And before thin client the term used to be X terminal, except that unlike the thin client which used proprietary protocols to connect and DIDN'T have an X server, the X terminal used open, universal protocols and DID have an X server. The thin client was a step backward, and a deliberate one at that, intended to lock out X, its benefits and its users.

Back in '95 when SONY introduced the first Playstation the games were not very impressive at first. They got better, though, as the game software makers learned what to do with the console. In 2000 when SONY introduced the PS/2 it was the same scenario - the games didn't at first take advantage of the new hardware, really, but the game software makers gradually figured out how to take advantage of it. It always happens like this. The 770 is about 6 months old and the software to exploit it is coming along from many directions at what I think is a respectable rate. The fact that it's free software (i.e., GPL) is fortifying the development of software to exploit the 770, though. It's still early.

Why doesn't Micro$oft easy our pain and provide X for us all, like Apple does, like Linux, BSD & UNIX do? Well, they deliberately won't. And they deliberately made sure that you can't get X on a Windows thin client, either. You can achieve X on a PC with Cygwin or some proprietary implementation of X or you could convince Bill Gates to put X on Windows so that a Windows PC could try to serve up client applications to a world of remote X users. Windows operating systems aren't designed to do this, though, so X on Windows is basically a hack - always has been, always will be.

Do you want your application to support many remote users in a collaborative software network? Don't write your application for any Windows OS, write it for X, and none of those remote users will ever have to install your app, worry about the storage it requires, or worry about whether the serious number crunching will ever affect their 770's because they are remote display users and not PC users.

The two UK online banking services I use are also HTML-only based and if at some point they required Java I'd change to another bank without thinking about it. I don't like Java apps at the best of times - I don't miss such support on the 770! :)

blame the banks
 

Maybe you should check out the competition? banking-wise, I mean... I've tried several (most) major banking services here in Finland, and none of them required more than https (and possibly javascript). The 770 works fine.

Frankly, while I understand your need to get this fixed as fast as possible, I consider your solution a half-assed one -- Objectively this is not a maemo/770 problem, as internet banking is entirely possible through web. The banks are the ones who need to get their act together... Ask around, I find it hard to believe that no banks in your area support web-banking. If you find one, let your current bank know you're thinking of changing banks.

I'm not saying client-side Java on a device like this is an entirely stupid idea, I am saying that this is not a good reason for including it.

At $28 for 1GB, I don't think we should be calling RS-MMC expensive. And maybe you can't find it in Staples, but I wouldn't call it rare. And come on, 1 GB is big, even if some other memory chip formats have bigger cards.

Remember too that by using memory they were familiar with from phones, the Nokia engineers were able to come out with the 770 sooner and cheaper than the UMPC efforts.

These posts are...bemusing. You really cannot compare anything unless you look at price points. I have spent quite amount of time researching the 770 simply because it fit within the vicinity of my "price point". Two weeks ago I returned the very disappointing Palm T|X. Please know that I have been a happy Tungsten C owner for the last four years (yes, I was one of the first to have one). Recently, I have had occasion to do a great amount of air travel and lugging my PowerBook on every trip has turned into a labor that I am anxious to escape. The TC was simply useless for email and browsing because of it's small screen. The PB is great for everything except usage on a plane--unless you are in FC. If I flew FC all of the time, it would not be an issue. The TC is great for video and documents, but very, very tiring on the eyes.

So, I need Internet access on the road (Wi-Fi/Modem) and document and video access (at useful size) on the plane. The 770 seemed like a good choice--I will know soon.

The other, important issue, was Mac compatibility. I am hoping that since the 770 is Unix-based that it will be very Mac friendly. Again, I will know soon and am hoping the limitations (memory & processor speed) will not be an impediment to my goals.

What are you trying to do?
 

I just compressed a three hour movie to 700 MB. 1GB is a good size for taking one or two full-length movies on a trip.

Sorry, I disagree. If I need access to Wells Fargo , what does saving $500 buying a 770 vs a UMPC mean to me? Nothing.

If it doesn't do what I want, it's a waste. It's as easy as that.

Please don't think I'm trashing the 770 - I'm not. But for someone like me, the UMPC makes a lot of sense.

Part of my job involves supporting an application that runs under windows (as well as HP/UX, AIX, Solaris, and RH/AS). For the most part, the 770 allows me to sit in a dive bar and answer e-mail and do my job with a cigarette in one hand and a microbew beer in the other, connected by my bluetooth EDGE phone while I type on a bluetooth keyboard... and that is amazing. And yes, I do have three hands.

But sometimes I need to run a windows application - how will buying the 770 help someone in that situation? Why is the UMPC so bad?

Price is important, but you need to look at need first... no matter how cheap it is, if it doesn't do what you need, it's not money saved.

Notice I said need, not want. That's a whole other issue.

The cynical might even say the UMPC will do more on the day of release than the 770 can do a year later... (but again, what do you really need?)

Just trying to inject a bit of reality.

Brad.

I think you missed what Odin was saying. You are trying to compare the 770 to a UMPC, which is an unfair comparison. Yes functionality and interoperability are important factors, and a 770 might not be right for you because of your needs. But it is unrealistic to expect a $300 device to have the same functionality as a $800 device.the 770 was never intended as a replacement for shrunk down windows PCs.

I've just been given a UMPC (a Samsung Q-somethingorother) to roadtest for my wife's company. I also have a 770.

The UMPC is "so bad" because it sucks in /so/ many different ways:

The battery life is AWFUL.

The software is not sufficiently optimised for the touchscreen input method or the small screen size that it has.

The virtual keyboard sucks totally, and doesn't appear nicely when it's needed (to get text-entry on a fullscreen app, you have to duck out of full screen, activate the vkeyb, enter the text and go back in to fullscreen - you can't have the vkeyb active with fullscreen IE, at the very least)

The application integration sucks. Adobe reader can go full screen, but you can't easily get out again.

I stopped at this point. I'm sure there are workarounds for some of these issue, but they really weren't obvious to me - a relatively experienced sysadmin. I'm equally sure that there are more problems that more extended use would expose (I stopped after kicking it around for a week).

I very, very much doubt that. Having used a UMPC, I'm amazed that it even got out of the lab. It SUCKS. It really does.

To anyone considering getting a UMPC - try before you buy. PLEASE.

Jaycee

Take a chance on me...
 

One of the "little things" that I really like about the 770 is how the keyboard appears "nicely when it's needed". I took a big chance with the 770 and bought mine from Nokia direct having never had a chance to play with one. I really, really enjoy this machine and do not regret a moment since the purchase.