Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Thanks konttori...

The N810w certainly is that device... I'm just wondering how many people actually *want* a device like this. From the chatter, it seems that some people are very happy tethering the N810 to a mobile phone while others would rather have an all-in-one long-range wireless access (I think I misused the WAN term) device. I'm genuinely interested to hear reasons on both sides, and even from the apathetic bunch in the middle! :p


}:^)~
YARR!

Corrupt Wimax Edition

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

You may want to take a look at this which i compiled a while ago.

http://www.internettablettalk.com/fo...318#post173318

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I have an n800 and bluetooth kb that works well for me - the n810 was announced a few weeks after I bought - I'll probably wait until the next version (n900 or whatever) before I upgrade.

The old Psion Series 5 keyboard, ahh, I loved that thing :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...arf_scharf.JPG

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I mostly agree with this, with the following caveats:

1) base it on the E71, not the E61/E62/E61i. For one, the joystick on the E61 and E62 sucks. For two, the E61i uses the proprietary media connector for data and headset. The E71 fixes all of these issues, and has a really nice form factor (outstanding keyboard when compared to those phones, or the N810). The screen is a little on the small side, but I'm ok with that. Maemo on the smaller screen would be preferable to me over S60 on that device.

2) Quadband GSM, Quadband UMTS (ie. add T-Mobile USA 3G stupport), and UMA are musts, IMO.

3) The _one_ weakness of the E71 is ... poor reception strength. Predictably 2 bars worse than the E61i or E62 (both of which I own, and I just got done evaluating the E71 for womworld). Whatever they come up with needs to have outstanding signal capability. IMO, the wired headset jack should be able to use the wire as an antenna (just like some nokia phones use the wire for FM radio reception). If that's going to require a thicker cable for handling the power pumped into it for transmission, go ahead. But do SOMETHING.


Really, what I want is a Maemo device that has a built in WWAN (that's actually useful, thus ruling out WiMAX), can do direct voice calls, SMS/MMS, and data. Ideally, it would support voice calls using any of: a cellular network, SIP, UMA, Skype, and Gizmo (the E61/62/61i/71 already do the first two, and you can get a Skype addon (iSkoot), but I'd prefer the Maemo client I think).


If I were king, there would be a Nokia Maemo Phone category that have 2 sets of options:

A) form factor (E71, E66, E90)
B) WWAN network (GSM/UMTS, WiMAX, maybe CDMA/EVDO, eventually LTE)

And if I really got my way, I'd get an E90 based Maemo phone, with dual GSM cards built in, so you could direct different traffic to different providers (or two different plans with the same provider, maybe). And it would include clients for UMA, SIP, Skype, Gizmo, and Vonage.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

And the Qwerty keyboard.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Laptops are too F'n HUGE. The biggest device I ever want to carry again is a Samsung Q1. Anything bigger or heavier than that is dead weight. I've switched to riding public transportation to work (I'm saving $250/mo by doing so). I don't want to whip out of freakin' laptop so that I read Livejournal, this site, chat on Yahoo/AOL/IRC, and read my mail and RSS feeds. When I'm on the train or express bus, I want to uses something like... an N810 or Q1 (if only the Q1 had a native ubuntu port; though ubuntu mobile is almost ready for prime time, I hear).

Frankly, 11"+ laptops are dinosaurs. If you need a bigger screen than a NIT/MID/UMPC/netbook, use a desktop or get glasses. If you need to be mobile, your laptop is a boat anchor, pick something else.

And, really, "techie guy in a boardroom"??? techie guys don't go into boardrooms. By that time, they're no longer techie guys. They're pointy-haired guys. (and, really, I couldn't give a crap what's vogue for the board room; I go into senior management meetings with my N810, and I have yet to have a problem)

Last ... the link you provide shows a device with Windows ... are you on the right web site? hawking Windows to Maemo users? really? Perhaps you'd like to suggest a device that comes with a real OS?

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Speak for yourself. I bought mine to do work. And I've been using it to do work. I use it to take notes in meetings (sometimes using my iGo keyboard). I use it to access my servers while away from my desks.

I do _also_ use it for some leisure activities (checking IMDB while watching movies, IM'ing from my couch, RSS/email on the train/bus, etc; all things that I wouldn't do with a laptop because it would be too cumbersome).

But to suggest that these devices are only bought for leisures is to show your ignorance of your audience. A fatal mistake in any endeavor.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

and to argue that "what business people [need]" somehow defines what is or isn't a laptop is the tail wagging the dog (or a poor straw-man argument). Not every laptop is for business use. Not ever laptop needs to be for business use.

NITs don't have to satisfy boardroom pointy-hairs in order to be laptop replacements. They simply have to satisfy all of the mobile general purpose computing needs of some segment of the market. And in order to be successful, that market segment merely has to be big enough to support itself.

