08-04-10 02:47 PM
259 ... 45678 ...
tools
  1. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    And don't forget dual core processors, too (unreal). Still, all this means nothing to me for a FRICKIN' PHONE! LOL...as my sig says, this is NOT intended to replace my computer. It could come with a 2.8 ghz quad core processor and 4 Gig of RAM and it still would not matter to me...it's a phone, period. Anything I have to view on a 4" screen is not going to be my primary device, not when I have a 32", calibrated monitor at home. Now THAT is real estate!

    1ghz and 512 ram will be outdated by next year the phones in jan 2010 had 1ghz.
    07-04-10 03:47 PM
  2. Frank2029's Avatar
    And don't forget dual core processors, too (unreal). Still, all this means nothing to me for a FRICKIN' PHONE! LOL...as my sig says, this is NOT intended to replace my computer. It could come with a 2.8 ghz quad core processor and 4 Gig of RAM and it still would not matter to me...it's a phone, period. Anything I have to view on a 4" screen is not going to be my primary device, not when I have a 32", calibrated monitor at home. Now THAT is real estate!

    Us Blackberry users would probably agree with you.

    Tell that to the iphone and other apple product fanboys who swear everything apple releases is the most amazing thing ever....
    07-04-10 07:27 PM
  3. 1magine's Avatar
    Us Blackberry users would probably agree with you.

    Tell that to the iphone and other apple product fanboys who swear everything apple releases is the most amazing thing ever....
    I DISAGREE. I use my BB some times 14-18 hours a day and don't get to sit at home on my computer sometimes for a week at a time. Most of the executives and partners I know are similarly situated.

    Glad you don't need to use a BB for so many of your needs, but many of us do. Hence the development of the fully featured smartphones. There is a reason that screens have gotten bigger, and cpus more powerful, and the smart phone media and social experience so entrenched. The world for most has gotten much smaller, but for many it has also become necessary to make our business entirely portable. (See blackberry presenter; BT Visor; Schlange link etc..)
    07-06-10 02:40 PM
  4. Crucial_Xtreme's Avatar
    1ghz and 512 ram will be outdated by next year the phones in jan 2010 had 1ghz.
    I disagree. Both the Iphone 3G & 3GS both had processors clocked lower than either the BlackBerry Bold 9000 and/or 9700. They use memory differently, but 256 was all that was allocated for the 3GS. Anyways, my point is while there will be a few devices out there with 1GHz+ processors, that doesn't make a 1GHz & 512 device out of date(assuming a rel before late March). It's about how the device functions and what it offers. ))
    07-06-10 03:20 PM
  5. tumer's Avatar
    Have you played with such a device cx?
    07-06-10 03:25 PM
  6. 1magine's Avatar
    I disagree. Both the Iphone 3G & 3GS both had processors clocked lower than either the BlackBerry Bold 9000 and/or 9700. They use memory differently, but 256 was all that was allocated for the 3GS. Anyways, my point is while there will be a few devices out there with 1GHz+ processors, that doesn't make a 1GHz & 512 device out of date(assuming a rel before late March). It's about how the device functions and what it offers. ))
    Couldn't agree more. 1ghz cpu is a huge step for RIM. Especially if its the AMAP or hummingbird and not the prior generation snapdragon. Same with 512MG if its allocated to RAM and not split amongst RAM, OS and applications.

    But if the device shorts on RAM, and does not free up the Gigs of memory to be used for Applications , rather than storage, than we/RIM are nearly back to where they started. Hardware needs to be utilized. What's the point of a Open GL ES device if it is not being activated? What's the point of 8 gigs of memory if it is all for on-board storage and less than 512 megs is used for applications? Of course, if its a new OS, and I believe it is more likely an OS6, with an overlay (think HTC Sense/ Motoblur); but if its a whole different OS - who is going to write applications for it. More than a year since the S2 been's out and there are 3 applications that utilize the Open GL ES. 2 of them are still at V.1.0!
    07-06-10 03:31 PM
  7. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    Ok, I stand marginally corrected (or, at least "challenged") on this. Perhaps I spoke too quickly, thinking about it from my own perspective. Certainly, there is at least some small percentage of the smartphone population that wants/needs a device that DOES replace at least parts of the computer (I shudder at the thought though, lol), but I suspect it's a relatively small percentage. Perhaps individuals that fall in to your category can be better served by netbooks or something similar. I just think the monitor (or, in this case, the screen) is far too important a component of the overall user experience to ever fully support smartphones as computer replacements, at least for the majority of users, anyway. This is just my opinion, but it certainly makes sense.

    You say that "most of the executives and partners you know are similarly situated" but my own experience is different than yours, most that I know, however "busy" they are, still rely on larger screens and keyboards for the bulk of their work.

    I DISAGREE. I use my BB some times 14-18 hours a day and don't get to sit at home on my computer sometimes for a week at a time. Most of the executives and partners I know are similarly situated.

