Occasionally, I provide tech support, and the most common issue my clients have is an excessively slow computer. This happens to all computers over time (even Macs, but to a lesser extent I'm told). Disk fragmentation, malware, poorly written software and memory leaks all can contribute to this problem. What can be done to speed up an old, slow computer? There are several options:
1. Free up disk space: Although some tech experts suggest this (e.g. Microsoft), I don't recommend wasting your time with this. I'm mentioning only because it's commonly thought that this is an effective measure in speeding up your computer. It isn't. Unless you have less than, say, 10 GB of free disk space–a rarity in this day of obscenely large hard drives–this will likely do nothing to speed up your computer. The only thing deleting files will likely do is speed up the time it takes to load whatever folder you have cleaned up, which I suppose could be noticeable if you have hundreds of files on your desktop that can be deleted or moved into other folders.
2. Defragment your hard drive: Freeing up disk space can only speed up your computer if you have very little free disk space. However, disk fragmentation can occur even on large hard drives with lots of free disk space. Unless you have over 50% free space or have recently defragged, I'd give defragmenting a try.
To find Windows' defragmenting utility, go to My Computer (Windows XP) or Computer (Vista), select your C:\ drive, and launch the disk properties by holding down Alt and pressing Enter. Go to the Tools tab and press Defragment Now. Defragmenting can take several hours. I recommend defragging XP machines at least annually. Newer machines with larger hard drives may not need defragging as often.
Or, for much faster defragmenting, use a 3rd party disk defragmenter, like Auslogics Disk Defrag.
3. Remove Extra Programs: The most likely cause for a slow computer is the footprint left by installing programs. New services may be added, the registry is augmented, and new programs may run in the background, using up memory and processor time. All these things slow the computer down. The biggest offenders are malware and other programs that silently run in the background.
Whenever I remove programs to speed a computer, I always start with the web browser toolbars that are inevitably installed. This doesn't do much to speed up the computer but can speed up the user's Internet browser and these toolbars are almost always unused anyway. I then remove any other unnecessary programs, usually multiple copies of anti-virus software, anti-malware software, firewalls and other "helpful" programs. A single computer only needs one anti-virus program constantly combing the hard drive (I use AVG Free, but I also recommend avast! Free Antivirus, Norton, or McAfee). Other anti-malware programs are not as important, especially if you have Windows Vista or Windows 7, both of which have adequate built-in firewall and anti-malware programs. However, if you feel the need to supplement your anti-virus program, I'd suggest Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware or something similar to scan your computer weekly or less often. Having more than one program constantly scanning your computer is just going to bring your computer to a grinding halt.
There are other unnecessary programs that may be running in the background. Special screensavers, custom cursors, ubiquitous hardware utilities (the things HP installs on your computer before you buy it), and other alliterative programs are all "fun" utilities that often run in the background and are launched at startup. Check your lower-right taskbar for these programs and uninstall them if you can, or at least stop them from running at startup. Disabling programs from running at startup may require using MSCONFIG, which I don't recommend for anyone but advanced users. Windows Vista and 7 can simply use Windows Defender to disable programs that run at startup.
4. Restart: This may be an obvious one for some, but I had one client who was having speed problems with his computer because he simply hadn't restarted or powered down his computer in months. PCs need to be shut down every now and then. I'm not sure how often, but I'd recommend restarting weekly.
5. Add RAM: The problem with your computer could be hardware. Upgrading to a faster (7400 rpm or SSD) hard drive or getting a faster processor would definitely speed things up. However, these fixes are expensive, time consuming and sometimes difficult if you are trying to put new parts in an old computer. The cost of getting the tech guys at Fry's to install a SSD and new processor can be more expensive than buying a new, low-end computer. A cheap, quick fix is to simply install more RAM. Simply find out what kind of RAM you have, buy more of it (512 MB – 1 GB is good for Windows XP, 4 – 6 GB is good for Windows Vista and 7), and pop that stick in your computer.
6. Fix your hard drive/registry: Other tech experts recommend things like scanning your hard drive for bad sectors and using registry cleaning utilities. Most hard drives that I have scanned don't have bad sectors. As for registry cleaning software, I've honestly never tried any.
7. Reinstall Windows: The nuclear option. Sure, it takes a long time to back up all your files, reinstall Windows, update Windows, reload all your files, and reinstall all your programs; but this will make your computer run like new again, unless you have a serious hardware problem. The older your computer is, the more noticeable the difference. If this doesn't work for you, it's time to buy a new computer.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Commentary: On Android Fragmentation
Question: Is Android fragmented?
Short Answer: Yeah.
Long Answer: Yeah, kinda, but who cares? Shut up.
Longer Answer: Well, let's first talk about what fragmentation means and why Android is fragmented.
Operating system fragmentation is the phenomenon when multiple versions of an operating system are available to consumers at the same time and the differences between OS versions cause difficulties for developers. For example, Rovio Mobile, the makers of the popular app "Angry Birds" recently blogged about their difficulty making the game work smoothly on older versions of Android. The game works fine on phones with better hardware and the latest versions of Android. However, if you are the unlucky owner of, say, a T-Mobile myTouch 3G, then your phone officially does not support Angry Birds (for now).
There are several versions of Android available—1.5, 1.6, 2.1, and, the current version, 2.2—and each OS is often customized with manufacturer's special user interfaces, such as Motorola's Motoblur and Samsung's TouchWiz. Additionally, there are hundreds of different Android phones running these different, possibly customized OSes, each with different hardware specs. Granted not all phones are currently for sale; some have been discontinued. But not every consumer can afford to upgrade every time a new Android phone is released and most consumers are locked into a two-year contract anyway.
