Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Hardware

Thin Client Handhelds For Multiple OSs 92

Posted by CmdrTaco from the strange-ideas-with-limited-value dept.
c0d3po3t writes "An article on CNet tells us that two Singapore programmers have developed a system to allow one handheld operating system to run any application - Windows or Linux. Sounds like a good idea, but will their idea of network emulation be solid?" I can't really see the use for this except environments where your handheld has network access (the system is network based) and you have multiple legacy systems to deal with. It just doesn't sit right beyond the gee-whiz factor for me.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Thin Client Handhelds For Multiple OSs More

Thin Client Handhelds For Multiple OSs

Comments Filter:

  • not a new idea (Score:5, Informative)

    by cr@ckwhore ( 165454 ) on Monday June 17, 2002 @10:30AM (#3715090) Homepage
    There has been a VNC client for PalmOS for a while now. I'm not sure about PocketPC, but intuition tells me there is probably a remote access solution like this also.

    http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cf m? prodID=7778

    Not a new idea!

    • VNC is available for Symbian OS v5.0 and v6.0 devices as well, including the Nokia 9210. Here's the link:

      http://www.imhotek.com/ [imhotek.com]

    • Re:not a new idea (Score:2, Informative)

      by pipacs ( 179230 )
      There has been a VNC client for PalmOS for a while now.
      I believe the main idea is to intercept filesystem calls, too, not just graphics. The data is always with you, even if the application isn't.

      Is there an SMB or NFS server for palmtops? One could achieve the same with a file server and a VNC client.

      • Informative?

        A "fileserver and VNC client" is an utterly useless combination. Why do you want local data if the processing is remote? And what filesystem calls would you intercept? VNC will never make any.

        A lot of clueless people are commenting on this story with only a very hazy sense of what the heck it's about. Business as usual, I guess.

    • Hell, I just traded my Palm IIIc with someone for a Newton MessagePad 2100. Even with an old Newton, I should be able to network wireless or wired, and will be able to run VNC on a screen much larger than a Palm or Pocket PC device. Of course, it is only 16 grayscale, but that should be plenty for actual -business- use.

      From what I've seen on eBay, the Newton's value is quite understated. $50-180 for a MessagePad 2100 with varying quality and addons.

  • Sun did this... (Score:4, Informative)

    by T.Monk ( 585143 ) on Monday June 17, 2002 @10:32AM (#3715107)
    Sun did this years ago... They called the project "Corona" it was supposed to turn the network into the "bus" and they had drivers for NT, Solaris, Linux, etc... neat trick but at the end of the day, it's just VNC, isn't it?

    • Re:Sun did this... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 00_NOP ( 559413 ) on Monday June 17, 2002 @11:05AM (#3715310) Homepage
      it's just VNC, isn't it

      No, because the application data here is stored locally, and not on the server. But how much of a difference that will make is open to question as, the data has to be uploaded at the start and downloaded at the end.
    • How about Citrix [citrix.com]? Other thin client/heavy server applications?
      • In my opinion Citrix is WAY over-rated.

        Sure remote users can have java-based (?) remote applications launched, but theyre slower than anything I've ever seen. And unless you have THOUSANDS of users, its generally cheaper to purchase licenses for the users. Many real-estate and government-funded organizations that I've worked with use Citrix; at the end of the day they avoid it like the plague.
        • I used to work for a +4000 world-wide company that used Citrix for a time registration system, and I must admit that using it was horrific (mostly due to the type of application, though ;-). While I don't know about Citrix server side maintainance, IMHO the IT people were happy about not having to install +4000 copies of their homebrew time registration tool every time they fixed a bug.

          And even though it's hard to imagine an application where a technology like Citrix (or VNC, or any thin client application for that matter) is really worthwhile (and has acceptible performance using low bandwidth) the technology is interesting. In a sense it's a primitive form of parallel processing, that does not involve actually parallelizing the program: it's virtual to the user as well as the application.

  • Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phaze3000 ( 204500 ) on Monday June 17, 2002 @10:33AM (#3715114) Homepage
    What a great and original [xfree86.org] idea.

    • Re:Wow (Score:1)

      by Tune ( 17738 )
      ...Elaborating on several hints on this "invention"'s originallity...

