A Laptop That Docks and Syncs With Your Desktop

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20030515.html">http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20030515.html</a><br /><br />For those ultra-mobile geeks among our readers that are always looking for the smallest possible Windows XP system, Sharp has something that may interest you.<br /><br />"Sharp, has taken this merger of the laptop and PDA to a new level. It has introduced an ultrathin laptop that can synchronize its data with a larger PC via a desktop cradle, in the manner of a Palm or Pocket PC."<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2003/20030516-sharpactius.gif" /><br /><br />There are <a href="http://www.sharpsystems.com/tmplproduct_mm10.asp">additional specs at Sharp's USA site</a>, including pricing which starts at $1,499 before accessorizing.

[klinux]

Nice but slooow due to it's battery-friendly Crusoe processor. Good for most people but not good for people who do CPU crunching work.

And actually, its syncing function is nothing like that of a Palm or PocketPC! It just syncs files not PIM.

[tregnier]

If I were still traveling and the ergonomics were better (see Walt Mossberg's review), I'd buy it in a minute. I always hated that "briefcase" business that I used to have to do to move many files/folders from one machine to the notebook. Synching a notebook is the way to go (as long as it's not ActiveSync. What a disaster that would be!).

I think that this is the first of many. The PDA is an extension of my desktop. A PDA/Notebook cross would be the deal for travelers.

[beq]

I think this particular unit has been around the reviews circuit for awhile, I seem to remember reading it everywhere (ex: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1042183,00.asp reposted from recent thread). Just saying that there should also be other places with opinions/judgments on it for an interested buyer to dig up...

[Mobile Bob]

Thanks, Ed. Love the "synchronization to desktop via a cradle" concept. I'm certain that something like this (only not sluggish, and with built in DVD-ROM drive) is in my future. I've been lugging around a desktop replacement type of laptop, and I am beginning to develop an appreciation for light and thin. I already have the need to sync my laptop with my desktop (and in as hassle-free a manner as possible). Hope more laptop vendors embrace this concept.

[Jason Dunn]

I was interested in one of these until I found out that 256 MB was the maximum RAM you could put in it. Windows XP would barely breath with 256 MB...no sale here. :roll:

[Sven Johannsen]

Doesn't seem much earth shattering here. My Vaio slimdock is darn near as skinny (with out the dock) and does have a modem and 100Bt port. Has more ummpf to with a real Intel processor. I get about 4 hours of normal use.

I can stick it on a network and share the drive. 10 years ago you could take an Apple Powerbook and hok it to a desktop via SCSI (you put it in the chain) and it would become a drive on the desktop. How far we have come.

The only thing I don't get is the 'sync' capability. I've always thought it was criminal that didn't exist, out of the MS OS box or via a third party. Why the heck can't I sync the PIM info (Outlook) and a specific file folder between my desktop and laptop? Guess no one ever had that requirement before :?

Actually I can do the PIM. I run an exchange server and it keeps my PIM info. The desktop and laptop access it and the laptop is set up for off-line use. Bit extreme for most.

[sponge]

Barely breathe? I play games on an XP machine with 256MB RAM, it's not too bad at all.

[possmann]

no go - would rather get a tabletpc... more options, but i do like the idea of syncing files - would rather have it include PIM stuff too and not just files

[Ed Hansberry]

Just keep in mind all a few things.

1. This is not intended to be a desktop replacement, unlike most laptops and tablets.

2. Yes, many of us have a (w)lan at home so the share/sync thing isn't a big deal. However, think about your mom or brother-in-law that wants to carry some work around with them. Pop it in the cradle and it is done. No ipconfig, no NAT, no config at all.

I would never consider this device personally. I am happy with a laptop as my sole PC and my Pocket PC as my truly mobile companion, but those of you with hyper-game machines that occasionally need real Windows processing that is mobile and don't want to fool with a router, LAN, etc., this is something to consider. I just thought it was interesting. First laptop I've seen with a docking station and thought it was even more interesting that the laptop must be off to sync. Kinda cool. :)

[Janak Parekh]

I would never consider this device personally. I am happy with a laptop as my sole PC and my Pocket PC as my truly mobile companion, but those of you with hyper-game machines that occasionally need real Windows processing that is mobile and don't want to fool with a router, LAN, etc., this is something to consider. I just thought it was interesting. First laptop I've seen with a docking station and thought it was even more interesting that the laptop must be off to sync. Kinda cool. :)
Indeed. I'm still debating it, on and off, because I'm one of those people and would like to keep my files sync'ed between multiple computers. 256MB RAM is my only real problem with the unit.