    Glad you don't need to use a BB for so many of your needs, but many of us do. Hence the development of the fully featured smartphones. There is a reason that screens have gotten bigger, and cpus more powerful, and the smart phone media and social experience so entrenched. The world for most has gotten much smaller, but for many it has also become necessary to make our business entirely portable. (See blackberry presenter; BT Visor; Schlange link etc..)
    07-06-10 04:13 PM
  8. The_Engine's Avatar
    @energyplus - I can add a different slant here. I have 2 you children (4&2) and my home office has become a play room, or a nursery (some days I don't even remember which room used to be which!). Now I have a very nice laptop that we use for bills and what not and my wife and I both have laptops from work. However, the few minutes I get of free time to play a game, orcatch up on work email, or anything quick on the web, from looking something up to a facebook update is done on my Storm. I don't have the time to boot up a laptop most of times. So for me a powerful device that delivers a good browsing experience is becoming more and more important.

    Also look at the bloc post from the CEO of worldmate about RIM. He makes a great point about business travelers. If you could pull out your BB and access web pages or SharePoint say from your BB, or really review a word or excel doc, that could be huge.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-06-10 04:35 PM
  9. tumer's Avatar
    I do everything from my storm I forget the last tome I sat in front of my pc I've used the laptop a bit only when I need flash but other then that opera mini works fast for me and I push my storm1 hard
    07-06-10 04:52 PM
  10. GlitchZero's Avatar
    Ok, I stand marginally corrected (or, at least "challenged") on this. Perhaps I spoke too quickly, thinking about it from my own perspective. Certainly, there is at least some small percentage of the smartphone population that wants/needs a device that DOES replace at least parts of the computer (I shudder at the thought though, lol), but I suspect it's a relatively small percentage. Perhaps individuals that fall in to your category can be better served by netbooks or something similar. I just think the monitor (or, in this case, the screen) is far too important a component of the overall user experience to ever fully support smartphones as computer replacements, at least for the majority of users, anyway. This is just my opinion, but it certainly makes sense.
    Maybe for the older tech boom generation. (early 80's) Most of my friends with iPhones and BB's use their laptops for Skype or streaming and that's it. Everything else is done from the phone. The percentage of users that like an all-in-one experience on the go is increasing quickly.

    Also, just because we use a phone more often than a computer doesn't mean 'a netbook would better suit our needs'. Netbooks usually don't have the backbone to keep up with what any more than a casual user would want out of a laptop, and they look like a laptop made of Lego. Plus, Apple doesn't make mini-Macbooks, and **** will freeze over before I openly spend money on a PC.

    Just because someone uses a phone more often than not for online interactivity doesn't mean they just automatically like smaller screens. Efficiency over clarity sometimes. I can get my BB and hammer out two emails and check out a YouTube clip before my Macbook gets booted up and FireFox opens, (and my Macbook isn't slow) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't PREFER to hook my Macbook up to my 48" tv and do it on there. I'd just rather get it done quickly in a small format than wait to do it on a larger screen, and I'm sure most users that do use their BB / iPhone / whatever would agree. It's not that we like smaller screens, it's that we enjoy the efficiency and save the bigger screen for things we CAN'T do on our small screens.
    Last edited by GlitchZero; 07-07-10 at 02:38 AM.
    07-07-10 02:35 AM
  11. 1magine's Avatar
    Technology devlops organically. That is, the needs - or to be more correct, the desires of the consumer control.

    You can browse the web for information, do all your e-mail and document production quite efficiently with a 486DX2 Computer with 256 megs of RAM and a PCI 512bit modem. But people like youtube and HULU and playing first person shooters - -they DON'T need these things. They like them, so software and hardware have advanced exponetially.

    Many people either don't care about or care for, large, touch screen smart phones with fast processors, lots of ram and an intuitive UI with lots of applications. But enough of the consumer market has already voiced their resounding opinion. It is clear, and has been since the original I-phone launched several years back. Not that consumers want Android or Apple. But they do want large, clear, vibrant, touch screens. They want fast processors and RAM. They want to have lots of applications that as close as possible mimic the PC experience (including the browser). Apple did not have cut and paste for years - and still they excelled taking a huge chunk out of a market they just walked into. It is almost unimaginable to become so entrenched worldwide so quickly in such an established market.

    Palm which was in trouble, has never recovered. RIM has just dropped 25% of stock share, because those who are interested in making money see the future trends and don't see RIM as 'getting it' ....yet. Too many here, don't get it yet either. It doesn't matter what's good enough for you or anyone else. Its about what people want. I hate DSLR. I have a Canon AE-1 Programmable and with some Zeiss glass, I think it is the best and the height of pure photography. But so what? If Canon listened to the thousands of purists like me and ignored the tens of millions worldwide who were moving on - they would be long buried.

    If RIM can't learn from Palm they should learn from Kodak. They almost went under holding on to the past, losing market share and falling stock prices, year after year. Then they stopped on a dime and completely reinvented themselves and moved forward.

    Corporate World is locked into BES. But that is not forever. Android and IOS are building from the ground up. Getting a huge base of support among the 16-25. The 25-65 is already enthralled with I-pods. IOS and Android are already fully Exchange server ready and have taken over for BES all over. They are developing faster and more secure enviroments, and will shortly make that marketing push. Then, that army of youth will enter the corporate world, law firms and government and demand of their IT departments 'more'. And tomorrow's IT department will be able to deliver it.