      [...]The two inventors, who run an 11-person company in Singapore called Intramedia, "stumbled on the code" that lets MXI perform this feat of translation and have spent the last four years perfecting it, said Chandrasekar. MXI is influenced by Unix, and borrows aspects of the kernel at the heart of the software, he said.

      I wonder what "aspects" they "borrowed"... Maybe, they stumbled on a complete code base and spent the last four years trying to understand it ;-).

  • One crashes over and over while the other just runs and runs and gets more apps ported to it over time.

    Imagine people being able to compare. Imagine them having a comparison running in the palm of their hand.

    How long do you think people would put up with M$.

    • Re:Windows & Linux. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jedi Alec ( 258881 ) on Monday June 17, 2002 @10:53AM (#3715240)
      This will provably get flamed down, but I can't resist playing devil's advocate.

      They'll stick with M$ as long as they have to wade through piles of documentation on how to use the one that keeps running and running in order to actually use it...
      • In my experience, GUI applications for Linux are generally no harder to use than GUI applications for Windows. If anything, some important Windows GUI apps have gotten overly and unnecessary complex, and as a result are harder to use than equivalent, simpler Linux apps.
    • "Imagine people being able to compare."

      We've been able to dual boot our PCs for years.

      "Imagine them having a comparison running in the palm of their hand."

      Size doesn't matter. The people who weren't interested in Linux on the desktop probably aren't interested in Linux on the Palm.

      "How long do you think people would put up with M$."

      As long as M$ owns them. I don't think that the reason Microsoft hasn't crumbled is that people didn't have dual boot handhelds.
    • "magine people being able to compare. Imagine them having a comparison running in the palm of their hand.

      How long do you think people would put up with M$."

      They never will switch as long as the idiots who decide what to buy continue to fall victim to both their own stupidity (why not listen to your tech staff?) and M$'s flashy marketing and salesdroids.

      Sorry to say, but its probably the truth. At least from what I've seen.

      • Re:Windows & Linux. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by scrytch ( 9198 ) <chuck@myrealbox.com> on Monday June 17, 2002 @11:23AM (#3715405)
        They never will switch as long as the idiots who decide what to buy continue to fall victim to both their own stupidity (why not listen to your tech staff?) and M$'s flashy marketing and salesdroids.

        Or as long as they continue to see a culture around Linux that takes every opportunity to insult and abuse them. See, I don't even care if you're right if you can't talk to me like a civilized intelligent human being.

        ... When I hear the words "linux culture" I reach for my revolver ...
        • "Or as long as they continue to see a culture around Linux that takes every opportunity to insult and abuse them. See, I don't even care if you're right if you can't talk to me like a civilized intelligent human being."

          True. But that works both ways. And I'm NOT a Linux fanatic. I work in an MS shop. I was hired for my skill with MS products. I can make MS stuff be stable, secure(relatively) and reliable. EVERYONE here knows it. The powers that be just don't want the opinion of (it seems) someone who 1)isn't a college graduate, or 2)isn't a manager of some sort. Respect is earned. and that works both ways. And frankly anyone who is a fanatic about platform needs to go away, platform means nothing. Does a secretary really need a P4 with DVD authoring and video out? This is why we haven't had a decent raise in several years.
        • Or IT department deals with Windows computers everyday, although EVERY server we have is either Linux, SGI or Solaris (and only Solaris because of some of the proprietary applications).

          We write programs to run on Linux, using MySQL, PHP, Oracle (SGI's), and a number of other mature daemons/server apps. All are acessible from the Windows computers via either Apache or some other form of custom-written client/server packages (although this is less common).

          We have written many powerful packages to operate beautifully between Windows/Linux and Linux/Linux (client/server, respectively).

          But it all happens because we have flexibility from the voices above. Our Boss is actually a very technically-knowledgable manager who also has a good deal of electrical engineering experience.

          But everyday we have to have the intern fix approx. 5 Windows 2000 desktop machines, consuming our time and his; this amount of time in no way compares to the time it would take for us to teach chemists and biologists their way around a Linux desktop.

          Right now, setting aside the horrors of MS licensing, our Windows 2000 desktops and Linux servers/workstations is a prime example of how things can we be easily compromised.
    • Have any of you guys looked at a product Called Tarantella? Basicly you can think of it as a X11 Bassed Proxy that runs on a Web server and can talk RDP. In lame terms you can run any X11 base app or Windows Terminal App thrue a Web Browser. It can even print to your Default printer and there is this wacky IPAC Client for it. Not to mention our Tarantella server is up on a Linux box and it was the easyst thing to add tou our company infrastucture. I just like being able to conect thru my IPAC to our spark boxes when Im in the head, or away from the desk.

