Dr. Ari Jaaksi on Maemo 5 - Page 48 - maemo.org

Active Topics

The N900 is now 15 years old! (7)
to Nokia N900 by Danct12 - 1 day, 7 hrs ago
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 2 days, 3 hrs ago
F(x)tec Pro1x (QWERTY) for sale (0)
to Buy & Sell by aln00000 - 4 days, 12 hrs ago
more...

Page 48 of 56

Thread Tools

nilchak	2008-09-24 , 20:20
Posts: 1,097 \| Thanked: 650 times \| Joined on Nov 2007	#471

Originally Posted by deeteroderdas

I'm using the LG CU720 (Shine) with tethering @ 3G.

Subjectively, it feels faster than tethering through my Nokia 6555 @ 3G.

While we genralise 3G as fast broadband there is a major difference between its sub classes - Edge, UMTS, hsdpa, hspa etc.

The LG feels faster because it is an HSDPA 3G device while the Nokia is a UMTS 3G device.

Quote & Reply |

	Benson	2008-09-24 , 20:22
	Posts: 4,930 \| Thanked: 2,272 times \| Joined on Oct 2007	#472

Originally Posted by nilchak

I see this vision failing majorly (don't get me wrong, I understand what you want personally). But if the aim of the tablets is to carry over all (or most) desktop apps to a portable device and only that (so that we have a LOT of apps), then it is doomed. There has been many such devices (Zaurus to start with with Debian ported over, many Windows based MID's) where desktop apps have been ported (or the whole OS in fact). But porting an app is only half the job. The actual part is making it usable, and that is where this paradigm fails miserably.

Why, oh why would a general user want the full featured desktop app on his little 4" screened device ? I mean would I want the tablet apps to be ported over to my little 2" phone next, just so I can have access to most popular apps on every device ? That IS NOT the point of mobile devices.

IPhone interface (and I am not praising iPhone here, so lets not go there) is an example of mobile devices having its own unique UI and UX which should be distinct from its desktop application.

Mobile apps can compliment the desktop apps in function and extend it that way, but just porting a desktop app to a mobile platform, UI and all, does not a mobile application make.

Well, some of us just don't like carrying laptops everywhere. If you don't have the desktop apps on a mobile device, you have to bring a laptop to use them; sure, some tradeoff has to be made for usability, but you can't ditch the laptop if your mobile devices only have complementary apps.

Now I recall a big argument over whether NITs are laptops or not, and I really don't want to start that again, but I think there's a bigger market for a device that's both a hard-to-use laptop and a slick mobile device than either one alone.

__________________
World's first inductively-charged N900!

Last edited by Benson; 2008-09-24 at 20:34.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Benson For This Useful Post:
benny1967, GeneralAntilles, luca, Texrat

SD69	2008-09-24 , 20:25
Posts: 1,513 \| Thanked: 2,248 times \| Joined on Mar 2006 @ US	#473

Originally Posted by nilchak

I see this vision failing majorly (don't get me wrong, I understand what you want personally). But if the aim of the tablets is to carry over all (or most) desktop apps to a portable device and only that (so that we have a LOT of apps), then it is doomed. There has been many such devices (Zaurus to start with with Debian ported over, many Windows based MID's) where desktop apps have been ported (or the whole OS in fact). But porting an app is only half the job. The actual part is making it usable, and that is where this paradigm fails miserably.

Why, oh why would a general user want the full featured desktop app on his little 4" screened device ? I mean would I want the tablet apps to be ported over to my little 2" phone next, just so I can have access to most popular apps on every device ? That IS NOT the point of mobile devices.

IPhone interface (and I am not praising iPhone here, so lets not go there) is an example of mobile devices having its own unique UI and UX which should be distinct from its desktop application.

Mobile apps can compliment the desktop apps in function and extend it that way, but just porting a desktop app to a mobile platform, UI and all, does not a mobile application make.

Thank you nilchak!!! I was starting to feel like I was the only UI design cognizant person in this thread.

Quote & Reply |

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SD69 For This Useful Post:
hyartep, nilchak

sjgadsby	2008-09-24 , 20:30
Posts: 5,335 \| Thanked: 8,187 times \| Joined on Mar 2007 @ Pennsylvania, USA	#474

Originally Posted by brontide

Oh really...so this is as good as we are going to get and we should be happy with it?

I don't see where Texrat stated or implied that the increase in openness has peaked, nor did I get the impression from OSiM and the summit that such an event has transpired. Much the contrary, in fact.

