mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (Mike Ungerman) (11/22/90)
Seen at Comdex: What will the next generation of computers hold for us? If the vision of the hardware and software developers comes true, we will all be walking around with hand-held game sized 386's in our pockets. Seem far fetched? Intel is developing the technology for a computer on a chip (x86?). Microsoft sees the graphical user interface (GUI or gooie) as a prime vehicle for hand helds with script recognition/pen input. And several hardware manufacturers are already making pocket sized computers with keyboards; others are making keyboardless computers with touch recognition LCD screens. When the barrier is broken, it will put a computer in every pocket like there is a computer on almost every desktop. Computer literacy and extensive classes on how to use them should disappear. We'll all learn to "program" them like we learn to program our VCR's (heaven help us!) Mike Ungerman
kotlas@uncecs.edu (Carolyn M. Kotlas) (11/24/90)
Mike Ungerman writes: > ... Computer literacy and extensive classes on how to use them should > disappear. We'll all learn to "program" them like we learn to program > our VCR's (heaven help us!) Does this mean that we computer trainers and consultants had better start looking into other career paths before we're made obsolete?? Carolyn Kotlas
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (11/24/90)
You forgot voice (even crude audio I/O). I think I saw such a unit over the weekend not available in the US commercially at this time? Small, impressive. Consider more stuff like wrist sized units. e. nobuo miya
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Dan Herrick) (11/27/90)
> Mike Ungerman writes: >> ... Computer literacy and extensive classes on how to use them should >> disappear. We'll all learn to "program" them like we learn to program >> our VCR's (heaven help us!) Carolyn Kotlas responds: > Does this mean that we computer trainers and consultants had better > start looking into other career paths before we're made obsolete?? Don't be silly. It means that your market will be an order of magnitude bigger. Dan Herrick
rjg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Bob Gautier) (11/28/90)
I think the age of the handheld *computer* will be very short. We are just beginning to see reasonably powerful machines which can be hand held (e.g. the PalmTop). These will no doubt develop over the next few years. But we are also beginning to see the introduction of very widespread and fast digital communications, which I think will in the end remove the necessity for local computation. Over recent years, in moving from the single mainframe, to remote timesharing, to the personal computer, and finally to the X terminal, we have seen the balance between local and remote computing move. Currently we are using machines enormously more powerful than the machines we once used as standalone personal computers, simply as user interface servers. I think this will happen to the handheld too. It will be little more than a personal terminal -- a very intelligent cellular phone. Perhaps it will do voice recognition and synthesis locally -- this would allow remote applications to be speaker and maybe even language independent. Making the handheld the user interface, not the computer, will permit better standardisation of its functions, allowing much of it to be implemented in specially designed silicon (or whatever). Bob Gautier
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/30/90)
Bob Gautier writes: > But we are also beginning to see the introduction of very widespread and > fast digital communications, which I think will in the end remove the > necessity for local computation. We've heard this one before. The operations performed on data are increasingly extensive, local computation increasingly capable of doing it, and the volume of data is pushing increasingly hard on the available bandwidth. Rather than a pendulum swing back away from local computing, I consider the X terminal an abberation caused by the poor factoring of computation and bandwidth requirements in the X protocol. Peter da Silva
heerickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Dan Herrick) (11/30/90)
Bob Gautier writes: > .. we are also beginning to see the introduction of very widespread and > fast digital communications, which I think will in the end remove the > necessity for local computation. It is nice to have a computer available, right at hand, so to speak. > Over recent years, in moving from the single mainframe, to remote > timesharing, to the personal computer, and finally to the X terminal, > we have seen the balance between local and remote computing move. > Currently we are using machines enormously more powerful than the machines > we once used as standalone personal computers, simply as user interface > servers. But a similar machine is being used by someone down the hall as his standalone personal computer. Both configurations are needed. > I think this will happen to the handheld too. It will be little more than > a personal terminal -- a very intelligent cellular phone... The cellular phone is more than a communication device. It continually broadcasts the physical location of its user to one of the two local cellular phone systems - thus there is a large computer belonging to a local utility that always knows where the cellular phone user is. Some people will avoid, on principal, giving away such information. One of the important uses for the laptop computer is to allow one to continue work or play while travelling, including air travel. I once tried to use an Air Phone while