It seems like the simple solution would be for carriers and manufacturers to allow users to download the latest version of Android on their Android phones, but they don't always allow this. One reason is that manufacturers need time to update their custom UI to work with the new version of the OS. I don't know why they wouldn't just let users forgo the custom UI and download the uncustomized ("stock") Android OS until the custom UI is updated. Another reason might be that the new OS requires too many resources for old phones with old hardware to handle. I honestly don't know the answer and whether the manufacturers or the carriers are more to blame.
Other smartphones (i.e. the iPhone) don't have to worry about this. There are only four iPhones in existence (original, 3G, 3GS, and 4) and the software is tightly controlled by Apple (and okayed by AT&T). Apple has made sure that the last three phones can run iOS 4, the latest version of their OS, and even if it's a bit slow on the 3G, Apple's getting better results than Google (case in point: several users state that Angry Birds works fine on the original iPhone). Apple only has one carrier to consult about visual voicemail and whether FaceTime should be allowed to run over 3G. Hardware and software decisions about the iPhone are simplified by the lack of diversity.
This is why Android is fragmented. Android is a free and open source OS and any phone manufacturer can put any version of Android on whatever phone they want, and the carrier can choose to let users update it or not. That's why you can still buy a Motorola Devour from Verizon today with Android 1.6 on it (with Motoblur), which Motorola refuses to update 2.2 or even 2.1.
Because of this fragmentation, developers who write apps for Android either have to test their software on a plethora of different custom Android builds using a bunch of different hardware, or they can take the easy route and test on a few phones running 2.1 and 2.2. Most developers seem to do the latter, leading to buggy apps on older hardware and older Android versions.
So, yes, Android is definitely fragmented, but is it Google's fault? I'd say no. It's manufacturers who release crappy hardware and put custom UIs on Android, preventing simple updates. It's carriers (I think) who act as the gatekeepers to OS updates, preventing and allowing updates when it suits them. What can Google do about it?
I suppose Google could better coordinate with manufacturers about minimum hardware specs for each OS, but this wouldn't necessarily prevent Android phone makers from releasing cheap phones. They could prevent access to Android Market (the premier place to find Android apps) for older versions of Android or overly customized OSes, but locking down the platform goes against the spirit of free, open source Android. I don't think there's much Google can do about Android fragmentation.
Additionally, we have to take into consideration that Android is a newer, faster moving OS. It came over a year after the first version of iPhone's OS and is arguably being updated faster as well. Andy Rubin, the "father" of Android, made the point:
Furthermore, one can make the case that, at least software-wise, fragmentation is not an issue. As of November 1st, 77% of Android devices are running 2.1 or 2.2, the most current versions of the OS.
Lastly, since the main culprits in fragmenting Android are the manufacturer and the carrier, consumers won't have any problems if they simply buy an Android phone from a good manufacturer-carrier combo. If you're buying a $50 Android phone or any Android phone from AT&T (who are infamous for locking down Android phones), then don't be surprised when you can't run the latest and greatest Android app.
So, yeah, Android phones are kinda fragmented, but who cares? Shut up.
Dadaist Answer: The beans left yodel for what it's worth when.
Update: A post on why iOS is fragmented, too, and why some fragmentation is expected; by Matt Maroon, a real, live app developer.
Short Answer: Yeah.
Long Answer: Yeah, kinda, but who cares? Shut up.
Longer Answer: Well, let's first talk about what fragmentation means and why Android is fragmented.
Operating system fragmentation is the phenomenon when multiple versions of an operating system are available to consumers at the same time and the differences between OS versions cause difficulties for developers. For example, Rovio Mobile, the makers of the popular app "Angry Birds" recently blogged about their difficulty making the game work smoothly on older versions of Android. The game works fine on phones with better hardware and the latest versions of Android. However, if you are the unlucky owner of, say, a T-Mobile myTouch 3G, then your phone officially does not support Angry Birds (for now).
There are several versions of Android available—1.5, 1.6, 2.1, and, the current version, 2.2—and each OS is often customized with manufacturer's special user interfaces, such as Motorola's Motoblur and Samsung's TouchWiz. Additionally, there are hundreds of different Android phones running these different, possibly customized OSes, each with different hardware specs. Granted not all phones are currently for sale; some have been discontinued. But not every consumer can afford to upgrade every time a new Android phone is released and most consumers are locked into a two-year contract anyway.
It seems like the simple solution would be for carriers and manufacturers to allow users to download the latest version of Android on their Android phones, but they don't always allow this. One reason is that manufacturers need time to update their custom UI to work with the new version of the OS. I don't know why they wouldn't just let users forgo the custom UI and download the uncustomized ("stock") Android OS until the custom UI is updated. Another reason might be that the new OS requires too many resources for old phones with old hardware to handle. I honestly don't know the answer and whether the manufacturers or the carriers are more to blame.
Other smartphones (i.e. the iPhone) don't have to worry about this. There are only four iPhones in existence (original, 3G, 3GS, and 4) and the software is tightly controlled by Apple (and okayed by AT&T). Apple has made sure that the last three phones can run iOS 4, the latest version of their OS, and even if it's a bit slow on the 3G, Apple's getting better results than Google (case in point: several users state that Angry Birds works fine on the original iPhone). Apple only has one carrier to consult about visual voicemail and whether FaceTime should be allowed to run over 3G. Hardware and software decisions about the iPhone are simplified by the lack of diversity.
This is why Android is fragmented. Android is a free and open source OS and any phone manufacturer can put any version of Android on whatever phone they want, and the carrier can choose to let users update it or not. That's why you can still buy a Motorola Devour from Verizon today with Android 1.6 on it (with Motoblur), which Motorola refuses to update 2.2 or even 2.1.