    This is not a far off fantasy prediction. This is reality. Don't think so? How's that CRT monitor working out for you? CRTs are clearly better in every conceivable way than flat screens. Especially the earlier ones. But they have more or less ddissapeared inside 5 years, because flat panels take up less room and look cool (being sarcastic about the 'coolness' - like DSLR, I'm not a fan of flat panels).
    Last edited by 1magine; 07-07-10 at 10:25 AM.
    07-07-10 10:21 AM
  12. 1812dave's Avatar

    This is not a far off fantasy prediction. This is reality. Don't think so? How's that CRT monitor working out for you? CRTs are clearly better in every conceivable way than flat screens. Especially the earlier ones. But they have more or less ddissapeared inside 5 years, because flat panels take up less room and look cool (being sarcastic about the 'coolness' - like DSLR, I'm not a fan of flat panels).
    I used to think CRT's were better too, so I bought a large Samsung monitor when CRT's disappeared from local stores, thinking I would NEVER want a LCD monitor. Because I did a bit of gaming (simming, mostly--FS9), I expected I'd need a CRT to provide the most flexibility as far as resolutions, as well as high refresh rates.

    However, my computing needs drifted away from gaming (I bought a PS3) and now the Samsung sits in a closet. I use two Vizio monitors for my computers and must say they are far easier on the eyes--contrast is much better, so text is easier to read. Black levels are better. Power consumption is far less than the behemoth Samsung.

    I'd sell it, but I think I'd find no takers. The average person WANTS a flat screen monitor, and flat screen TV's. I've got a couple of large DLP's (also Sammys) that aren't all that deep, but compared to current LCD's and Plasmas, look completely anachronistic.

    And where the heck are laser TV's??
    07-07-10 11:11 AM
  13. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    Interesting reading, 1magine and Dave. I just finished reading an interesting article on PCWorld.com about the future of smartphones in general (and will they replace PCs? as well as tablet devices). We can all guess what is going to happen, but that's about it, guesswork. The article discusses how corporate America is slowly beginning to adapt to iPhones and Androids (i.e., Wells Fargo just announced that they now approve iPads for their corporate staff) but that there is still WAY too much stuff lacking in the mobile world (including the tablet devices) for this to mean they are overtaking PCs.

    While RIM's stock share dropped, their market penetration share increased. The problem is, they're selling many more devices but with lower profit margins. I forget the exact numbers I read, but it was something akin to the top profit-making devices represents only the top 2% of the number of devices out there.

    As for monitors, I had to laugh. As a professional photographer, display technology has long been an important factor for me. I can spend HOURS AND HOURS in front of a monitor, doing Photoshop. When I release a photograph as being ready for prime time, I'd better be certain that lightness, contrast, color, saturation, etc. are all right on. Of course, I have no idea what sort of display my client if viewing the photos on, but the few times I've had a complaint, I've discovered that their monitors were either built in the 1950's (ok, slight exaggeration there) or, severely out of balance. I used to own a large, Sony CRT. I love the saturation and contrast on it. But, with the desire to have more real estate, I upgraded to a 32" flat screen that I can better calibrate (calibration is done every two weeks). There are some things about flat screen/LCD technology that I don't like compared to CRTs, but I've discovered that over the past two years, I've grown accustomed to it. I'm not sure I agree with you, 1magine, that CRTs are "better in every conceivable way" can you elaborate? Screen resolution is higher on LCDs (today's models, anyway); and gamut, while slightly biased towards CRTs, has grown to be very close in both technologies. CRTs use huge amounts of energy and generate more heat, but they are better at scaling resolutions (though, I have no idea why one would want to REDUCE resolution on their LCD, but when you do reduce or increase from the native resolution, things look pretty bad, less so on CRTs). CRT's go out of calibration more easily and color/gamma purity have a shorter lifespan on CRTs. Perhaps I've answered my own question, but I believe the advantages of LCD monitors outweigh those of CRTs (though many graphic designers still use CRTs, as I did, the disadvantages are trimming the numbers). In the final analysis, I cannot agree with the statement that "CRTs are better in every conceivable way." Far from it, in fact.

    Finally, I had to chuckle at your Canon AE-1. It was a fine camera in its day and still is a fine camera, but certainly cannot compare to the latest DSLR models. I read, analyze and even agonize over this stuff daily, but the facts remain that today's DSLRs, even the "prosumer" models, yield outstanding results and while purists will argue that film is better, as someone who grew up with film back in the late 50's, and lived in both black and white and color darkrooms for many years, including shooting and developing 8"x10" Ekachrome transparencies (the same that Playboy used to use for ALL centerfold shoots), I cannot find one single example of where film exceeds digital. The only argument FOR film is the "look" it can yield (i.e., Kodacrhome's warm look with virtually no grain). But, with today's technology, that same look can be replicated very easily and MUCH more cheaply (not to mention, environmentally friendly). Interesting viewpoints, guys, thanks!
    07-07-10 12:34 PM
  14. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    Hey, Glitch: Ok, I admit, I'm an "old fart" (I turn 60 in October) but at least I'm one who adopted technology very early on (I was the proud owner of the very first laptop Dell ever made, serial number 00032) and had my first computer back in the very early 80s. Still, I openly admit (and have often posted theories about all of this here in the forums) that many of today's smartphone users, the younger ones, that is, have adapted their needs to the convenience of smartphone technology (just look at how few were watches these days!). People are more than happy to choose convenience over quality when it comes to phone call quality as well. I still remember when Sprint first began touting their fiber optic technology and launched the "hear a pin drop" ad campaign. It was true, too. I used Sprint's long distance calling card and when I made calls, people very often commented on just how "close" I sounded and how clear the call was. Today, many will opt for tinny sounding (comparatively) voices with hiss and other background noise, over inconsistent connections (especially if you're on AT&T, lol) for the sheer convenience of it. I'm one of those who will never let the landline go!