  • the coarse jester (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Did they install Netbus on it? ;)
  • I would imagine that it could be useful for places like hospitals with lots of data to work with and complex relations between the data. So if they wanted to add a piece to the system (more data) they could simply change it on the server. It eliminates having to send a new program to each handheld. It also allows them to spend less money on the PDA's because they don't need lots of memory, etc... but only the server would need to have enough power.
    • Except that the wireless frequencies interfere with lots of sensitive medical equipment and need to be turned off in a hospital...
      • True... well other than hospitals there are other places (schools for example) that could use it--so if the school wants to add, for example, a gradebook system to their already-wireless attendance system, they just have to change it on the server.

  • Dodgy (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It was all sounding fine up until the point where they claimed that you didn't need to contact the server until you needed to save the file or whatever.

    As far as I can see, this would mean that they claim their system can run Word on the PDA from the server, and you can edit the document, etc, on the PDA without any network use, then the software catches the save action to save the file on the server. I.e., the code must be running on the PDA not the server, otherwise there would be network traffic.

    So their software is a full Windows emulation, Unix emulation, and apparently "Atari OS" emulation.

    Do you believe this?

    When high-resolution PDAs (640x480) come out, then this kind of software might be useful (i.e., VNC or a similar solution). X Windows already does this network stuff for you, so in that respect it is another case of "Hello wheel, nice to see you again".

    • I guess it's sort of believable...theoretically you can do the same thing (natively) with a Crusoe chip. What I have a hard time believing is that you can store this new "run anything" OS (how does it handle Mac programs? Palm? *NIX? Be? ...?) and the software, and the runtime libraries, etc., and that file storage is actually seamless and transparent. My take is that they might have a proof of concept for some limited applications, but I'd love to see what happens when they let an independent person give the thing a spin in a real-world environment. Besides which, I don't see the utility of doing this. The whole point of a handheld is to do mobile tasks...schedule, planning, task list, contact list, finance, and a few cheap games. Laptops were designed for mobile application computing, not handhelds.
  • ...getting Windows apps to run on Pocket PC. The problem was changing their UI. Think of M$ Word--do you really want three or more toolbars that stretching across 1024 pixels, a menu bar, a status bar, an autoshape bar, and a title bar squished on a 320x320 screen? Of course not.

    Now, if somebody gets technology to dynamically reformat any application's UI into an appropriate format for that presentation device, then I'll start buying. In the meantime, if you don't mind, I'll continue developing ports of my apps under J2ME [sun.com].

    Jouster
  • What is the difference between this and say: xfree86 or vnc?

  • limited value? (Score:1, Funny)

    by lingqi ( 577227 )
    how can you say that!

    it ran the ATARI OS with pacman! this instantly doubles the value on my $599 iPAQ... wait -- is that a iHP nowadays?

  • Like VNC (Score:3, Insightful)

    by peterdaly ( 123554 ) <{petedaly} {at} {ix.netcom.com}> on Monday June 17, 2002 @10:49AM (#3715213)
    " The secret? The heavy lifting is done on an MXI-based server that runs the actual applications and sends a stream of data back to the MXI client software residing on the handheld. "

    Wow, they reinvented VNC. Cool huh? How did the dnet folks find this one? (yes, that is sarcasm.)

    -Pete

  • There is a difference about this idea, though (Score:4, Informative)

    by c0d3po3t ( 564754 ) on Monday June 17, 2002 @10:50AM (#3715221)
    You seem to be thinking that this is a mere virtual machine idea like a VNC or pcAnywhere solution - but according to the article the application actually takes system calls for saves, etc. and redirects them over the network to the central server - and it says that a network connection is only required when a full save is required - it caches what the user is doing. VNC stays connected all the time and is subject to network speed and overload - something that this type of idea is not.
    • You seem to be thinking that this is a mere virtual machine idea like a VNC or pcAnywhere solution - but according to the article the application actually takes system calls for saves, etc. and redirects them over the network to the central server - and it says that a network connection is only required when a full save is required - it caches what the user is doing.