Because of this fragmentation, developers who write apps for Android either have to test their software on a plethora of different custom Android builds using a bunch of different hardware, or they can take the easy route and test on a few phones running 2.1 and 2.2. Most developers seem to do the latter, leading to buggy apps on older hardware and older Android versions.
So, yes, Android is definitely fragmented, but is it Google's fault? I'd say no. It's manufacturers who release crappy hardware and put custom UIs on Android, preventing simple updates. It's carriers (I think) who act as the gatekeepers to OS updates, preventing and allowing updates when it suits them. What can Google do about it?
I suppose Google could better coordinate with manufacturers about minimum hardware specs for each OS, but this wouldn't necessarily prevent Android phone makers from releasing cheap phones. They could prevent access to Android Market (the premier place to find Android apps) for older versions of Android or overly customized OSes, but locking down the platform goes against the spirit of free, open source Android. I don't think there's much Google can do about Android fragmentation.
Additionally, we have to take into consideration that Android is a newer, faster moving OS. It came over a year after the first version of iPhone's OS and is arguably being updated faster as well. Andy Rubin, the "father" of Android, made the point:
"Older Android devices that can't be upgraded to newer versions of the OS or run newer apps are no different than an iPhone from 2007 not being updated to OS 4. It's not fragmentation -- it's legacy. If so, legacy systems are now aging faster than ever before, due to a rate of innovation that has never been seen before in history."Because it's such a new, rapidly changing OS, some hiccups are expected. Android will eventually mature and hit its stride, reaching a point where OS updates are less significant and farther apart. App compatibility won't be much of an issue then.
- Michael Gartenberg, "Is Android fragmented or is this the new rate of innovation?"
Furthermore, one can make the case that, at least software-wise, fragmentation is not an issue. As of November 1st, 77% of Android devices are running 2.1 or 2.2, the most current versions of the OS.
Lastly, since the main culprits in fragmenting Android are the manufacturer and the carrier, consumers won't have any problems if they simply buy an Android phone from a good manufacturer-carrier combo. If you're buying a $50 Android phone or any Android phone from AT&T (who are infamous for locking down Android phones), then don't be surprised when you can't run the latest and greatest Android app.
So, yeah, Android phones are kinda fragmented, but who cares? Shut up.
Dadaist Answer: The beans left yodel for what it's worth when.
Update: A post on why iOS is fragmented, too, and why some fragmentation is expected; by Matt Maroon, a real, live app developer.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Policy: Warrantless GPS Tracking
On August 25, 2010, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that the DEA did not need a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to the underside of a Jeep belonging to Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon man suspected of growing marijuana. The device was attached to the Jeep while it was parked in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, arguing that the DEA would need a warrant to invade his privacy. A three-judge panel argued that Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private because it was open to strangers, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. And once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html)
Should it be legal to track a vehicle by GPS without obtaining a search warrant? As an engineer, I feel the need to weigh in on the legality of this situation revolving around possible abuse of new technology. The wisdom of the federal government's war on drugs is another interesting topic, but I'll leave that for other blogs.
The pro side is simple: using a GPS tracking device to monitor a suspect is no different from the perfectly legal act of waiting outside his home in an unmarked car and following him when he drives around town. In fact, it's safer because police don't have to drive erratically to follow the suspect in a vehicle. Police officers have a long history of attaching similar tracking devices to cars, such as radio transmitters ("beepers") that give off an audio signal when officers are close to the transmitter.
The con side is more complex because it requires one to be familiar with the technology, its limits, and its possible misuses. Many articles have been written about this already and make several good points, including:
One point I haven't seen made is that even if the device is attached in a public place and it is legal to track a vehicle's movements by GPS, at some point the vehicle may enter a private residence. If the police do not remotely shut off or destroy the device at that point, they are monitoring a person's movements on private property. I think any judge would agree that this would constitute an illegal search.
The GPS device could be turned off remotely if the officers tracking the vehicle saw the vehicle enter a private residence, but it seems unlikely that officers would continuously follow the vehicle around, given that the entire point of the device is that police don't have to follow the suspect in person.
Another way to prevent the device from monitoring private property would be to program the device to automatically stop tracking the vehicle when entering a private residence. This would require the GPS device to have a map of all private and public areas in a given region; the GPS device would have to differentiate from an (evidently) public driveway and the privacy of a homeowner's garage. Although online maps are pretty comprehensive, no map like this currently exists (that the public knows of) and even if the government put the effort and money into making such a map, it would be quickly outdated when a resident decides to remodel his property. In fact, such a map would surely be outdated before it could be completed.
At this point in time, it is impossible to prevent an illegal search once a GPS tracking device is attached to a vehicle (or person). In fact, if law enforcement officers continue to attach these devices to cars, an illegal search is inevitable. Because of this and the other reasons listed above, I would conclude that attaching GPS tracking device to a vehicle, person, or his personal belongings without a warrant constitutes a breach in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Should it be legal to track a vehicle by GPS without obtaining a search warrant? As an engineer, I feel the need to weigh in on the legality of this situation revolving around possible abuse of new technology. The wisdom of the federal government's war on drugs is another interesting topic, but I'll leave that for other blogs.
The pro side is simple: using a GPS tracking device to monitor a suspect is no different from the perfectly legal act of waiting outside his home in an unmarked car and following him when he drives around town. In fact, it's safer because police don't have to drive erratically to follow the suspect in a vehicle. Police officers have a long history of attaching similar tracking devices to cars, such as radio transmitters ("beepers") that give off an audio signal when officers are close to the transmitter.