Any argument about "it's not a laptop because it can't do powerpoint presentations in a boardroom" is specious at best.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Then why is there a WiMAX version?

If this mantra (that WWAN connectivity is supposed to come from a companion device) was so true, then Nokia would have released a WiMAX router, like the CradlePoint Personal Hotspot or something, instead of a WiMAX edition of the NIT. And THAT would have been where the WiMAX connectivity for the NIT came from.

Of course, there's the third option: Nokia wasn't thinking coherently when they entered into the WiMAX deal, and so the "NIT is supposed to pair up with [another device]" mantra isn't true, but they're also not going to follow the WiMAX edition to its logical conclusion (a GSM/UMTS edition). Or perhaps they were told from above to do the WiMAX edition, but the end result is the same: no such mantra governs the product group.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

There's nothing about "GSM/UMTS radio in the tablet" that implies that it will be your phone, actually.

Several MIDs are saying they'll have HSPA modems built in. That doesn't make them phones. Certainly, if the hardware is complete (has the interfaces necessary for making calls, sending/receiving SMS/MMS messages, etc.), then the difference is a matter of software... but, these devices aren't saying they'll be phone replacements. They, like the N810 WiMAX Edition, merely package their WWAN inside the device.

Which is what the next generation NIT should do. It would be nice if it ALSO could handle voice and SMS/MMS ... but at the very least it should be able to do 3G data.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

a) you mean like on the WiMAX edition? The ship has already sailed, folks. Having a built-in WWAN radio is already a feature of the NIT family. The question now is not "whither WWAN radio", but "which WWAN radio". And GSM/UMTS is still, by far, the best choice.

b) with a GSM/UMTS radio, as long as they make it multi-band (not like the E71 where they've got 3 versions, and will need a 4th if they want to support T-Mobile, but a single version with support for all 4 UMTS variants) ... then you're not tied to a particular service. If it's unlocked, you can use it on any available carrier. In the USA, for example, you could pick between AT&T and T-Mobile.

(though, your argument certainly points out a mistake in Nokia having chosen WiMAX as its WWAN choice ... I don't know of any market where you've got a choice of WiMAX providers. It's either 0 or 1.)

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

A device _like_ it? Yes.

That device specifically? No.


Why? Because WiMAX is like betting on the 3 legged horse.

GSM is much more widely deployed. If they had released a GSM version at the same time as the WiMAX version, or even released it NOW ... it would have a much wider customer base. It's all but a certainty that it would be doing much better than the WiMAX version is doing right now.

How many of the MIDs have announced WiMAX support?
How many of the MIDs have announced HSPA support?

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Nokia sell phones mainly through mobile carriers/operators, ATT, T-Mobile, O2 etc, and their strategy has been to promote symbian/series 60 and the carriers have invested in tech support and customised firmware. Nokia have not (AFAICT) produced an S60 phone with a wimax module, therefore an N810w is not a threat.

The carriers like devices they can control, many don't even like wifi as it allows user to bypass buying data service. If the tablets were unlocked gsm/gprs/edge/3g/hspa devices and could roam freely, use wifi to make skype and sip/voip calls, and both the carriers and the entrenched mobile division of Nokia would be pretty hacked off.

On the other side of the wall, Wimax is dominated by non mobile phone operators who don't seem to be operating the subsidised handset/terminal business model, therefore Nokia can't upset them by releasing an open/unlocked device!

As far as I can tell, the internet tablet division is a very small part of Nokia, almost a skunk-works project, designed to let Nokia partake in OSS communities and learn as much as possible from them, but their major focus is remaining on 3G (not sure how LTE features in Nokia's plans).

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

in the UK there are no operators with licenses for wimax at all yet, although there are so small-scale trials, and there will be bandwidth auctions in the next month! Some information here: http://www.wimax.co.uk/

I am hoping wimax will come to my home town, Cambridge (the real one on England) sooner than later, seeing how there's a big technical community here, in which case I'll buy an N810w, otherwise I'm holding my n800 to see how things pan out.

--edit--
damn, looks like T-mobile are trying to put a spanner in the works:
http://www.wimaxday.net/site/2008/05...5-ghz-auction/

--edit2--
ofcom, the UK gov't agency who manage bandwith here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2008/04/nr_20080404

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

If Nokia isn't going to make a GSM/UMTS version of the NIT (either N810, or N820/N900) then what I would want to see instead is a companion device (preferably directly from Nokia) that does the following:

0) no direct user interface (ie. comparable to the CradlePoint routers)

1) built in GSM/UMTS radio with support for all 4 UMTS variants (it can be 4 editions, but I would prefer 1 edition with support for all 4 variants). That 4th variant being T-Mobile USA. Should do GPRS, EDGE, and HSPA. (and I would prefer it to have 2 SIM cards, so you can direct different traffic to different accounts, but that's just me)

2) light weight built in SIP server so that you can access the cellular voice network using any SIP client. (other Nokia phones which have SIP capability, or a NIT, or a Wifi Phone, etc.)