      There's no possible way to do that. How much logic is running on Word in between saves? Is your PDA going to run real-time grammar and spelling checks as you type, all locally?

      I imagine that it's a "high level" protocol like RPD, and it was described in comparison to simple VNC-style framebuffer copying, and either the reporter got confused or the authors "embellished" a bit.

      • ...it says that a network connection is only required when a full save is required - it caches what the user is doing.

        There's no possible way to do that. How much logic is running on Word in between saves? Is your PDA going to run real-time grammar and spelling checks as you type, all locally?

        On the contrary, windows filesharing gives you this "for free". On a real windows box, an open file is often 'owned' by the client due to a SMB optlock, or opportunistic lock. Piddly reads and writes to the file are cached to the client, and the entire summation of changes is sent back to the server when the file is closed, or the lock broken by the server, or on some other such event. This allows the terrible terrible code of MSOffice to still have some level of performance. It's actually a very powerful (and somewhat dangerous) performance feature, the best part of SMB really.

        It could be that these folks are trying to talk about something else, but claiming their words aren't possible is silly as every windows client does this.

        • On the contrary, windows filesharing gives you this "for free".

          How does filesharing give a PDA the ability to run arbitrary code compiled for an aribitrary OS on an arbitrary CPU "for free"?

          Optimizing file access is a negligible part of the problem. It's the logic that has to run on a "detached" client that is impossible to distribute easily.

      • There's no possible way to do that. How much logic is running on Word in between saves? Is your PDA going to run real-time grammar and spelling checks as you type, all locally?

        Very good point. Moreover, I'm sure that without the code being adapted to this technology, an application would need more rather than less bandwidth when the application is cut in two in the middle instead of the edge.

        Typically, desktop programs spend little time in front nor back end but spend most time "in the middle". Ie. accessing the screen is mostly done by the OS, as is file transfer. CPU time inside the actual application mostly stems from loops that require speedy memory access, and that therefore are best executed at either client or server, not both.

      • Is your PDA going to run real-time grammar and spelling checks as you type, all locally?

        Perhaps the spell-check in this word processor (almost definitely not Microsoft Word, but something similar) runs only after a save.

  • Certian industries could benefit from a technology such as this. For example, the medical industry is using handhelds to record patient information, wich is download via infrared terminals. A slow process to say the least. If they could plug-in to the network while with the patient, and record information with as little equipment as possible, this could become a good market.

  • It just doesn't sit right beyond the gee-whiz factor for me.

    Sounds like a perfect candidate for a front page article, then.

  • My problem is that this PDA ideas seems to assume 100% uptime of your wireless connectivity. In order to save a document or intercept many of the calls Word would demand, you would need to be connected to a wireless server each time. I have an Apple Airport network at home which is about as easy to use as they come. But even that has blackout points in the house, where construction or atmospheric conditions make it impossible to get a solid signal. How much worse would this be for a subway commuter or rural user who could have blackouts for minutes or hours at a time?

    Seems like it would be easier AND more reliable just to use a Tablet PC, OQO, or similar device.
    • > But even that has blackout points in the house, where construction or atmospheric conditions make it impossible to get a solid signal

      Your house is so big that it has its own atmospheric conditions?? Like, if it's raining in the living room, you can always move to the family room where it's still sunny?
  • Anyone who has used X over a 28.8 line will tell you that it's possible but it's not pretty. I am not convinced that this will be much better.

    I could see that some big corporates might like something like this - but I am not sure it has a wider market awaiting it.
    • (Somewhat besides the point, my apologies...)

      I've used TerminalServer over a modem line quite a lot and it's actually rather bearable. TerminalServer isn't as fancy as X, but when it comes to bandwidth use it seems that Micro$oft has done something right (that is, known whose application to buy in this case).

      Whether this solution resembles more X or TerminalServer is a good question.

  • Wow! X12! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )
    Both the slashdot and the cnet article are very misleading. They do _not_ run applications on the handheld, they run applications on the handheld and a server, having the server do all the heavy work (notably OS calls). While not exactly the same as X11, it is strikingly similar.