--janak

[JonnoB]

The operating system (XP) already has a file sync option with offline file storage option. Any network connected device can do it. And you do not need an IP based network to be network connected. IR, USB, parallel cable, adhoc WiFi, Bluetooth, etc are all applicable. In pre-XP operating systems, you could have used the 'briefcase' a precursor to the file sync.

[Janak Parekh]

The operating system (XP) already has a file sync option with offline file storage option.
Yes, but I must turn on the machine and login. I'd like to be able to walk into my office, reach into my bag, drop it in the cradle, and not have to even open the lid, plug in or enable wireless/wired, etc. BTW, Win2k had full file syncing support as well.

--janak

[JonnoB]

The operating system (XP) already has a file sync option with offline file storage option.
Yes, but I must turn on the machine and login. I'd like to be able to walk into my office, reach into my bag, drop it in the cradle, and not have to even open the lid, plug in or enable wireless/wired, etc. BTW, Win2k had full file syncing support as well.

--janak

You can always do a scheduled offline sync or make sync an event driven process... even invoke it from the desktop using wake on lan services. Why reinvent the wheel, just use the plumbing that is there is my motto.

[Foo Fighter]

I was interested in one of these until I found out that 256 MB was the maximum RAM you could put in it. Windows XP would barely breath with 256 MB...no sale here. :roll:

Agreed, XP really needs at least 512MB to get the most benefit. I have 768MB in my system, and I would still like to go a full 1gig. All modern Operating Systems have a large memory footprint, especially OSX. And don't even get me started on Linux. The next time I hear some damn penguin head claim Linux runs "beautifully" on an old Pentium II...I will VOMIT!!!! :roll:

[Ed Hansberry]

I was interested in one of these until I found out that 256 MB was the maximum RAM you could put in it. Windows XP would barely breath with 256 MB...no sale here. :roll:

Agreed, XP really needs at least 512MB to get the most benefit. I have 768MB in my system, and I would still like to go a full 1gig.
Good grief. I have 512 on mine and I *rarely* go above 300MB, and I launch just about everything Office Pro has. You people doing heavy image manipulation and graphics work are a different breed.

256MB for the average user is fine, and that is what this laptop is targetd at.

I swear if I we posted on some white socks with a red stripe available at Wal-Mart, someone would bring up that plain white socks and a red marker are cheaper and others would claim the red dye in the white socks slowed you down aerodynamically compared to the ultra-light white socks from the sporting goods store. :roll: All the while ignoring the fact that 99% of people don't give a flip about that stuff.

Oh, by the way, I have 46 processes launched, 488 threads and only using 228MB of RAM, much of that pagable.

[Janak Parekh]

256MB for the average user is fine, and that is what this laptop is targetd at.
It's not that -- I agree that 256MB is fine -- I was using it my Sony laptop, and it works for common tasks. My problem is the lack of future upgradeability -- my laptops usually survive one OS upgrade, but I'd suspect this one wouldn't. I'm still very tempted, though.

--janak

[Kati Compton]

It's not that -- I agree that 256MB is fine -- I was using it my Sony laptop, and it works for common tasks. My problem is the lack of future upgradeability -- my laptops usually survive one OS upgrade, but I'd suspect this one wouldn't. I'm still very tempted, though.


You don't write code that requires more than 256MB of RAM to run? Lucky... ;)

Hard part is trying to figure out when it's a memory leak, and when it's just that it really does need a ton of memory....

[trachy]

A couple of posters point out that the cradle is good for synchronizing files and not PIM data. Why can't it? Why not just synch the entire .pst or equivalent file? I hoard tons of email and PIM data in my pst, and it's still hovers around 100Mb with an occassional archive. At that size it would still synch over the USB interface in a minute or two at most.

[jojo]

I just have this idea after seeing the photo :idea: Someone may had thought of that already. Why can't we have a tablet tabletPC that acts as the second PC, it can dock in a cradle, and it sync with the main PC, charge, and it can be docked at an angle and become the second monitor for the primary PC. I suppose it could also share processing burden from the primary PC. It's also the digitiser pad as well :D

You can see I'm coming from a CAD, modelling and graphic users' point of view :)

I think that would be nice to have an additional monitor/processor to your primary PC and also become your PDA while removed from the cradle :mrgreen:

[PetiteFlower]

256 ram works fine for me, but I have a feeling that if I upgraded, I'd notice. Only reason I haven't is that RDRAM is so damn expensive!

The laptop certainly looks sexy though, and I like the syncing idea. Not outrageously priced either.