    There are far too many software programs for Macs and PCs that have yet to transfer to the smartphone market. And I was definitely NOT suggesting that netbooks were the be-all/end-all for computing needs! But they are a gap device, providing increased portability over notebooks and desktops. They are, themselves, another "convenience" approach.

    I guess the bottom line here is, I think we're still a multi-device society, depending on both computers (regardless of brand/OS type) as well as portable alternatives. I cannot fathom doing Photoshop on anything other than a desktop PC. Even today, when I'm traveling for a client and bring my laptop along to do quick Photoshop work, it's a hassle and I know that I am compromising on the quality to some extent.

    Some prefer rice that takes 45 minutes and others prefer Minute Rice. I have come to like baked potatoes from my microwave while friends refuse to eat them!

    Maybe for the older tech boom generation. (early 80's) Most of my friends with iPhones and BB's use their laptops for Skype or streaming and that's it. Everything else is done from the phone. The percentage of users that like an all-in-one experience on the go is increasing quickly.

    Also, just because we use a phone more often than a computer doesn't mean 'a netbook would better suit our needs'. Netbooks usually don't have the backbone to keep up with what any more than a casual user would want out of a laptop, and they look like a laptop made of Lego. Plus, Apple doesn't make mini-Macbooks, and **** will freeze over before I openly spend money on a PC.

    Just because someone uses a phone more often than not for online interactivity doesn't mean they just automatically like smaller screens. Efficiency over clarity sometimes. I can get my BB and hammer out two emails and check out a YouTube clip before my Macbook gets booted up and FireFox opens, (and my Macbook isn't slow) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't PREFER to hook my Macbook up to my 48" tv and do it on there. I'd just rather get it done quickly in a small format than wait to do it on a larger screen, and I'm sure most users that do use their BB / iPhone / whatever would agree. It's not that we like smaller screens, it's that we enjoy the efficiency and save the bigger screen for things we CAN'T do on our small screens.
    07-07-10 12:58 PM
  15. 1812dave's Avatar
    Interesting reading, 1magine and Dave. I just finished reading an interesting article on PCWorld.com about the future of smartphones in general (and will they replace PCs? as well as tablet devices). We can all guess what is going to happen, but that's about it, guesswork. The article discusses how corporate America is slowly beginning to adapt to iPhones and Androids (i.e., Wells Fargo just announced that they now approve iPads for their corporate staff) but that there is still WAY too much stuff lacking in the mobile world (including the tablet devices) for this to mean they are overtaking PCs.

    While RIM's stock share dropped, their market penetration share increased. The problem is, they're selling many more devices but with lower profit margins. I forget the exact numbers I read, but it was something akin to the top profit-making devices represents only the top 2% of the number of devices out there.

    As for monitors, I had to laugh. As a professional photographer, display technology has long been an important factor for me. I can spend HOURS AND HOURS in front of a monitor, doing Photoshop. When I release a photograph as being ready for prime time, I'd better be certain that lightness, contrast, color, saturation, etc. are all right on. Of course, I have no idea what sort of display my client if viewing the photos on, but the few times I've had a complaint, I've discovered that their monitors were either built in the 1950's (ok, slight exaggeration there) or, severely out of balance. I used to own a large, Sony CRT. I love the saturation and contrast on it. But, with the desire to have more real estate, I upgraded to a 32" flat screen that I can better calibrate (calibration is done every two weeks). There are some things about flat screen/LCD technology that I don't like compared to CRTs, but I've discovered that over the past two years, I've grown accustomed to it. I'm not sure I agree with you, 1magine, that CRTs are "better in every conceivable way" can you elaborate? Screen resolution is higher on LCDs (today's models, anyway); and gamut, while slightly biased towards CRTs, has grown to be very close in both technologies. CRTs use huge amounts of energy and generate more heat, but they are better at scaling resolutions (though, I have no idea why one would want to REDUCE resolution on their LCD, but when you do reduce or increase from the native resolution, things look pretty bad, less so on CRTs). CRT's go out of calibration more easily and color/gamma purity have a shorter lifespan on CRTs. Perhaps I've answered my own question, but I believe the advantages of LCD monitors outweigh those of CRTs (though many graphic designers still use CRTs, as I did, the disadvantages are trimming the numbers). In the final analysis, I cannot agree with the statement that "CRTs are better in every conceivable way." Far from it, in fact.

    Finally, I had to chuckle at your Canon AE-1. It was a fine camera in its day and still is a fine camera, but certainly cannot compare to the latest DSLR models. I read, analyze and even agonize over this stuff daily, but the facts remain that today's DSLRs, even the "prosumer" models, yield outstanding results and while purists will argue that film is better, as someone who grew up with film back in the late 50's, and lived in both black and white and color darkrooms for many years, including shooting and developing 8"x10" Ekachrome transparencies (the same that Playboy used to use for ALL centerfold shoots), I cannot find one single example of where film exceeds digital. The only argument FOR film is the "look" it can yield (i.e., Kodacrhome's warm look with virtually no grain). But, with today's technology, that same look can be replicated very easily and MUCH more cheaply (not to mention, environmentally friendly). Interesting viewpoints, guys, thanks!
    ah! Photography! I still clearly remember my dad's darkroom that he set up in the basement of a 4 plex we lived in in MA, back in the 50's. I can still see the rolls of film hanging from clips attached to lines strung across the room. He had a Retina 2C camera, as well as a Zeiss Ikon. Years later, he gave me the Zeiss, which had an amazing lens on it. Ultra sharp.

