they emply accelerator-type technologies that reduces the color depth of images.

    Blazer 3.0 will do a good job in making a web page presentable on the small screen, in effect doing a lot of what the current HS proxy is doing. So one doesn't need a proxy that essentially redesigns the page layout for a given device. What's needed is something that compresses the sizes of the images so that the amount of data that has to reach the device isn't just too big, then Blazer 3.0 will do its job. I think many carriers have that kind of service built into their networks. If not, there should be 3rd party providers of such proxy servers.

Posting Permissions