3) light weight built in Jabber server so that you can access the SMS/MMS capabilities of the device from any Jabber client (would automatically translate messages into SMS or MMS, depending on the message content).

4) Wifi access point, with lots of nice encryption/auth variants, and support for standard VPN software (so that you can use the device itself as your VPN gateway, and not have to worry about installing VPN software on the NIT).

5) possibly a CDMA variant, a WiMAX variant, and eventually an LTE variant.

6) Lots of options for battery sizes. Slim for compact carrying, thick/huge for high endurance but probably requiring a backpack, etc. And accessories for external batteries.

7) External antenna support, and some ability to control the power setting of the antenna, for those situations where you really need better reception.

8) the base unit shouldn't be much bigger than the CradlePoint PHS. The reason I don't just want an CradlePoint is: it doesn't do most of the above, certainly not the SIP/Jabber server, nor GPRS/EDGE, nor do they have a recommended external battery back, nor expanded battery options. But that's still the right size range for the base unit (with slim battery and no external antenna).


Then the "no radio" camp is happy because you don't need a WWAN radio in the NIT ... and those of us who don't want to _use_ two devices are also happy (we still have to _carry_ two devices, but we only have to directly touch the NIT ... I think that'd be an ok compromise).

I'd buy that device the day it came out with T-Mobile-USA 3G support. I could use it with my N810, my E61i's SIP capability*, and even with a Samsung Q1 if I ever buy one (if a usable version of ubuntu is ever ready for it).

(* and with the E71 if I decide to upgrade)

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

This argument would imply that the MIDs wont be able to find a service provider... Though, as we've already seen with both Nokia phones, and other devices, GSM devices don't really need to be approved by the carrier. I use a Nokia E61i on T-Mobile-USA. T-Mobile-USA has never supported nor sold that phone. Nokia sold it in a way that it can be easily used with T-Mobile-USA (has all of the settings ready to be used, just select them), and T-Mobile-USA doesn't care.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I agree that full hostap mode would be really great; it'd also enable kismet, aircrack-ng and packet injection support?

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Do you know what I would like to see on the N900? BLENDER 3D!!!! Hell, I would like to see this on the current N8xx's.

Now I know what you're thinking, and you'd be kinda right. Being a 3D suite, the ability to model/render at comfortable speeds requires pretty large hardware. However there are a bunch of views in blender that require less horse-power, as well as the ability to hide parts of the model/environment for greater responsiveness and easier editing (less obstructions).

I remember doing renderings using blender on a Pentium 200Mhz (Non mmx) laptop with 64M of ram and a 4G HD. It was a bit slow, but it was still extremely useful for composing 3D models or parts of models which would then be used/reassembled on a more powerful computer. And all of this was WITHOUT 3D acceleration.

I know the tablets are capable of running this app.

This would certainly be a news worthy accomplishment and bring a LOT of attention to the tablets. To know that the tablets could play a role (even a small one) in the production of something similar to Toy Story, Finding Nemo, or Shrek, is an amazing bragging right.

You can check out the blender 3D rendering suite at http://blender3d.org/features-gallery/
You can check out an open source movie developed with blender and open source tools at http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/

Won't some master of machine-speak, sultan of scripts, saviour of souls come to our aide and compile this program for the tablet? Qwerty12, I'm looking in your direction ;).

After the port, we can blitz Gizmodo/Engadget or other gadget news blogs of the accomplishment and sing praises of the porter. They ran the Win 3.1 port as a story, so this one is sure to be picked up.

I don't have a tablet (yet), but I'm extremely close to installing scratchbox and starting to port/develop. Hmm... Not a bad idea...


}:^)~
YARR!

f(Capt'n)=Corrupt

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

why not ask someone to port Sun's Looking Glass 3D gui?
http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

For some values of "plenty" and "affordable", yeah! For other values, not so much...

On campus, I've got WiFi; as a consequence, though I've had an N800 for over a half year, and been interested in getting a tethering-capable data-plan for about that long, I still haven't gotten one; I don't need it that bad. But I'm still looking, and would be even happier with a WWAN N810W, if it came at a reasonably similar price point. (If it's a little less expensive, because of no voice calls, and a little more expensive, because it's 4g instead of 3g, with theoretically better bandwidth, etc., it's conceivable it could be comparable. I expect it'll be more, though.)