    I followed in his footsteps by frequenting the darkroom at the Clark AFB hobby shop. I gotta tell you, you haven't lived until you have tried loading 120 roll film into a stainless steel canister in a room about 4x4 with the humidity around 100% and temperature to match. I sweated so much in that little room, despite being in there for just a few minutes, that it's a wonder my sweat didn't develop the film without additional chemicals added later. LOL!

    I had quite a succession of cameras. Never had a brownie, but had something made of phenolic and from the Sears catalog, when we lived in England. I've still got photos I took with that cheapy thing.

    now to rack my brain for what came next, camera wise.

    the zeiss my dad gave me
    Minolta subminature (spy) camera.
    polariod 230 during basic training
    Mamiya Sekor (POS) in 'Nam, with tons of accessories, including fisheye--you name it, I bought it for my first SLR. didn't last long. had it repaired once or twice stateside, and finally gave up on it.

    next up was a nicer SLR--Minolta XD-11, which I still have. that sucker was solid

    then a compact camera (gift) Olympus XA. not bad, but the camera I got my then-wife was better--a compact Canon (mid or late 70's)

    Another Minolta SLR, this time with autofocus. not near as good a camera quality wise, but hey, it had more bells and whistles.

    First digital camera: overpriced, underperforming, bulky (for a compact) Canon S50. I recently took it all apart to see what was inside, as it was kaput.

    next digital camera is unofficially my wife's - a Sony compact, which we love, despite having poor low light performance. takes decent video, is very tiny, fast in operation.

    I never did buy the camera I truly lusted after--the Nikon F100. I didn't buy it because I saw that digital was soon going to overtake film cameras. I should have applied that same restraint when I bought my Linn Sondek turntable right after the first couple of CD players came onto the market. I heard those early units and felt they sucked, so I thought getting a new TT was wise. oops!! (sits in a closet)

    Weren't we all more thoughtful photographers when using film?
    07-07-10 01:19 PM
  16. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    Digital photography has clearly changed the way I shoot, I know that for sure. "Back in the day" I had a Hassalbad, with 120 film 12 shots per roll. I did spend many hours in the darkroom, developing both color slides and negatives as well as black and white. A typical wedding back then, was about 12 - 20 rolls of film, 240 photos max. Today, though I still DETEST shooting weddings, I'll easily shoot 500 - 800 photos. Doing concert photography for CD covers, posters, promo shots, etc. easily eats up over 1,000 shots. Granted, many of these are throw-aways, but I'm more prone to "take a chance" with something that I may be in doubt of. Also, I don't think twice about shooting 10 or 12 photos in a sequence, hoping that in at least one of them, everything comes together. Perfect expression on the face, lighting hitting perfectly, everything is in focus, all my chakras are aligned, the wind is blowing against my back and the stars are aligned. When it works, it's perfect and the chances of all these things coming together at once are far greater. It's a matter of numbers as we often say. "They" (whomever they are) say that on a roll of 36 exposure, 35mm film, to get 1, maybe 2 "keepers" is a good average. Today, those numbers are greater and my biggest challenge these days is not hoping I get a "keeper" but rather, WHICH keepers to throw away!

    ah! Photography! I still clearly remember my dad's darkroom that he set up in the basement of a 4 plex we lived in in MA, back in the 50's. I can still see the rolls of film hanging from clips attached to lines strung across the room. He had a Retina 2C camera, as well as a Zeiss Ikon. Years later, he gave me the Zeiss, which had an amazing lens on it. Ultra sharp.

    I followed in his footsteps by frequenting the darkroom at the Clark AFB hobby shop. I gotta tell you, you haven't lived until you have tried loading 120 roll film into a stainless steel canister in a room about 4x4 with the humidity around 100% and temperature to match. I sweated so much in that little room, despite being in there for just a few minutes, that it's a wonder my sweat didn't develop the film without additional chemicals added later. LOL!

    My first camera was a Brownie, I was 10 years old. A few years later, my Dad bought me a Yashica (can't remember the model) and then, for my birthday, I got an Argus C3, a veritable TANK of a camera that remains one of my favorites of all time, loved that camera.

    I no longer have any film cameras, my last was the Nikon film cameras were the F 100 and the somewhat better, F5. However, once I no longer had access to a darkroom, I completely lost interest in photography. That lasted until my first digital, one I bought for the office I worked in (engineering consultant). It was the Nikon Coolpix 990 which I got in 2000, I believe. No sooner did I put the card in my computer when I realized I had my darkroom back and went out and bought one for myself. The rest is history. With each new series of releases, I upgraded and eventually had a DSLR (Nikon D70 which I still have in a closet) and eventually returned to doing photography full time. Film days are fun to remember though, all those 14 hour days in a dark room.....wow!