    MXI (that's what they call their system) has a couple of advantages over X. First of all, it doesn't require huge amounts of bandwidth. Secondly, the cnet-article claims that ``people can edit a document without being online.'' This suggests a system which is far more sophisticated than X. However, I doubt if it will be possible to _start_ applications without being connected. Anyway, I will stick to picogui for the time being. It has network transparency like X, but talks widgets rather than pixels, saving tons of bandwidth, and was specifically designed for handhelds, although it has potential on desktops, too.
  • The URL of the story is: http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1040-936665.html?ty pe=pt&part=msnbc&tag=alert&form=feed&subj=cnetnews

    Did MSNBC acquire CNet when I wasn't looking?

  • Great idea when you think about it. It's like a verry highlevel for of XFree86. The work is done on a server and transmited to a PDA or Tablet. It also uses ultra low bandwidth (they claim) so it could be realy handy for "the computer is the network" schemes. Imagine a MS that sells you a wireless(cell based) tablet PDA. They could theoreticly be running the software in redmond, while your using your PDA on a wireless network. If the processor requirements are low, they could actually make a pretty inexpensive version.

    The reverse is true too. This tech claims to be OS agnostic. People wouldnt be able to tell the real difference between using OS apps and MS apps, and they platform the work on would be irrelevent (besides trying to pry the data you "own" from MS cold dead servers).

    I'm biased though, I've alwasy liked remote X-Client systems. Putting all of the burden on a few central NOCs rather then forcing every customer to perpetually upgrade.

  • Citrix [citrix.com] has a client for Pocket PC, and there's a VNC [att.com] client for PalmOS.

    Is it just me or does the four years these guys spent perfecting the code they "stumbled upon" seem like a huge waste of time?
  • SIMDEDA GmbH from Germany (http://www.simeda.com/activeviewer/ [simeda.com]) has implemented a VNC client in Java that runs on mobile phones with GPRS or CSD connections. That was news in November last year ...
  • Those 2 clients would take care of most any need..
  • I doubt that at the present technological level this system can be of any use except owning a high-tech gadget. Simple applications like primitive text editors (wordpad etc) will work fine. But a palm-based (or Win CE -based) editor is anyway more convenient on a small screen. More demanding applications like editing embedded objects in MS Word (that is pictures, math formulae etc.) can be slow even on a desktop. And running such an application effectively on a handheld (otherwise how will you edit a document offline? It is claimed to be possible in the article.) should be at least terribly slow if possible at all.
  • "It just doesn't sit right beyond the gee-whiz factor for me."

    Since when is that any reason to criticize something here? For gods sake, personal monorails, and lego desks are newsworthy.
  • There's a Seattle-area software shop (http://www.sproqit.com/) already doing exactly this, including caching document changes. So this isn't exactly a revolutionary idea...

    • Sproqit softaware is essnetially intended to run on a PDA a few network-based applications like Outlook, web-browser and helper applications like various viewers. Motion Experience Interface is claimed to be able to run any unaltered desktop applicatio.
  • Gone are the days when a flash presentation can fund your company!
  • Thin-client technology in the Windows world is getting pretty robust these days, between Microsoft's Terminal Services [microsoft.com], Citrix Metaframe [citrix.com] and competitiors like Tarantella [tarantella.com] and New Moon's Canaveral [newmoon.com].

    Also, Citrix Metaframe for Unix allows you to run Unix apps remotely using the ICA protocol, which is a bit "thinner" than X11.

    So using one of the products above, a several of which have clients for PocketPC, you can run Windows or Unix apps. No sweat. To take it one step further, you can serve up the apps to the thin-client server using something like Softricity's SoftGrid [softricity.com] which "virtualizes" the applications - they run in a little OS "bubble" so you don't actually have to install them on your app server - so you won't have old crappy legacy apps stomping on eachother when you run them on the same box.

    I hope this company has a few more tricks, because I don't see anything new or special in their products.

    -Jeff
  • Anyone find the fellows name interesting ?

    from http://www.herts.ac.uk/astro_ub/aC_ub.html

    Chandrasekhar limit. The mass limit at which the force of gravity overcomes the pressure produced by electron degenerate matter. At this mass limit, which corresponds to 1.4 times the mass of the Sun, the electrons are forced inside the atomic nucleus, where they combine with the protons to form neutrons. The gravitational collapse is then halted by the pressure exerted by the neutrons, since they are in a state of matter known as baryon degenerate matter. This pressure is then sufficient to halt further collapse unless the body contains more than three times the mass of the Sun

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close