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Personally, I'd prefer the device DOESN'T have a wide area radio like WiMAX and I'd prefer to have that as a feature of my cell phone (so I can tether to it like a modem) or as a feature of a seperate device (the way GPS is for the N800).

I only say this because if you made it part of the unit, then you pay for extra weight and technology that marries that unit to a particular kind of wide area network that your favorite carrier may not support and will eventually become obsoleted down the road as everything eventually does.

I would prefer that Nokia and other phone makers concentrate next-gen data on phones and make it so that they can "modem" the data through that wireless phone device so that ANYTHING (770, N800, N810, N900, laptops, etc.) with Bluetooth can just hook up.. even old systems as long as they talk Bluetooth.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

it like it to be Atom or Nano based

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Whatever for?

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Maybe for compatibility with x86 binaries?

Personally, I couldn't care either way but the one thing *I* would want an Atom CPU in there for is the specs (speed and cache). The ARM is fine, though.. but the CPU speed NEEDS to be increased in whatever they do with this new unit. I mean.. MUCH more speed. 400MHz is so 20th century.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

hz is a marketing meme...

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Clearly because he has tons of money burning a hole in his pocket, and has severe addiction issues with mobile devices so he wants the battery life to be as short as possible.

Any other explanation would simply be ridiculous.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

The OMAP 3440--the most likely choice to power the next "step" Internet Tablet--has been discussed in this very thread numerous times and will fulfill the need you've stated.

EDIT: As GeneralAntilles kindly points out below, the OMAP 3430 is the beasty in question, not the 3440.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Yes, you pay for the extra weight & technology, but it sin't very heavy now, is it?

Following your argument lets not include WiFi either. Lets not include GPS either. Lets keep all kind of other devices in the pocket to tether with BlueTooth. Oh wait, BlueTooth was left out as well. I don't want a GSM, and a GPS, and a DAP, and a PDA. I want one device which is able to do all of that well with good hardware & user-friendly software (probably would cost 1000 EUR or so), and able to tether with a _laptop_ for the big work.

Besides, GSM sucks. VoIP is the New World, and dead to GSM telcos who sell contracts for ridiculous prices. You only need one wide area hardware interface + data plan to be 24/7, and it has to be widely available. Currently that is 3G. In the future perhaps 4G (e.g. WiMAX).

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

The OMAP3430, actually. The OMAP3440 is 800MHz (versus the OMAP3430's 600MHz) and is quite a bit more power-hungry than the OMAP3430, which would result in severely reduced battery life for devices in the tablet's form-factor. The OMAP3440 is really a UMPC chip.

Note: for anybody wondering, OMAP3 is significantly more powerful than OMAP2, so a direct megahertz-to-megahertz comparison (i.e., the OMAP2420's 400MHz versus the OMAP3430's 600MHz) doesn't tell the whole story.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Nuts. Thanks. I never should have trusted my memory for numbers. Squirrelly little things they are.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I disagree with that statement as it stands, but it's accurate in that the frequency isn't a true indication of resulting speeds. Just the same, the intention here is to satisfy the need for a system that can perform faster than what we're seeing now and 400MHz on the ARM in the N8x0 series are appearing to perform at roughly about what you'd expect for 400MHz.. so I'd like to see that speed increase enough to be able to process things in realtime a little better (video/audio processing on the current processor are a bit woeful... but the DSP might help with this. Question: is the DSP fully integrated to all the video, audio, memory and CPU systems and does everyone have adequate information to be able to take full advantage? I'm asking since I don't know--but if I'm not mistaken it's a "no" all-around thanks to a lot of the closed-source mentality from the hardware end of things.)

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Thanks for the link!! It is a start, but it doesn't include any numbers of how often something was proposed or who proposed, or any pros/cons. Do you still have the data you used to compile your list?

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I do believe you're posting in it.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Ohho... OMAP3430 would be VERY good. I'm satisfied with that. :) (Agreed on the MHz discussion.. but it's still relevant on some level--I don't see anynoe discussing bogomips or any other measurement.. although maybe we should).

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

speed, X86
going from 400mhz, to 1.6ghz would be incredible

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

HAH! I called it. ;)

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

you're not a big fan of speed?

Its not like the atom would kill the battery life. 0.65 watts? Other tablets have it.
and x86 would rock, you could put vista or OS X on there if you wanted.

although probably wouldn't want to.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Should have 1024x600 and more RAM and be available by Thanksgiving.

Faster CPU would be a bonus too

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

With battery life equal to the Internet Tablets?

EDIT: Ah, you slipped the "0.65 watts" in there. Please see this previous discussion on Atom vs OMAP power consumption.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

do the atoms not suspened like the OMAP processors do?