    EDIT: I just received a message asking what cameras I currently shoot with. I just took delivery of a Nikon D700, a beautiful piece of equipment. I still have my Nikon D2X as a backup and a D200 as a backup-backup. The D700 has a full frame sensor and the image quality is nothing short of stupendous. The only thing that prevented me from buying the top of the line, D3 was the lesson learned from buying the D2X when it was top of the line. The same lesson that applies to smartphones: "Top of the line" is only good for a very short while. The differences between the D3 and the D700 are not substantial enough for me to warrant the huge price difference. I guess of I was another Annie Leibowitz, I'd consider it...heck, I'd buy a Hassalblad with a Leaf digital back for $50+ K!!

    I had quite a succession of cameras. Never had a brownie, but had something made of phenolic and from the Sears catalog, when we lived in England. I've still got photos I took with that cheapy thing.

    now to rack my brain for what came next, camera wise.

    the zeiss my dad gave me
    Minolta subminature (spy) camera.
    polariod 230 during basic training
    Mamiya Sekor (POS) in 'Nam, with tons of accessories, including fisheye--you name it, I bought it for my first SLR. didn't last long. had it repaired once or twice stateside, and finally gave up on it.

    next up was a nicer SLR--Minolta XD-11, which I still have. that sucker was solid

    then a compact camera (gift) Olympus XA. not bad, but the camera I got my then-wife was better--a compact Canon (mid or late 70's)

    Another Minolta SLR, this time with autofocus. not near as good a camera quality wise, but hey, it had more bells and whistles.

    First digital camera: overpriced, underperforming, bulky (for a compact) Canon S50. I recently took it all apart to see what was inside, as it was kaput.

    next digital camera is unofficially my wife's - a Sony compact, which we love, despite having poor low light performance. takes decent video, is very tiny, fast in operation.

    I never did buy the camera I truly lusted after--the Nikon F100. I didn't buy it because I saw that digital was soon going to overtake film cameras. I should have applied that same restraint when I bought my Linn Sondek turntable right after the first couple of CD players came onto the market. I heard those early units and felt they sucked, so I thought getting a new TT was wise. oops!! (sits in a closet)

    Weren't we all more thoughtful photographers when using film?
    Last edited by EnergyPlus; 07-07-10 at 02:13 PM.
    07-07-10 01:59 PM
  17. stsurbrook's Avatar
    While screen sizes are too small right now, that is, IMO, a temporary problem. It is just a matter of time before pico projectors are built into the phones. They don't have to create large screens, a sheet of paper size would be sufficient. In addition, there are already rumors of projected, virtual keyboards which should solve the input issues. The touch screen could easily suffice as mouse touchpad.

    Now, you have a VERY portable device that is capable of dramatically more than today's smartphones. Just because it isn't being done today (it IS technically possible in yesteryear's form factors), doesn't mean it cannot be done.

    What we are doing on smartphones today was almost unimaginable 5 years ago (pre-iPhone). Just imagine what will be available in 5 years.

    Anyway, back to this thread's topic. I just hope the S3 is closer to "tomorrow's tech" than today's!

    I went to BB to look at the Sprint HTC Evo and all they had were plastic "dummy" units. However, IMO, the form factor of it (4.3" screen) is very usable. It is basically the same size as my S1 with a Body Glove case... but thinner. This is comparable in size to the DroidX and I think this size or larger will be the form factor of the next 1-3 years.

    Scott
    07-08-10 02:42 AM
  18. 1812dave's Avatar
    While screen sizes are too small right now, that is, IMO, a temporary problem. It is just a matter of time before pico projectors are built into the phones. They don't have to create large screens, a sheet of paper size would be sufficient. In addition, there are already rumors of projected, virtual keyboards which should solve the input issues. The touch screen could easily suffice as mouse touchpad.

    Now, you have a VERY portable device that is capable of dramatically more than today's smartphones. Just because it isn't being done today (it IS technically possible in yesteryear's form factors), doesn't mean it cannot be done.

    What we are doing on smartphones today was almost unimaginable 5 years ago (pre-iPhone). Just imagine what will be available in 5 years.

    Anyway, back to this thread's topic. I just hope the S3 is closer to "tomorrow's tech" than today's!

    I went to BB to look at the Sprint HTC Evo and all they had were plastic "dummy" units. However, IMO, the form factor of it (4.3" screen) is very usable. It is basically the same size as my S1 with a Body Glove case... but thinner. This is comparable in size to the DroidX and I think this size or larger will be the form factor of the next 1-3 years.

    Scott

    Are you going to walk around with a sheet of paper to project a virtual keyboard when using your phone? I don't think so...

    While pico projection tech is intriguing for something like a digital camera, it's not PRACTICAL for everyday use, in a cell phone which is used "on the go".
    07-08-10 11:15 AM
  19. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    I have contemplated for some time now, the inevitability for a device that could be added to a smartphone for larger viewing. BB even has a projector now, that can enable one to project Power Point presentations on the wall. I used to do THOUSANDS or PP presentations and wish I still did, so I could justify getting this, lol.