[lurch]

I was interested in one of these until I found out that 256 MB was the maximum RAM you could put in it. Windows XP would barely breath with 256 MB...no sale here. :roll:

Agreed, XP really needs at least 512MB to get the most benefit. I have 768MB in my system, and I would still like to go a full 1gig.
Good grief. I have 512 on mine and I *rarely* go above 300MB, and I launch just about everything Office Pro has. You people doing heavy image manipulation and graphics work are a different breed.

256MB for the average user is fine, and that is what this laptop is targetd at.

I swear if I we posted on some white socks with a red stripe available at Wal-Mart, someone would bring up that plain white socks and a red marker are cheaper and others would claim the red dye in the white socks slowed you down aerodynamically compared to the ultra-light white socks from the sporting goods store. :roll: All the while ignoring the fact that 99% of people don't give a flip about that stuff.

Oh, by the way, I have 46 processes launched, 488 threads and only using 228MB of RAM, much of that pagable.
What a great post!!! :)

I am running WinXP on my old Compaq Armada laptop, I think it's a PII 300 Mhz, with only 128 MB of RAM, and it runs just great (for what I use it for, which is not gaming!!)
And again, this laptop isn't built for the high-end user, it's built for average joe users like me (which is why I'll be watching this over the next year for falling prices or cameo appearances on eBay)
I don't like to spend lots of money on my computing needs. :)
Rephrase: I like to spend lots of money, I find myself in the position where it would be best not to spend lots of money. :)

[Ed Hansberry]

A couple of posters point out that the cradle is good for synchronizing files and not PIM data. Why can't it? Why not just synch the entire .pst or equivalent file? I hoard tons of email and PIM data in my pst, and it's still hovers around 100Mb with an occassional archive. At that size it would still synch over the USB interface in a minute or two at most.
It can sync your PST file, but it can't sync individual contacts/tasks/appointments. So, if you make changes in Outlook on both machines then dock, you have to make a choice of which PST file to keep. You'd think as open and as easy as MS has made it to access items within a PST file that record synchronization like you have with ActiveSync would be included. I'd hope it is at least in the works.

[JoeMoon]

Indeed. I'm still debating it, on and off, because I'm one of those people and would like to keep my files sync'ed between multiple computers. 256MB RAM is my only real problem with the unit.

--janak

I experienced the same problems with getting sync'd data from the home machine, work machine and laptop. I eventually purchased a small lightweight, 40GB USB hard drive and I have all my data files on that device. I have all my standard apps installed on all three machines, and when I need to access a file or work on a project, I simply plug my under 2oz HD into the USB port and I am ready. It is true that I don't have true synchronization with Outlook... But that is where my PDA comes to the rescue! Finally, ActiveSync gets a moment or praise!

Joe...

[Janak Parekh]

I eventually purchased a small lightweight, 40GB USB hard drive and I have all my data files on that device.
First off, I hope you back that thing up frequently. :) Second, the problem with a 40GB USB disk is that you can't open it up and start working on a train.

What I'd like is a methodology similar to my Pocket PC: plug it in, do my day's work, grab it and know that everything I need is on it, without thinking, so I can work on the stuff. This unit comes very close. I know one could hack a solution using, perhaps, things like IP and Wake-on-LAN, but I still assert it wouldn't be as slick.

--janak

[JoeMoon]

I eventually purchased a small lightweight, 40GB USB hard drive and I have all my data files on that device.
First off, I hope you back that thing up frequently. :) Second, the problem with a 40GB USB disk is that you can't open it up and start working on a train.

--janak

Why not? If I use my lightweight Actius Laptop and the portable USB drive, I am still under the weight loads of most laptops. I was even considering getting a CF USB card for my Axim... But I figured it would be because "I can" and not because "I need" to do it.

As for the backup... It is being backed up daily. I figured it couldn't get knocked around as much as some of my laptops have. It also stays attached to my work computer 90% of the time. I only drag it around when I know I will be away for awhile and will need to do some work.

Another solution I use is using Remote Access to get into my work machine and pull what I need from it onto the local machine - or just work on it through Remote Access.

Joe...

[beq]

(OT) Yes! I just found out I will be buying a new laptop (IBM ThinkPad T40!!) this month. Not for myself though :(

[Jason Dunn]

Barely breathe? I play games on an XP machine with 256MB RAM, it's not too bad at all.

