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

No, it's not. What makes you believe it is?

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

Not to mention that Bluetooth bandwitdth peaks out at what? 1Mb/s for version 1.2, 3Mb/s for version 2; and there you have it, it's already completely saturated at less than the bandwidth available via your phone. So what good is your 3, 4 or 5G connection to your phone if the pipe to your tablet is the limiting factor. Besides, honestly, you can't tell me you wouldn't have up graded by to the next version of the tablet anyways. A 3 to 4 year replacement cycle, or however long the telco G-upgrade takes, seems completely acceptable to me (of course, as I say this I'm still using my 770, though waiting with bated breath for the 900). Personally, if it's not obviously already, I would prefer to have a sim slot in the NIT. And no, I'm not saying I would use the NIT as a phone, it's for the data. Sorry for flogging a dead horse, just my 2

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

note that the bandwidth of a 3G connection is relative to the saturation of the local cell, so while at peak the bluetooth connection can be the bottleneck, it do not have to be.

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

I was under the impression that bluetooth connectivity was limited to just Nokia phones. At least that's how I read the information on it. Then again, it could have been Nokia marketing spin too. But that was how I initially read it.

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

True, true, but we're comparing ideals here, or at least averages. 1 or 3 Mb/s is the peak theoretical bandwidth, what kind of bandwidth to you actually see from bluetooth in real life. And I'm asking, not saying. Regardless, even though I'm on the fence about the advantages vs. disadvantages of convergence, I'm closer to wanting it all in one device...one to rule them all!

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

i guess my dream would be a collection of devices doing specifically one task and exchanging data over a wireless band. why? because of one of them breaks, you only have to replace it rather then having to replace the whole...

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

TSO: Actually, they're working on modular MIDs and Internet Tablets that will do what you mention, but in a single form factor. All parts (or at least the majority of them) will be user swappable and replaceable. They have one out there that's a concept prototype (it looks kinda like the building blocks used by the Stargate Replicators) which is already putting to full use that idea of modular all-in-one design.

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

what? bug labs, or something else? (im not familiar with stargate btw, only "tv" series i watch lately are fansubbed anime)

the problem with a all in one is that you have to take it apart if you want to leave something behind to reduce bulk.

with wireless one could drop the part that you dont really need to directly handle (like say storage or wwan) into a pocket and forget about it.

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

Which will remain a dream because wireless spectrum isn't getting any opener, and amounts of data that need transferred are going up. That means higher radio power. ;)

I'm pretty solidly in the interchangeable-radio-module camp, for now; unfortunately, there's no real good standard for an N800-sized device now. ExpressCard/34's a bit big, and typically have huge antennae outside the form factor, while mini-PCIe is maybe a touch big (half-size is dead on, though), but don't include antennae at all; both of them are pretty good though, as they permit USB connections, which are adequate for most data links, and certainly for all the data the tablet can use.

Maybe some such USB-only internal form-factor should be standardized, but in the meantime, I'd be tempted to abuse one of those standards by making a non-conforming PCIe-less (but otherwise fully-compatible) version, if I was in charge of designing such a device.

There's always SDIO, and I suppose (if they could scrounge up 3 SD interfaces on the N900) that would actually make sense; 2GB (make that 4GB) internal, one internal (SDIO-capable) slot for either WiMAX or storage, and one external. One model covering the entire N800/N810W(/N810UMTS/etc.) range. Still, I'd rather two free SDs and a separate USB-based data slot. You can always rig up a flash drive for that, too.

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

This approach has the additional advantage of separate batteries for each device. So if you want to listen to music for 12 hours, you aren't sacrificing your ability to make or receive a phone call at the end of the flight (for example). But the question is, are you willing to put up with carrying all of those devices as the price?

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

depends on whether or not i can buy them piece-meal and that i can replace them independently of each other.

over time i have picked up a phone, the tablet, a gps module and ad2p capable handsfree (jabra bt8010, love it!).

if i happen to bring the phone and the gps but not the tablet, i can still use the gps. same with the handsfree.

i also recently got a charger/battery combo with a usb port, so that i can charge the phone or tablet on the go (i can do that with the jabra to if i remember to bring its data cable). the gps sadly wants 1A to charge.

this also allows me to go for a cheaper non-smart phone. im currently considering the sonyericsson C702 (and yes, it has built in GPS).

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

i have pretty much the same list of equipment, phone (nokia e51), tablet (770), gps (holux m1200), and bluetooth handsfree (one of the plantronics). for me, especially since different chargers were required for the phone and the gps, it gets to be a bit much. hence, my desire for convergence. maybe i'm just enamored with the grass on the other side of the fence. i'm almost leaning towards getting the "higher end" version of the 5800 when it comes out early next year.

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

Well, you're clearly mistaken, as my Samsung cellphone is clearly not a Nokia. . . .