The con side is more complex because it requires one to be familiar with the technology, its limits, and its possible misuses. Many articles have been written about this already and make several good points, including:
- "For starters, the invasion of Pineda-Moreno's driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the 'curtilage,' a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy." And by saying that his driveway was not private because people could wander onto it uninvited, they are allowing police to discriminate against poor and middle-class people who cannot afford to have electric gates, fences and security booths protecting the privacy of their homes.
- Adam Cohen, Lawyer, Former Time Writer - Tracking a person's movements with GPS devices is way more invasive than the act of trailing a suspect in public:
"We hold the whole of a person's movements over the course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the likelihood a stranger would observe all those movements is not just remote, it is essentially nil. It is one thing for a passerby to observe or even to follow someone during a single journey as he goes to the market or returns home from work. It is another thing entirely for that stranger to pick up the scent again the next day and the day after that, week in and week out, dogging his prey until he has identified all the places, people, amusements, and chores that make up that person's hitherto private routine."
- Judge Douglas Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on a similar warrantless GPS tracking device case - A GPS tracking device is more invasive than other, legal devices used to track suspects without a warrant (like a radio transmitter):
"Prior Supreme Court cases that allowed the warrantless use of tracking devices were based on the technological limitations of the devices available to at the time. In particular, the devices could only be used to supplement and aid traditional visual surveillance, and were unable to record data on a vehicles movement without human intervention. [….]
- Joshua Engel, Lawyer, Legal Blogger; on warrantless GPS tracking
"The protections provided by the Fourth Amendment, as the Supreme Court has often recognized, must change to meet new technology. Especially where the cases involve sustained and long-term surveillance of a targeted individual unrelated to any particular criminal action, no reasonable person would expect to be the target of such a massive police surveillance operation. Accordingly, because the use of these devices infringes on a legitimate expectation of privacy, the use of these devices constitutes a search which, absent the present of another exception, requires a warrant."
One point I haven't seen made is that even if the device is attached in a public place and it is legal to track a vehicle's movements by GPS, at some point the vehicle may enter a private residence. If the police do not remotely shut off or destroy the device at that point, they are monitoring a person's movements on private property. I think any judge would agree that this would constitute an illegal search.
The GPS device could be turned off remotely if the officers tracking the vehicle saw the vehicle enter a private residence, but it seems unlikely that officers would continuously follow the vehicle around, given that the entire point of the device is that police don't have to follow the suspect in person.
Another way to prevent the device from monitoring private property would be to program the device to automatically stop tracking the vehicle when entering a private residence. This would require the GPS device to have a map of all private and public areas in a given region; the GPS device would have to differentiate from an (evidently) public driveway and the privacy of a homeowner's garage. Although online maps are pretty comprehensive, no map like this currently exists (that the public knows of) and even if the government put the effort and money into making such a map, it would be quickly outdated when a resident decides to remodel his property. In fact, such a map would surely be outdated before it could be completed.
At this point in time, it is impossible to prevent an illegal search once a GPS tracking device is attached to a vehicle (or person). In fact, if law enforcement officers continue to attach these devices to cars, an illegal search is inevitable. Because of this and the other reasons listed above, I would conclude that attaching GPS tracking device to a vehicle, person, or his personal belongings without a warrant constitutes a breach in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Wish List: Tablet PC
Multi-touch tablet PCs can be many things for many people. For some, it's a netbook replacement, for others, it's almost a desktop replacement. Some consumers just want an e‑reader that can also browse the web on while on the subway. Some have no use for any tablet.
For new devices like multi-touch tablets, it's difficult for manufacturers to pinpoint what consumers really want, which explains the recent series of craptablets being released. In this article, I will address features I personally want in a tablet, but I’ll also address features I feel I don't need. Tech wish lists are pointless if you say you want a device that is has super great features as well as an impossibly low price.
Even if you don't want the exact tablet I shall describe, I think you'll agree it fits a niche that current tablets are progressing towards, but have yet to fill.
List:
Display: Super AMOLED, IPS LCD, Pixel Qi?
Multi-Touch: Capacitive
Form Factor: 10" x 8" x .5"
Processor: 1 GHz
OS: Future version of Android (Flash, small, real multitasking) or some Internet browser OS (e.g. Chrome OS, joojoo OS)
Storage: Small OS: 8GB, SD or MicroSD slot, Internet browser OS: Whatever
Battery: 5+ hours
Camera: Front VGA
Ports: USB, headphone jack
Buttons: Home, back, mute, volume, on/off/lock
Antenna: Wifi, Bluetooth, no 3G/4G
Other: Speakers
Price: Small OS: $500, Internet browser OS: $200
Further Description:
What I really want: What I would like is a web-browsing device that I can leave on my coffee table. Something to look up YouTube videos on and browse IMDb while watching TV. I'd occasionally browse the web or play mini-games on it on long flights. In short, I want a big version of my smartphone. I think this is what many people want out of a tablet, especially those who want a large (9"-13" screen) tablet. I think the closer a large tablet comes to meeting these specs, the more that tablet will succeed.
Display: A Super AMOLED (Samsung Captivate) or IPS LCD (iPhone/iPad) screen would be a plus I'd pay extra for; both are very bright and colorful. High resolution is also nice. But neither of these screen desires are a dealbreaker. A regular LCD would do me just fine. This won't be my main computer; it's just a tablet for casual use. I'm not expecting a bright e-reader screen, and I don't need a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio for the movie clips I'll be watching. A Pixel Qi screen would be the best because its e‑Ink‑esque low-power mode would make the tablet a great e-reader in case I do end up reading books on it, but, again, it won't make or break the tablet.
Multi-Touch: No brainer here. The reason for this tablet revolution is the easy-to-use, responsive capacitive multi-touch screen. Resistive just won't cut it anymore.