It really depends on how you use your computer. Do a CONTROL+ALT+DELETE, then switch to the PERFORMANCE tab. Look at the COMMIT CHARGE: PEAK number, then divide by 1000. That's the peak amount of RAM that your system has used since it was last rebooted. Mine says 427 MB, so for my needs, 512 MB is a good place to be. If that number is higher than the amount of RAM you have, your hard drive is being used for virtual swapfile too much, and it's getting increased wear it doesn't need.

If it was a computer where the user only did Word Processing and Email, 256 MB would be ok, but with RAM prices being where they are, there's little excuse not to have 512 MB. Anything more than that is usually overkill for the average user, but more RAM never hurts. :wink:

[Ed Hansberry]

Barely breathe? I play games on an XP machine with 256MB RAM, it's not too bad at all.

It really depends on how you use your computer. Do a CONTROL+ALT+DELETE, then switch to the PERFORMANCE tab. Look at the COMMIT CHARGE: PEAK number, then divide by 1000. That's the peak amount of RAM that your system has used since it was last rebooted. Mine says 427 MB, so for my needs, 512 MB is a good place to be. If that number is higher than the amount of RAM you have, your hard drive is being used for virtual swapfile too much, and it's getting increased wear it doesn't need.
That is a little misleading. For example, my peak is currently 421MB (I have 512 installed) and my current is 332MB - PaintShop Pro 8 is a memory HOG! I have set my base page file size to 256MB with virtually unlimited growth. Right now, that page file is at 28% usage, or roughly 71MB. That means out of my 332in use, only 261 is in use. As soon as you boot XP, it immediately starts dumping non-critical sections of itself and services to the page file.

I am not saying some people don't need 512MB of RAM. I have that much, but mostly for grins and for those occasional times I get Access fired up and start manipulating large amounts of data with multiple queries that run in sequence. I don't think the 256MB limit on this particular laptop is a limiting factor to many people. RAM is important, but just focusing on the total amount of sticks installed is about as useful as measuring a PC's performance by a MHz number. You have to take into account how the OS uses RAM and Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4 use it very differently than did Win9x/ME code. The NT kernel makes aggressive use of the swap file. I think this has been fixed in 2000/XP/2003, but I think NT4 and earlier NT based OSs would barely boot if you didn't have a swap file, regardless of the amount of RAM installed.

As I've been typing, XP has taken the swap file up to 29% usage. To see how XP plays with memory, go to Start|Control Panel, Admin Tools and launch Performance. Now start adding counters in the MEMORY and PAGING FILE dropdown.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I wish Windows would use the physical memory it had available. :?

I have 768Mb RAM, but still the swap file is being heavily used and yes I have enabled the "DisableExecutivePaging" and "LargeSystemCache" registry tweaks.

I often have 500 odd Mb used in physical memory and 250Mb in the swap file. :?

Disabling the page file completely does not really help as Photoshop gets upset.

I just want Windows to use all my physical RAM!

[Ed Hansberry]

I wish Windows would use the physical memory it had available. :?
Windows will for things that you are currently using. Think about the background process though that processes login attempts as an example. Do you care if that has been paged out by NT? As you've found out, even Photoshop likes to have some paging area to store stuff. It does this to optimize RAM needs. If you have 768MB of RAM and all 768MB is used by default by NT for non-critical apps, when you need another 128MB for some gonga photo editing, you'd have to wait for the NT kernel to page it out. For all the tweaking I've seen for NT/2K/XP over the years, most of them are feel-good tweaks that really do little to performance and often hurt it.

[Janak Parekh]

Ed's right on the money on that. You want to avoid "thrashing" when the OS needs to allocate memory all of a sudden (such as, when launching a new application).

Put a ridiculous amount of RAM in your PC and watch the swap utilization go slowly down. That said, all modern OSes will start using swap well before they've exhausted physical memory. The virtual memory model is designed to handle this without substantial slowdowns, given a near-optimal amount of RAM and a decent-performing disk.

As for this laptop, I know it's probably not for me, so complaining about 256MB RAM is a bit moot; but I want a powerhouse laptop that size. ;)

--janak

[martucci]

For those that want to sync a laptop to desktop, Sharp makes the Actius MC22. Although heavier than the MM10, it is the answer to everyone's complaint's about power, RAM, keyboard size, etc. on the smaller and less pwerful MM10. The MC22 has all the file syncing features the MM10 does. See:
http://www.sharpsystems.com/products/pc_notebooks/actius/mc/22/

I am sure someone will eventually figure a way to sync the PIM's at the same time the files are synced, but for now it is not that a big a deal to sync the data file from the laptop machine to the operating system's desktop of the desktop machine you are syncing to, and then importing the file to the PIM.