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

Cool. I'm glad to know that. It makes me feel a bit better knowing that I can likely get my motorola working with my n810. Now if I can just figure out how to sync using bluetooth, I'll be fine. ^_^;;

TSO: Yes, I believe it was bug labs. But they're only the first. There's like two others doing something like them, but on a much more detailed level. Their idea is to take a MID, UMPC, or IT and make a uniform barebones form factor, then make all the parts interchangable. It might require some delicate hands on work, but the stuff is swappable. So if you blow your wireless card, you just swap it out. Need a 3g antenna instead, just swap it in. Etc, etc, etc.

Again, it's only lab work and theory right now as the test unit is too bulky for regular use, but it's a good start. :)

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

Alright then, how about I make the issue more relevant to today's architecture? Which type of radio should the Nokia tablet support? Only WiMax? 3G? EVDO?

You know that if you pick only one of these, you've already limited my ability to choose carriers and if I already have a provider for my cell phone service, I probably can't use it.

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

Good point, and I agree, but I was talking about the upgrade factor.

I like the just pick one that is most widespread and live with it mantra. Most people don't seem to care which radio, as long as there is one AND the option to tether via bluetooth or WiFi

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

There's not "one that's most widespread", because there's not one world. In Europe, it's easy; everyone's running compatible 3gsm systems. In the US, things are rather fragmented (which doesn't preclude picking one), but the European option doesn't work at full speed on any network. And there's differences in Asia, too, with which I'm completely unfamiliar.

So the best solution is swappable data cards. One (for the most widespread option) per market, or hopefully several for the US (and anywhere else with several widespread options).

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

Soooo... most widespread? Which one's that? :)

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

Well, I have a Motorola phone working with my N800, so it certainly seems likely you'll be okay.

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

i checked up on the holux and it seems its able to charge of a usb port.

that means it could charge of something like this:
http://proporta.com/F02/PPF02P05.php...126&t_mode=des

or this:
http://www.consumer.philips.com/cons...rge+SCM7880-05

the latter one is especially interesting as it has a built in battery. and come with a usb to nokia converter.

dont know how your plantronics charges tho...

only problem with the philips one is that its only 1000mA.

but they have bigger ones, up to something like 8000mA.

but those are not battery and charger in one...

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

i would love to see a link for that, as the bug labs one seem to be field changeable...

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

The phone has to support BlueTooth, and for data transfers over Internet the NIT with using the phone's 2G/2.5G/3G ability the phone has to support tethering (DUN).

On the old maemo wiki tere is an (incomplete) list of phones supporting DUN (link).

On the Nokia wiki BlueTooth is explained as well with visual guidance (pictures) (link).

Related to the subject of this thread is this observation "Whither the revolution?" on the front page (ItT thread). Some discussions there overlap the one here.

As for 3G on the NIT I was directed to Ari Jaaksi's blogpost from novembre 2005 "It is not a cell phone -- and it is good"

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

With all the Eee models, one might be forgiven for thinking Asus had such a common platform. (AFAIK, there's at least three, and I think more, basic chassises in current production.)

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

For my personal area network (PAN) (PDA, NIT, UMPC, Laptop, Phone, PMP, Camera(s)), wifi is already more than powerful and fast enough. In fact, to make it really PAN level, you could dramatically lower the power output of wifi.

1 gateway device with voice, messaging, and data capability to the outside world, acts as a wifi access point for your PAN, and has a SIP server for relaying voice calls for your other devices, and a jabber server for relaying messaging for your other devices ... is more than good enough for the hub of such a "specialized device" perspective.

Then you use an optimized video camera for taking videos, an optimized still camera for taking photographs, a PMP for your media playing, an laptop for mobile work, and a PDA or NIT or smartphone for your handheld computing and/or communications. And if any of the prospective mobile hard-drive makers* get off their butts and release one, you could even have a NAS type device in your PAN.


(* not those dorks who keep releasing "portable hard drives" that only have USB interfaces and no batteries, I'm talking about the ones who are looking at releasing Bluetooth FTP enabled storage devices with internal batteries; though, perhaps these days I'd prefer to see them use a wifi based storage protocol than Bluetooth)

The problem with the specialized device PAN model isn't the radio power problem. It's that no vendor has created an adequate gateway device. And marketing seems focused on heading toward convergence devices right now (which are the exact opposite philosophy from the specialized device PAN model).

I'm hoping someone will hack an android phone into being able to do the gateway functionality, so that it can evolve into satisfying both camps. Though, if Nokia ever gets off its butt and releases a Maemo phone, it could possibly function in that capacity as well.

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

there is a third party PAN implementation out there, and i can confirm that it works.

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

I don't have the link readily available, but if I find it again, I'll go ahead and post it.

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

By far the best solution is to use the Bluetooth connection to the phone for your data link. If I live in China I can surf, if I am on sprint I can surf, if I am on Verizon, I can surf if I am on AT&T I can still surf. I f I am on a ship in the middle of the sea. I can surf.