Nokia has not opened up every bit of code and every specification I'd like, and I will continue to support community efforts to encourage them to become more open. However, that does not prevent me from simultaneously appreciating what they've done so far, particularly the sharp uptick in openness they've demonstrated recently.

__________________
maemo.org profile

Last edited by sjgadsby; 2008-09-24 at 20:31. Reason: typo

Quote & Reply |

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sjgadsby For This Useful Post:
benny1967, dafrabbit, GeneralAntilles, Jaffa, Texrat

nilchak	2008-09-24 , 20:35
Posts: 1,097 \| Thanked: 650 times \| Joined on Nov 2007	#475

Originally Posted by Benson

Well, some of us just don't like carrying laptops everywhere. If you don't have the desktop apps on a mobile device, you have to brong a laptop to use them; sure, some tradeoff has to be made for usability, but you can't ditch the laptop if your mobile devices only have complementary apps.

I still don't buy this argument. So by this logic, if today's technology allowed 1(or more) day battery life, enough memory, a big internal memory and all that jing-bang on a cell phone with a full blown OS to boot (all hypothetical mind you), would you say that you would like your desktop application to be ported over to your cell phone just so you could ditch your laptop/desktop and carry just the cell phone with you ?

No, I am certain you wouldn't do that , and that is because the desktop app is NOT usable in a cell phone form factor.

And how is it that different where a desktop application is ported, bells and whistles and all to a 4" screened tablet (except in making it slightly more usable than a cell phone) but still unusable really as a mobile application ?

The whole point of Netbooks is not to replace the large screen laptops either. It is useful for limited apps and browsing and connectivity and computing in a cinch. Would you think about using a netbook for high-power number crunching ? So what gives that a tablet should be a replacement for a laptop ?

I just don't see this vision succeeding in any way - for the simple fact that mobile devices are for mobility and also for ease of use while you are mobile. If its not easy, nobody will use it (except a few diehard geeks). (We are talking about Nokia mass-marketing the device mind you).

Last edited by nilchak; 2008-09-24 at 20:37.

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to nilchak For This Useful Post:
hyartep

	brontide	2008-09-24 , 20:36
	Posts: 868 \| Thanked: 474 times \| Joined on Oct 2007 @ Capital District, NY, USA	#476

Originally Posted by Benson

Now think: "increasingly", wouldn't that imply a continuing process? If you think he used the wrong words, say so, but your proposed interpretation doesn't follow from what he said.

There are an infinite number of shades of gray. Trying to slap "Increasingly" on it doesn't make it much better when the community *that actually writes and ports the majority of titles* is basically left out in the cold.

If they wish developers to have continued faith in the platform they have to offer reasonable forward compatibility, lead time, development tools, and a reasonable platform ( that includes a reason for consumers to actually buy it ).

As for the uberfast, HD, HSPA, whatever... I'll believe it when it ships as each new generation of tablet hardware has been universally met with unfinished and unfulfilled promises why would Maemo 5 be any different?

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to brontide For This Useful Post:
Jerome

lma	2008-09-24 , 20:41
Posts: 2,802 \| Thanked: 4,491 times \| Joined on Nov 2007	#477

Originally Posted by SD69

I think the first use of OMAP 1710 (with proof it could drive a large touch screen) in Nokia was the 7710

That was a 1510 @ 168MHz, and if it proved anything it was that it couldn't drive the large(-ish, 640x320) screen. That UI was *slow*!

Still, if it wasn't for that device we wouldn't be here talking about the N900 right now :-)

Quote & Reply |

Jerome	2008-09-24 , 20:41
Posts: 477 \| Thanked: 118 times \| Joined on Dec 2005 @ Munich, Germany	#478

Originally Posted by fpp

Jerome, is there anything special to be done in the e51 settings for this to work ?
Or is it just a matter of selecting the packet network as the access point in the SIP configuration ?
(in which case it is the 3G carrier blocking that traffic, as I've tried that :-)

TIA,
fp

Originally Posted by allnameswereout

Jerome, what settings? Even with portforwarding I couldn't get it to work.

Both Gizmo and Fring do work though.

It is just a matter of selecting the packet network as the access point in the SIP configuration indeed. If that does not work, but gizmo does (gizmo is sip), it means your carrier is blocking the sip ports. Try replacing the session control port from 5060 to something else. Sipphone (gizmo...) supports almost any port, but some voip providers will insist on standard ports like 5060 and 5061. Trying 5061, 5062 and 5063 for a start.

(and please open another thread if you want to ask further sip questions...).