spending an unplanned two hours sitting in an airplane. That technology does not work as well as cellular phones on the ground. A computer access device that does not work well on an airplane would be crippled from the point of view of an important part of the market (the part that pays high prices to have it first). Electromagnetic Spectrum space is a critical resource. The cellular allocations can accomodate ten times as much traffic as they are getting now, maybe even a hundred, but not ten thousand times. This is a technical problem and solvable. Users of cellular phones (and personal wireless phones) don't seem to realize that they are essentially standing up in the middle of a crowded stadium and shouting. Anyone who wants to listen to their conversation can. Many people who do NOT use such devices do realize that they are broadcasting stations. You probably use your computer to compute your taxes and plan your budget. Do you want to do this in such a way that anyone who wants to look over your shoulder can? Do you really believe everybody does? I keep an elaborate personal financial database on my hard disk in my computer. I won't keep it on his hard disk on his computer. He will plan security on his computer to protect his data. I don't pay rent every month for the space that holds that data base. I don't want to. In summary, there is a market for the centralized system you propose. However, there is a market for decentralized systems, and now that we have them, no one will take them away from us. Dan Herrick
lindsay@watnow.waterloo.edu (Lindsay Patten) (12/04/90)
Peter da Silva notes: > Rather than a pendulum swing back away from local computing, I consider > the X terminal an abberation caused by the poor factoring of computation > and bandwidth requirements in the X protocol. On the other hand the X terminal can be viewed as an easy to use interface to centralized resources. Not everyone wants to deal with all the hassles of running their own workstation. I can stick an X terminal on a prof's desk and they can use it immediately with minimal support required. A lot of people are willing to pay someone else to deal with administrative chores and minimizing the complexity of the remote (user) system helps. I certainly don't want a completely centralized system but I do think there is a huge mass of people out there that want the simplest possible system sitting on their desk with someone else dealing with tech. stuff. Lindsay Patten
gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) (12/06/90)
Bob Gautier writes: > I think the age of the handheld *computer* will be very short. We are > just beginning to see reasonably powerful machines which can be hand held > (e.g. the PalmTop). One problem with small machines is that it is difficult and slow input data. Yes, that will change when we can speak or scan to input, but in the meantime those small devices are just too impractical. > But we are also beginning to see the introduction of very widespread and > fast digital communications, which I think will in the end remove the > necessity for local computation. Well, from a privacy standpoint, we should prefer local computation. There are good economic arguments to made for either local or central computation. The cost of communication is just one variable. David Gast
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (12/06/90)
Lindsay Patten writes: > On the other hand the X terminal can be viewed as an easy to use interface > to centralized resources. Not everyone wants to deal with all the hassles > of running their own workstation. While this is true, there are more efficient technologies that provide the same remote capability such as NeWS or AT&T's DMD line of smart windowing terminals. But now you have the local terminal, while being completely diskless, doing a significant amount of local processing instead of just displaying bits received over the net. Peter da Silva
a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) (12/06/90)
Lindsay Patten writes: > On the other hand the X terminal can be viewed as an easy to use interface to > centralized resources. Not everyone wants to deal with all the hassles of > running their own workstation. The hassles of a present-day personal workstation are a matter of poor design or of giving ease-of-use low priority as a design criteria. In fact, I don't think it makes a difference whether the resources are central or local; it's all a matter of interface design criteria. Nick Janow
mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (Mike Ungerman) (12/10/90)
Since everyone seems to think that a hand held computer is too small for "regular" and "power" applications, how about taking that technology and putting the whole thing in a standard sized keyboard? Then a typical desk top system would consist of a keyboard with plugs/jacks on the back and internal 2" hard drive and a monitor or color LCD screen. Mike Ungerman
szabo%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Nick Szabo) (12/10/90)
The data requirements of a team of people are often very complex. *Somebody* has to deal with that complexity. It is either centralized in the factory that makes the computer (as in the Mac), or centralized in the system administrator of the team. The latter case is better when the computer maker cannot anticipate all the needs of the team, and the team is forced to jump into the thicket to create an environment suitable for its work. Also, nobody has satisfactorilly solved the problem of making a network of computers easy to use. Thus, any significantly large team that must communicate data needs local system administration. Nick Szabo