If I move to another area and change providers, I can get myself setup with the new plan or get a new phone and not have to buy a new tablet as well, or tablet data card.

Even if the data link speed increased, yes bluetooth may be the bottleneck. But would you rather buy a new tablet with the new high speed link just to keep up?

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

I disagree. The best solution is, if you have a phone with wifi sharing, or a cradlepoint type device, to use that. Better than Bluetooth.

You've got cellular service on the middle of the sea? really... I wasn't ware of any cell towers out in the deep blue Pacific Ocean. :)

Your statement is that, with the "many specialized devices model", you'll only have to replace the phone (or gateway device), and not the tablet/MID/PDA. 1 purchase. And you're saying that's better than with the convergence device model.

Yet, the MIDs that have 3G radios are almost all using modules. And since we're comparing to the "convergence device" model, we'll extrapolate that to "has voice/txt service built in to that module" as well. So, if I switch carriers/protocols, I don't have to swap tablets/MIDs/smartphones, I just have to replace the module. 1 purchase... and it will probably be no more expensive, and maybe a lot less expensive, than you having to buy a new phone for your "many devices" model.

Remind me how the many specialized devices model better than the convergence device model in this context?

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

and way more power hungry on both ends...

still, one of the ideas for upping bluetooth bandwidth in the future is to make bluetooth and wifi cooperate. bluetooth takes care of the background traffic and wifi is called in to do the heavy lifting when needed...

the other is to use UWB...

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

If you leave it at default power levels, yes. But that would be stupid.

You don't need the default area coverage of Wifi for home/building wide networks when you're doing PDA<->Phone links. You could lower the power output quite a bit, thus saving your battery quite a bit.

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

if your referring to the watt setting, iirc it does nothing to conserve battery life...

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

No, I'm talking about what could/would/should be done at a design level, not at the user/software level.

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

What is wifi sharing?

Yes if Nokia produces a different module for each data network then that would be ideal. As long as they don't bundle all of them with each tablet. Users can purchase the module corresponding to the network in their area.

Voice remains on the phone.

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

assuming those bozos from Nokia still read it - otherwise i'm wasting my time.

(n800 user, know nothing about n810)

KEEP

- speakers. I own iPod classic but find myself using n800 more and more because of built-in surprisingly good stereo speakers. Any degrading of this - totally count me out as a potential buyer

- two memory cards slots

- built quality. is good

- FM radio

- stand

- form factor, fine by me

UPGRADE

- CPU. The current is laughable by modern standards. Needs to be able to play video full screen resolution, h264 preferable.

- screen. this device needs to work outdoors, n800 is way too dim for that. Seriously consider going with OLED technology. current size, resolution OK

- the touch-screen technology. N800/810 is grossly inferior compared to iPod.

- buttons in n800 were extremely poorly thought out, placement, tactile recognition, etc. One needs to be able to operate in total darkness and comfortably so. Hire some ergonomics experts to help you here

- power plug. n800 power supply is radiculous, its plug that is, way too small, way too fragile, a minor tug and the plug is gone.

- software and drastically so. Given Nokia software competence we may as well forget it.

- camera to something on iPod level at least as the current device is grossly radiculous.

PROVIDE


- USB (pseudo) charging

- working GPS would be nice

- dockability (power, video/audio out) ?

- ability to buy spare parts, styli, cases, headsets, etc.

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

So how much of this functionality do y'all think could be accomplished with say...SDIO? Honestly, I've never used it, just always thought it was a great idea that perhaps wasn't implemented particularly well. I recall see at least on post here, in this thread I mean, where one of us said that their SDIO wifi card was horrible. But if drivers/cards/implementation in general could be sorted out, WiMax sdio, cdma/sim, gsm/sim, etc, etc. Possible or no?

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

Aren't you the Atom guy? I though you moved on? Guess not. S'too bad.

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

Bad it is I'm sorry to agree. Man, get a life, this (forum) isn't it.

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

Ok, ok, I am curious. For how many of you is the most important feature at this point an announcement, or release date, or any real official information on the next generation NIT? (I'm only half joking). Seriously, looking back, n810, n800, and 770 were announced at the Web 2.0 Summit 2007 (it's October 17-19 this year), CES 2007 (next one is January 8-11 2009), and the Linuxworld summit in 2005(the next one is August 10-13 2009). Interestingly, Nokia has announced each iteration of the NIT at a completely different event. So, if we look forward, what are some of the possible Expos/conferances/summits (i.e. upcoming dates) at which the n900 (if it is indeed so named) may be announced?

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

http://www.internettablettalk.com/fo...ad.php?t=21569 :D

I can't make it, though. :(

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

Hmmm, I wish! But I'm guessing no....just because it seems that when they do an announcement, it's in part geared towards reaching a broader audience, expanding their perspective market. All the people there are most likely already NIT owners. Which isn't to say that they wouldn't buy the next one; rather, they were already going to buy it regardless.