    Still, while it probably will happen someday, there are technical barriers to overcome, including battery drain, resolution, integrated video chips, etc. I've not yet seen any demonstrations of the HDMI output for videos and I'm wondering if they can also be used for all onboard functions or not. Regardless though, that still leaves one confined to a rudimentary keyboard (virtual or otherwise) and limited processing capability. Certainly, the technology marches on but I wonder just how much you can dress up a pig? LOL...not that I think smartphones are "pigs" but the analogy represents the acknowledged limitations of a smartphone and attempts to make it more like a desktop replacement.

    I am coming to the conclusion that this will eventually be an "either or" battle. Some want their phones as a computer replacement while others, much like myself, are content with acknowledging the devices limitations as a device of convenience and quick accessibility. For me, the smartphone is a "Tweener" bridging the gap between a desktop, a notebook and a tablet, with that of the most portable of all of these, the smartphone.


    While screen sizes are too small right now, that is, IMO, a temporary problem. It is just a matter of time before pico projectors are built into the phones. They don't have to create large screens, a sheet of paper size would be sufficient. In addition, there are already rumors of projected, virtual keyboards which should solve the input issues. The touch screen could easily suffice as mouse touchpad.

    Now, you have a VERY portable device that is capable of dramatically more than today's smartphones. Just because it isn't being done today (it IS technically possible in yesteryear's form factors), doesn't mean it cannot be done.

    What we are doing on smartphones today was almost unimaginable 5 years ago (pre-iPhone). Just imagine what will be available in 5 years.

    Anyway, back to this thread's topic. I just hope the S3 is closer to "tomorrow's tech" than today's!

    I went to BB to look at the Sprint HTC Evo and all they had were plastic "dummy" units. However, IMO, the form factor of it (4.3" screen) is very usable. It is basically the same size as my S1 with a Body Glove case... but thinner. This is comparable in size to the DroidX and I think this size or larger will be the form factor of the next 1-3 years.

    Scott
    Last edited by EnergyPlus; 07-08-10 at 12:14 PM.
    07-08-10 12:11 PM
  20. kb5zht's Avatar
    Either way, if it is 'coming' in 2011, then any other phones will beat the crap out of S3 by the time it is launch'ing.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    +1.

    They are releasing a phone at some point in the future to compete phones that came out 6 months ago.

    What is wrong with this picture?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-08-10 09:48 PM
  21. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    Let me throw your own question back at you. What's wrong with releasing a phone in the next six months that has similar technology (plus some proprietary features) of devices that came out earlier this year? Personally, I don't find fault with that.

    RIM has not branded themselves as the "technology leader" when it comes to smartphones, nor should they have to. So long as they have reasonably current technology that performs well and provides the users with the tools and device features they need, then they've found a niche for themselves. Honestly, I don't know why so many here, feel compelled to bash RIM because they have obviously chosen not to be the front runner when it comes to technology.

    First of all, one can never win this battle. Technology is old the moment you walk out the door with your phone. Secondly, new technology harbors the potential for fatal flaws, just witness the iPhone4. Third, new(er) technology devices require a larger investment, from both the carrier and the consumer (and always, ultimately, it's the consumer who pays the brunt of all of it). Finally, there is the old conundrum that desktops have had to deal with for years: the software is almost always ahead of the hardware, it's a never ending battle. There are SO many factors to consider when mapping a device that it's illogical and short sighted to only consider latest/greatest features.

    I wish people would understand this. If you want "latest/greatest" then go buy something else and stop bitc*ing about RIM. It's not like you were PROMISED lastest/greatest and they failed to deliver.

    +1.

    They are releasing a phone at some point in the future to compete phones that came out 6 months ago.

    What is wrong with this picture?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-08-10 10:32 PM
  22. Masahiro's Avatar
    First of all, one can never win this battle. Technology is old the moment you walk out the door with your phone. Secondly, new technology harbors the potential for fatal flaws, just witness the iPhone4. Third, new(er) technology devices require a larger investment, from both the carrier and the consumer (and always, ultimately, it's the consumer who pays the brunt of all of it). Finally, there is the old conundrum that desktops have had to deal with for years: the software is almost always ahead of the hardware, it's a never ending battle. There are SO many factors to consider when mapping a device that it's illogical and short sighted to only consider latest/greatest features.
    I'd like to add a fifth point: Having the latest hardware on a phone only attracts a certain portion of the market. That portion includes those that are interested in technology. The average person probably doesn't know or care about what kind of processor a cellphone has.
    07-08-10 10:51 PM
  23. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    Boy, is that the truth! Let's take it a step further though. I am always asking people what phone they have when I see them using it. I have not kept count, obviously (if I did, I'd be seriously worried about myself, lol) but I would hazard a guess that more than HALF the answers I get are "I don't know..it's an Android" or "It's a Blackberry, I think..." lol. The only ones who almost always know which phone they have are the iPhone users, but since "iPhone" covers all the models, that's an easy answer. Processor? OS? Forget about it...let's just get them to know what brand/model phone they have!

    I'd like to add a fifth point: Having the latest hardware on a phone only attracts a certain portion of the market. That portion includes those that are interested in technology. The average person probably doesn't know or care about what kind of processor a cellphone has.
    07-09-10 12:14 AM
  24. ottscay#CB's Avatar
    Ok, a couple observations:

    1) RIM (and the BlackBerry name) were very much associated with cutting-edge technology 4 years ago. BlackBerry smartphones, with their advanced communications ability and push email (not to mention enterprise solutons) were the bleeding edge (and to some degree RIM's pagers before the smartphone era were as well). From a marketing point of view, sacrificing that position is never positive, regardless of who it appeals to.