Form Factor: Here is where I may differ from many tablet enthusiasts. I already have a smartphone and it has a 3.5 inch screen. I don't need another phone-sized screen. Don't get me wrong, I've visited many a website and am currently reading 1984 on my tiny phone screen, but my entire reason for getting a tablet would be the large screen that makes viewing websites, e-texts and short videos more pleasant. That's why I want something roughly the size of a sheet of paper. A 8"x10" screen would be a beautiful 12.8" in diameter, slightly bigger than the 12.1" joojoo screen and quite a bit larger than the 9.7" iPad screen. Pocketable? No. Portable? Hell yes, as long as the weight was a three-ish pounds or less. Something smaller would be fine as long as it's over, say, 9" diagonal. Any screen under 7" is definitely useless to me.
Processor: 1 GHz seems to be just fine. HTC Evo's Snapdragon, Samsung Captivate's Hummingbird and the iPhone 4's/iPad's A4 all seem like sufficiently speedy 1 GHz chips. Perhaps there's some minute difference in battery life, but I don't care.
OS: Here's the thing: I'm tired of iOS. I'm tired of their App Store policies and I'm tired of them locking down the platform. I'm intrigued by Android and writing apps for free in Java on my PC rather than paying a developer's fee to use the ungodly abomination that is Objective-C (only on Macs). That's why, although iOS is a good tablet OS right now, I want my tablet to have a future version of Android, when Android is tablet-ready. Word on the street is that Android should be tablet-ready (support higher resolutions, etc.) either with Gingerbread (due by December) or Honeycomb (due early next year).
I also would accept a web-browser-based OS like the joojoo has, except not crap. Google's Chrome OS should be released by December, which should be decent, given the excellence of Android. However, it can be assumed that any tablet with a web-browser-centered operating system would do little other than browse the web, so this reduction in functionality would mean that the tablet needs to be sold at a cheaper price. Tablet manufacturers should feel free to cripple the hardware (processor, RAM, graphics, storage, etc.) of a web tablet as long as they get that price down.
Alternatively, the extra functionality of Windows would be nice on a tablet, but Windows 7 just isn't tablet ready. The next version of Windows might be multi-touch focused, but Microsoft never releases two good operating systems in a row. Take my word for it: the first good MS OS that works well with multi-touch won't come out for another 10 years. There will only be decent tablet PC skins over Windows.
Storage: This depends on the OS. Web-based operating systems don't require the storage of a tablet OS. If my tablet has a tablet OS, I'll want to fill my tablet with music and movies. If not, it needs just enough memory to store my web cookies and to stream video. So for a tablet OS, I'd like 16 GB of storage, or at least a SDHC slot, so I could add 16 GB or 32 GB of storage.
Battery: This is the other big one. Less than 4 hours seems to be the Android standard, yet the iPad promises around 10 hours of life. When Gizmodo used the iPad heavily, they still got almost 6 hours. I think any phone or tablet should last at least the duration of a long flight, around 5 hours. I don't think this is too much to ask, especially when you consider that the battery life will eventually decline.
Camera: A tablet is too large to use as a regular camera, at least any tablet large enough for me. Holding a 8"x10" device and taking pictures with it would look and feel ridiculous. So I'm not asking for a for a camera on the back (although, I'll gladly take one if it adds little to the cost). I would, however, like a camera on the front for video chatting. Just chatting doesn't require high definition video, so a VGA camera will do just fine.
Ports: Headphones, I think, are pretty standard. Only USB is something that Apple sadly forgot to include in the iPad. Sure, you can buy a $30 camera connection kit to transfer photos by USB (and SD card), but I want the ability to hook up cameras, printers, webcams, external hard drives, phones, and other peripherals, and I want it build into the device. Sure, nothing will work with the tablet until peripheral manufacturers create special drivers for Android or whatever OS the tablet uses. Eventually they will create the drivers and then the tablet will be infinitely more useful. If it's just a web tablet, USB isn't a necessity, but it'd still be nice to have the promise of someday being able to print web pages from my tablet.
Buttons: Apple likes to make simple, easy-to-use devices. Someone must've told them at some point in time that less buttons == simpler. Actually, it's almost the opposite. I certainly understand not wanting to connect a full keyboard to your device so that users won't be searching for the Scroll Lock button, but it really limits the functionality of the device when you have only one physical button (not including volume buttons, mute and lock). Wouldn't it be easier to press one button to bring up the task list/iPod controls and one button to bring up voice commands instead of double-clicking and triple-clicking?
Android phones have it right with their four buttons (Home, Back, Menu, Search). However, I'd settle for just a "Home" and "Back" in addition to the mute, volume and lock buttons.
Antenna: Wi-fi and bluetooth are standard, so nothing to talk about there. But here's another item where I may differ from the crowd: I don't need 3G/4G. This device will mostly be used at home and places where there is wi-fi (coffee shops, airports). Sometime in the near future I will have a phone with free tethering and I won't need any other satellite data devices other than my phone. Satellite antennas always increase the price of the device in addition to the monthly price plan required to get them to work. I already pay $25 for mobile Internet and ?? dollars for my home Internet. I don't need another monthly Internet bill. I probably differ from most people on this, but as long as tablet makers release a wi-fi only model, I will be happy.
Other: Speakers. For showing people funny YouTube videos. Hide yo' kids, hide yo' wife!
Price: The final key. $500 is a nice round price and the cost of a wi-fi only iPad with a nice 16 gigabytes of storage. I don't think it's absurd for me to ask that the next generation of tablets to cost this much and have the additional features I've specified above. By April 2011, the iPad will have been out a year and the decent-looking Galaxy Tab will have been out for 6 months. I'm hoping tablet manufacturers can accomplish this by sometime around then.
If not, a web-only tablet is something manufacturers could definitely throw together by then, since it doesn't need the same awesome hardware and software as a regular tablet. But it better only cost $200 or so.
Other tablet enthusiasts' concerns:
Wait, what about GPS/a-GPS? I have a phone for this.
What about HDMI? It has a large screen, it has speakers. I don't need it to hook up to my TV, although that'd be awesome and I'd pay a little more for it.
You forgot to say it has to be a 16:9 ratio. I don't care about black bars on the screen as long as the display is big enough to show everything. With a 12"-13" display, I'll be able to see everything just fine. Plus, there still is a lot of non-16:9 video out there, like most YouTube vids, which would likely compose 90% of the video I'd watch on this.
Fast boot up? Sure, but most phones' boot up times are okay to me. This thing would be asleep most of the time—not off—so it's not super important.
Apps? If the OS isn't Android or iOS, shouldn't you mention a requirement for apps and an app store? I have a phone for apps. I want a web browser; and for a full tablet OS, I also want a media player. The web browser will have Adobe Flash, so I'll have plenty of "apps" on the interwebs.
Did I leave anything out? Hit me up in the comments.
For new devices like multi-touch tablets, it's difficult for manufacturers to pinpoint what consumers really want, which explains the recent series of craptablets being released. In this article, I will address features I personally want in a tablet, but I’ll also address features I feel I don't need. Tech wish lists are pointless if you say you want a device that is has super great features as well as an impossibly low price.
Even if you don't want the exact tablet I shall describe, I think you'll agree it fits a niche that current tablets are progressing towards, but have yet to fill.
List:
Display: Super AMOLED, IPS LCD, Pixel Qi?
Multi-Touch: Capacitive
Form Factor: 10" x 8" x .5"
Processor: 1 GHz
OS: Future version of Android (Flash, small, real multitasking) or some Internet browser OS (e.g. Chrome OS, joojoo OS)
Storage: Small OS: 8GB, SD or MicroSD slot, Internet browser OS: Whatever
Battery: 5+ hours
Camera: Front VGA
Ports: USB, headphone jack
Buttons: Home, back, mute, volume, on/off/lock
Antenna: Wifi, Bluetooth, no 3G/4G
Other: Speakers
Price: Small OS: $500, Internet browser OS: $200
Further Description:
What I really want: What I would like is a web-browsing device that I can leave on my coffee table. Something to look up YouTube videos on and browse IMDb while watching TV. I'd occasionally browse the web or play mini-games on it on long flights. In short, I want a big version of my smartphone. I think this is what many people want out of a tablet, especially those who want a large (9"-13" screen) tablet. I think the closer a large tablet comes to meeting these specs, the more that tablet will succeed.
Display: A Super AMOLED (Samsung Captivate) or IPS LCD (iPhone/iPad) screen would be a plus I'd pay extra for; both are very bright and colorful. High resolution is also nice. But neither of these screen desires are a dealbreaker. A regular LCD would do me just fine. This won't be my main computer; it's just a tablet for casual use. I'm not expecting a bright e-reader screen, and I don't need a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio for the movie clips I'll be watching. A Pixel Qi screen would be the best because its e‑Ink‑esque low-power mode would make the tablet a great e-reader in case I do end up reading books on it, but, again, it won't make or break the tablet.
Multi-Touch: No brainer here. The reason for this tablet revolution is the easy-to-use, responsive capacitive multi-touch screen. Resistive just won't cut it anymore.
Form Factor: Here is where I may differ from many tablet enthusiasts. I already have a smartphone and it has a 3.5 inch screen. I don't need another phone-sized screen. Don't get me wrong, I've visited many a website and am currently reading 1984 on my tiny phone screen, but my entire reason for getting a tablet would be the large screen that makes viewing websites, e-texts and short videos more pleasant. That's why I want something roughly the size of a sheet of paper. A 8"x10" screen would be a beautiful 12.8" in diameter, slightly bigger than the 12.1" joojoo screen and quite a bit larger than the 9.7" iPad screen. Pocketable? No. Portable? Hell yes, as long as the weight was a three-ish pounds or less. Something smaller would be fine as long as it's over, say, 9" diagonal. Any screen under 7" is definitely useless to me.
Processor: 1 GHz seems to be just fine. HTC Evo's Snapdragon, Samsung Captivate's Hummingbird and the iPhone 4's/iPad's A4 all seem like sufficiently speedy 1 GHz chips. Perhaps there's some minute difference in battery life, but I don't care.
OS: Here's the thing: I'm tired of iOS. I'm tired of their App Store policies and I'm tired of them locking down the platform. I'm intrigued by Android and writing apps for free in Java on my PC rather than paying a developer's fee to use the ungodly abomination that is Objective-C (only on Macs). That's why, although iOS is a good tablet OS right now, I want my tablet to have a future version of Android, when Android is tablet-ready. Word on the street is that Android should be tablet-ready (support higher resolutions, etc.) either with Gingerbread (due by December) or Honeycomb (due early next year).
I also would accept a web-browser-based OS like the joojoo has, except not crap. Google's Chrome OS should be released by December, which should be decent, given the excellence of Android. However, it can be assumed that any tablet with a web-browser-centered operating system would do little other than browse the web, so this reduction in functionality would mean that the tablet needs to be sold at a cheaper price. Tablet manufacturers should feel free to cripple the hardware (processor, RAM, graphics, storage, etc.) of a web tablet as long as they get that price down.
Alternatively, the extra functionality of Windows would be nice on a tablet, but Windows 7 just isn't tablet ready. The next version of Windows might be multi-touch focused, but Microsoft never releases two good operating systems in a row. Take my word for it: the first good MS OS that works well with multi-touch won't come out for another 10 years. There will only be decent tablet PC skins over Windows.
Storage: This depends on the OS. Web-based operating systems don't require the storage of a tablet OS. If my tablet has a tablet OS, I'll want to fill my tablet with music and movies. If not, it needs just enough memory to store my web cookies and to stream video. So for a tablet OS, I'd like 16 GB of storage, or at least a SDHC slot, so I could add 16 GB or 32 GB of storage.
Battery: This is the other big one. Less than 4 hours seems to be the Android standard, yet the iPad promises around 10 hours of life. When Gizmodo used the iPad heavily, they still got almost 6 hours. I think any phone or tablet should last at least the duration of a long flight, around 5 hours. I don't think this is too much to ask, especially when you consider that the battery life will eventually decline.
Camera: A tablet is too large to use as a regular camera, at least any tablet large enough for me. Holding a 8"x10" device and taking pictures with it would look and feel ridiculous. So I'm not asking for a for a camera on the back (although, I'll gladly take one if it adds little to the cost). I would, however, like a camera on the front for video chatting. Just chatting doesn't require high definition video, so a VGA camera will do just fine.
Ports: Headphones, I think, are pretty standard. Only USB is something that Apple sadly forgot to include in the iPad. Sure, you can buy a $30 camera connection kit to transfer photos by USB (and SD card), but I want the ability to hook up cameras, printers, webcams, external hard drives, phones, and other peripherals, and I want it build into the device. Sure, nothing will work with the tablet until peripheral manufacturers create special drivers for Android or whatever OS the tablet uses. Eventually they will create the drivers and then the tablet will be infinitely more useful. If it's just a web tablet, USB isn't a necessity, but it'd still be nice to have the promise of someday being able to print web pages from my tablet.
Buttons: Apple likes to make simple, easy-to-use devices. Someone must've told them at some point in time that less buttons == simpler. Actually, it's almost the opposite. I certainly understand not wanting to connect a full keyboard to your device so that users won't be searching for the Scroll Lock button, but it really limits the functionality of the device when you have only one physical button (not including volume buttons, mute and lock). Wouldn't it be easier to press one button to bring up the task list/iPod controls and one button to bring up voice commands instead of double-clicking and triple-clicking?
Android phones have it right with their four buttons (Home, Back, Menu, Search). However, I'd settle for just a "Home" and "Back" in addition to the mute, volume and lock buttons.
Antenna: Wi-fi and bluetooth are standard, so nothing to talk about there. But here's another item where I may differ from the crowd: I don't need 3G/4G. This device will mostly be used at home and places where there is wi-fi (coffee shops, airports). Sometime in the near future I will have a phone with free tethering and I won't need any other satellite data devices other than my phone. Satellite antennas always increase the price of the device in addition to the monthly price plan required to get them to work. I already pay $25 for mobile Internet and ?? dollars for my home Internet. I don't need another monthly Internet bill. I probably differ from most people on this, but as long as tablet makers release a wi-fi only model, I will be happy.
Other: Speakers. For showing people funny YouTube videos. Hide yo' kids, hide yo' wife!
Price: The final key. $500 is a nice round price and the cost of a wi-fi only iPad with a nice 16 gigabytes of storage. I don't think it's absurd for me to ask that the next generation of tablets to cost this much and have the additional features I've specified above. By April 2011, the iPad will have been out a year and the decent-looking Galaxy Tab will have been out for 6 months. I'm hoping tablet manufacturers can accomplish this by sometime around then.
If not, a web-only tablet is something manufacturers could definitely throw together by then, since it doesn't need the same awesome hardware and software as a regular tablet. But it better only cost $200 or so.
Other tablet enthusiasts' concerns:
Wait, what about GPS/a-GPS? I have a phone for this.
What about HDMI? It has a large screen, it has speakers. I don't need it to hook up to my TV, although that'd be awesome and I'd pay a little more for it.
You forgot to say it has to be a 16:9 ratio. I don't care about black bars on the screen as long as the display is big enough to show everything. With a 12"-13" display, I'll be able to see everything just fine. Plus, there still is a lot of non-16:9 video out there, like most YouTube vids, which would likely compose 90% of the video I'd watch on this.
Fast boot up? Sure, but most phones' boot up times are okay to me. This thing would be asleep most of the time—not off—so it's not super important.
Apps? If the OS isn't Android or iOS, shouldn't you mention a requirement for apps and an app store? I have a phone for apps. I want a web browser; and for a full tablet OS, I also want a media player. The web browser will have Adobe Flash, so I'll have plenty of "apps" on the interwebs.
Did I leave anything out? Hit me up in the comments.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Commentary: Why Tablets Still Suck
Years from now, people will reflect upon 2010 as the year of the multi-touch tablet. Although multi-touch tablets have existed since at least 2008, Apple's iPad (love it or hate it) revolutionized the tablet PC last April and has spurred dozens of companies to create their own Android and Windows 7 tablets, many of which have actually either failed to deliver or failed to be released.
For example, we have the Fusion Garage joojoo, which is priced at a ridiculous $500 for a web-only table and has such a buggy, unintuitive interface that Engadget gave it a 3/10. The first version of the HP Slate was so "slow and annoying", that HP pushed back the release while the blogosphere pronounced it all but dead. We'll see what HP comes up with next time. The Dell Streak could have the best software and hardware in the world, but with a 5" it hardly qualifies as a "tablet." It's really a phone that can't make calls [insert iPhone 4 joke here]. The exoPC has a half-baked user interface and crappy battery life for $600. The TegaTech Tega v2 also has crappy battery life with the finger-unfriendly Windows UI for $800. The Samsung GalaxyTab may be the best offering from iPad competitors with decent specs and a $600 no-contract price (compare with the $630 3G iPad), but 7" is still pretty small for a tablet and no one has been able to review this device. It might be as wack as the joojoo when it gets into our hands.
(This is not to say the iPad is the perfect device. It definitely has too many limitations for me to buy one in its current iteration. However, for most tablet consumers, Apple apparently found the right balance of form factor, speed, price, and usability.)
There seem to be two main problems with these problematic tablets. One is hardware. It is apparently difficult to make a tablet with a large battery, decent form factor, and fast processor for a decent price ($500 or less).
The problem other is software. All these Windows 7 and Android tablets have one thing in common: none of them are using a proper tablet operating system. As many reviewers have said "Windows 7 is truly not a tablet operating system". Text and icons can be small and navigation is optimized for a mouse and keyboard, not for touch. It also gives users the ability to run whatever applications they want at the expense of using lots of resources, making Win7 tablets slow. As for Android, Google themselves have said "Froyo [the latest Android OS] is not optimized for use on tablets". While joojoo doesn't use either Windows 7 nor Android, the problem is, once again, the OS.
Tablets suck because of their operating systems. Even hardware issues like battery size and processor speed can be ignored if one is using a fast OS that doesn't drain the battery. But amazing battery life and a zippy processor can't fix a UI that is a pain to use. Because of the inherent limitations of Windows 7 and Android, competing tablets can only achieve mediocre success until the Microsoft and Google touch up their respective operating systems.
For example, we have the Fusion Garage joojoo, which is priced at a ridiculous $500 for a web-only table and has such a buggy, unintuitive interface that Engadget gave it a 3/10. The first version of the HP Slate was so "slow and annoying", that HP pushed back the release while the blogosphere pronounced it all but dead. We'll see what HP comes up with next time. The Dell Streak could have the best software and hardware in the world, but with a 5" it hardly qualifies as a "tablet." It's really a phone that can't make calls [insert iPhone 4 joke here]. The exoPC has a half-baked user interface and crappy battery life for $600. The TegaTech Tega v2 also has crappy battery life with the finger-unfriendly Windows UI for $800. The Samsung GalaxyTab may be the best offering from iPad competitors with decent specs and a $600 no-contract price (compare with the $630 3G iPad), but 7" is still pretty small for a tablet and no one has been able to review this device. It might be as wack as the joojoo when it gets into our hands.
(This is not to say the iPad is the perfect device. It definitely has too many limitations for me to buy one in its current iteration. However, for most tablet consumers, Apple apparently found the right balance of form factor, speed, price, and usability.)
There seem to be two main problems with these problematic tablets. One is hardware. It is apparently difficult to make a tablet with a large battery, decent form factor, and fast processor for a decent price ($500 or less).
The problem other is software. All these Windows 7 and Android tablets have one thing in common: none of them are using a proper tablet operating system. As many reviewers have said "Windows 7 is truly not a tablet operating system". Text and icons can be small and navigation is optimized for a mouse and keyboard, not for touch. It also gives users the ability to run whatever applications they want at the expense of using lots of resources, making Win7 tablets slow. As for Android, Google themselves have said "Froyo [the latest Android OS] is not optimized for use on tablets". While joojoo doesn't use either Windows 7 nor Android, the problem is, once again, the OS.
Tablets suck because of their operating systems. Even hardware issues like battery size and processor speed can be ignored if one is using a fast OS that doesn't drain the battery. But amazing battery life and a zippy processor can't fix a UI that is a pain to use. Because of the inherent limitations of Windows 7 and Android, competing tablets can only achieve mediocre success until the Microsoft and Google touch up their respective operating systems.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Speculation: The Verizon iPhone Rumor, Version 4
The iPhone was released exclusively (in America) for AT&T customers in 2007. Lots of evidence points to AT&T and Apple signing a five-year exclusivity contract, meaning the iPhone wouldn't be released to other American carriers until 2012. Yet, every year since then tech media have posted rumors of the iPhone moving to other carriers, usually Verizon by "next year". It didn't happen in 2008, it didn't happen in 2009, and it's not happening in 2010. But the latest rumor says the iPhone will make its way to Verizon in 2011! This rumor, too, is false.
Maybe.
Although releasing an iPhone in 2011 would mean Apple would have to pay back AT&T part of the gajillion dollars they received for their iPhone exclusivity contract, this may not be such a bad idea. Here's why:
Maybe.
Although releasing an iPhone in 2011 would mean Apple would have to pay back AT&T part of the gajillion dollars they received for their iPhone exclusivity contract, this may not be such a bad idea. Here's why:
1) AT&T is probably reaching a saturation point. If you haven't bought an iPhone yet, you probably don't want one or aren't willing to switch carriers. This means, more than ever, Apple can make a lot of money by selling the phone on a different carrier.The iPhone can't and won't stay on top forever. By 2011, iPhones will be less popular than Android (their main competitor) in the US and worldwide. If Windows Phone 7 takes off, it will be even harder for Apple to hold on to their coveted position. It would be in Apple's best interest to open sales of their phone to as many consumers as possible while the iPhone is still cool and coveted. This moment, after their most revolutionary upgrade of the iPhone, is that time. That's why you just might see a Verizon iPhone either in January 2011, or next summer when they release the fifth iPhone.
2) The iPhone is losing steam, frankly. Already Android has overtaken iOS in worldwide mobile OS popularity by nearly 2%, coming in 3rd after Symbian and BlackBerry OS. IDC predicts that this distance will more than quintuple by 2014. Although Apple's iOS is still beating Google's Android (and Microsoft's WinMo) in America, ComScore shows that iOS is only ~7% away higher than Android's market share and that Android's market share has grown more than 5% in recent months. Android is coming and when it takes over, Apple's iPhone will become a niche cell phone, much like their desktops and laptops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)