    2) While I completely agree that for "most" people a non-bleeding-edge phone is fine (if not preferable), there's also a serious problem with that market segment from a profitability point of view. Those people seek value pricing in a phone, rather than value in features (at a higher cost). The result is you are forced into reduced margins, which in turn requires progressively higher volumes to support.

    The end result of those two points is that shrinking margins make it progressively harder to find the funds to innovate or otherwise differentiate yourself in the market, and your brand becomes a commodity item rather than an asset. Nokia is currently in this nose-dive and has already shed a ton of value. I'm not saying that RIM is condemned to the same path, or even that Nokia could start innovating and turn it around, but the reality is the further down the path you lock yourself, the harder and more painful it is to turn around.

    There's nothing wrong with growing your market penetration with value-priced products, but that needs to go hand in hand with putting out highly respected industry leading products, or else rather than spreading brand recognition your are just devaluing it over the long haul. Not sure it's "fair", but it's how consumer high tech works.
    07-09-10 12:50 AM
  25. stsurbrook's Avatar
    I have contemplated for some time now, the inevitability for a device that could be added to a smartphone for larger viewing...

    (snip)

    Still, while it probably will happen someday, there are technical barriers to overcome, including battery drain, resolution, integrated video chips, etc. I've not yet seen any demonstrations of the HDMI output for videos and I'm wondering if they can also be used for all onboard functions or not. Regardless though, that still leaves one confined to a rudimentary keyboard (virtual or otherwise) and limited processing capability. Certainly, the technology marches on but I wonder just how much you can dress up a pig? LOL...not that I think smartphones are "pigs" but the analogy represents the acknowledged limitations of a smartphone and attempts to make it more like a desktop replacement.
    The largest of the issues you mention is battery drain. Beyond the "normal" functions of a smartphone as defined today, the battery drain of the pico projector is the biggest worry. Fortunately, it is directly related to the brightness of the LED lamp. If the requirement is only to project on a sheet-of-paper sized surface (wall, side of a cubicle, sheet of paper in a notebook, etc.) it doesn't require much light, especially with a laser or LED.

    The final question is the battery. With the Droid, there are 3000mah batteries available, which should be sufficient, but add about 1/8" in thickness. Zinc air and other battery technologies, even ultra capacitors and fuel cells, are on the horizon, which may help even more by packing additional energy in the same form factor (power density). If worst comes to worst, external battery packs with micro-USB connectors could address that issue.

    As for the graphics requirements, even at 800x600 (quite sufficient for presentations and typing emails, etc.), current smartphones have more than adequate power to play video at that resolution (iPhone). In 5 years, near HD (720p) or even full HD (1080i) will be, IMO, a no-brainer.

    Anyway, it was only 5 years ago when phones merged with PDA's. Now we have near-netbook replacement phones. In five years... who knows, but I believe it is possible and people will want it.

    Just out of curiosity, I did a quick search on eBay and cNet and came up with the following:

    Brand New - Pico Projector Phone NCBC 888 with High LUX - eBay (item 250626451740 end time Aug-01-10 07:43:10 PDT)

    Celluon Laserkey CL800BT Keyboard reviews - CNET Reviews

    VKB Bluetooth Virtual Keyboard - Keyboards - CNET Archive

    As I said, "technically possible today in yesteryear's form factor..."

    Anyway, just like today, that vision may not be for everyone, but I think business people will find a strong use for this technology.

    I am coming to the conclusion that this will eventually be an "either or" battle. Some want their phones as a computer replacement while others, much like myself, are content with acknowledging the devices limitations as a device of convenience and quick accessibility. For me, the smartphone is a "Tweener" bridging the gap between a desktop, a notebook and a tablet, with that of the most portable of all of these, the smartphone.
    Some people only want a phone, others just want to do email, others want more, much more. I'm one of them. That doesn't mean I won't want a full laptop (I will) for something harder (large, complicate reports, publishing, etc.).

    Anyway, to get back OT, I hope that the S3 is more future focused and not "present" focused because it will be outdated by the time it comes out.

    FWIW, I THINK RIM has the technical ability to do much more than we have seen. It is easy for me to IMAGINE that Sal's rumored S3 is purely a test-bed device. A new OS, like the QNX OS (micro-kernel based) that has been posited, can be easily rewritten for new processors (if required because those new processors use different instruction sets), different screen resolutions are a non-issue in this context, etc. So what Sal has described can, I think, be considered a possible base-line device for the S3.

    My question is does RIM have the will to produce a state-of-the-art device. Some might argue that it is overkill to compete with the Androids and iPhones, but remember, for all practical purposes, especially in the business world, these phones will have a two year life. What is acceptable today may well be pathetic in two years (e.g. the S1).

    IMO, the question is whether or not RIM has the WILL to try to compete. I think the jury is still out on that.

    Fortunately for me, I was able to get lyricidal's .419/748 hybrid installed, which gave me another 10MB over VZW's .328 and a much slower memory leak profile, so I can afford to wait another month, maybe, to decide between Android and RIM. Definitely info sooner from RIM would be better than later... if they want to keep many of us S1 users. The S2 is not an option.

    Scott
    07-09-10 01:38 AM
259 ... 45678 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD