The Modular PC: OQO-Licious or Delicious?

[Pat Logsdon]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?ContentId=3870' target='_blank'>http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.a...?ContentId=3870</a><br /><br /></div><i>"The Modular PC measures 3"x5"x3/4" and weighs approximately 9.1 ounces. The Modular PC is not much larger than a deck of cards. The power supply, display and I/O connectors have been removed. The CPU contains the processor, memory, data and applications. Inside the Modular PC are a 1 Ghz processor, 512 RAM, and a 20 or 30 GB hard drive. Unlike many handheld computers, the Modular PC runs full Windows XP Professional."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/logsdon_20050105_modular.jpg" /><br /><br />This thing works on the concept of "shells". You want a micro tablet? Plug the module into a micro tablet shell. Same for laptop and desktop. How much do you want to bet that the shells aren't cheap? ;) What do you think of this? Would YOU want one?

[jkendrick]

Isn't this just a rebranded Antelope computing core? This has been available for over a year and is quite expensive by the time you add all the bits you need.

http://www.antelopetech.com/en/index.aspx?view=i-products_ModularComputingCore.htm

[foebea]

just checked the site. The shells aren't cheap at all.

laptop shell for 800$ (includes battery, ac adaptor and internal cd rom)
micro tablet shell for 990$ (includes battery, ac, stylus, screen protector, handstrap)

These prices are for the baseline version of the shells too. If you want options, its quite a bit more expensive. some of the addons are appearantly so high it lists 'call for price'

I think I would recommend sticking with the laptop. For this price you could get the very best Alienware has to offer with all the fixings. All of them :)

[bobmay]

I would want one. I couldn't afford one, but I would want one with all the fixings.

[Hugh Nano]

Want one. Can't afford one. Got a Axim x50v and BT keyboard instead.

VGA and TextMaker help, but still wish I could track changes, create PDFs, use real IE, etc.

[surur]

Yes, if this comes down in price (by 75% :) would want one. Even better would be if PDA's could work like these.

Surur

[Damion Chaplin]

Even better would be if PDA's could work like these.

Surur

I agree. Take the core and put a touch screen and ROM chip with WM on it. Then I can plug my PDA into my desktop or laptop shell. No transferring of files needed...

That might be something worth paying that amount of $$ for.

[sponge]

It'd be worth it to pay for a watered down Windows Mobile, but not something that runs full blown XP?

[Kati Compton]

It'd be worth it to pay for a watered down Windows Mobile, but not something that runs full blown XP?

I think they mean it'd be worth it if the small object could be used WITHOUT a shell as well as WITH one. Otherwise, it's portable from one location to the next, but not necessarily usable BETWEEN locations.

[ctmagnus]

A world without PCs as we know them... Terminals everywhere... Everyone (and I mean everyone, except for those who don't want to have one) has one of these... We all carry all our info on these, plugging them into the terminals whenever we need to do "big screen" work and using them like most of us currently use Pocket PCs when we're not at a terminal.

:drool:

[gry]

Yeah, but bring your antibacterial wipes with you. 8O

Why no modular core with a notebook shell, Keyboard?

The tablet only solution is not practical for most people.

[jimski]

Well I am glad someone finally overheard me in an airport lounge. If I had a couple million bucks four or five years ago I would have developed a shell with interchangable adapters to handle any type of PDA. Maybe an 8" diagonal (touch) screen, laptop (or slightly smaller) keyboard, ethernet and modem connections, PCMCIA slots (now more likely memory card slots), a parallel printer port (now USB ports) and maybe a built-in hard drive to store drivers and other practical tools. PDA would have had something like Word Light and shell would have had Word Deluxe so you might have had more formatting capability when docked. Basically just about everything you would need to be functional, but not quite a laptop. You would attach the adapter to the end of your PDA and just slide it in to the receiving slot (spring loaded on one side to take up space for varying sizes).

Business users could have set these up at multiple sites so guests or employees could have moved around between sites and just plugged in to get mail, type, print, etc. Schools could have used them to connect any PDA device or students could have traveled from class to class and plugged in where appropriate. Airports, rest stops and Internet Cafes (oh yeah, somebody already thought of that) could have setup kiosks for users to plug in to get business done. Hey even McDonalds could have had a couple setup for users to connect.

Everyone would have owned or wanted to own a PDA and my company would have dictated to PDA manufacturers how devices would need to be designed because of the shell's overwhelming popularity. Developing an incompatible device would have meant certain failure, sort of like making toilet tissue too wide for the dispenser.

I never got past the sketch stage but I sure did talk about this concept to anyone who would listen (I wanted someone else to build it so I could buy it). Unfortunatly I think this concepts best days are behind us, but it could have been some ride. Come to think of it, I could have just had the concept (as vague as possible) patented, waited for someone to make a load of money on the idea, and then sued the hell out of them. Ah, the American way to success!

[xoiph]

The OQO is cheaper (and sexier). Is it still vaporware BTW? Or has it condensed into an actual shipping product? It looks like it from their site.

[frankenbike]

Yeah, if I'm gonna want something I can't afford, the OQO looks a lot tastier.

Essentially the size of the modular pack, it has a touch screen, keyboard and IO. You can plug a monitor, full size keyboard and mouse into it.

Though it would be cool if OQO made a folding plasma screen/keyboard and big battery docking station for it.

BTW, OQO is taking orders, but it says "Ships in 3-4 weeks".

[davea0511]

If this device had a built-in touchscreen and was only 0.5" thick, had built-in bluetooth and cost only $2000, and was just 50% faster then it would be there. It would be huge and it would revolutionize the whole handheld world.

Not quite there yet though.

[frankenbike]

If this device had a built-in touchscreen and was only 0.5" thick, had built-in bluetooth and cost only $2000, and was just 50% faster then it would be there. It would be huge and it would revolutionize the whole handheld world.

Not quite there yet though.

But it will be. And when it's there, and it will probably be well under $1000, it will mean an end to Pocket PCs.

[Jason Lee]

But it will be. And when it's there, and it will probably be well under $1000, it will mean an end to Pocket PCs.

Not if it doesn't turn on/off instantly, have no moving parts inside, have a phone built in, and run for 10+ hours on one battery charge.

[frankenbike]

PPCs don't turn on and off instantly. They don't turn off at all. Essentially, they go into a sort of standby mode.

Even laptops can do that, and are instant on when you put them in standby mode only. Battery life of the OQO is pretty comparable to PPCs at 3 hours, and that's with an 800x600 display.

As for no moving parts...PPCs have 2/525 the storage of the OQO. Expanded to the current max 1 gb on SD only models, that's 1/20th the storage. To 2 gb, 1/10th.

The OQO also has 4 times the average RAM capacity.

It has a 1 ghz processor vs around 612 mhz in the faster PPCs.

It's not quite an apple vs. orange comparison. For a first generation device, the OQO is much closer to PPC specs than a PPC is to its specs.

The true startup time for a PPC can be seen when you soft reset.

[gibson042]

If this device had a built-in touchscreen and was only 0.5" thick, had built-in bluetooth and cost only $2000, and was just 50% faster then it would be there.
Not to ask too much of it... :devilboy:

[gibson042]

PPCs don't turn on and off instantly. They don't turn off at all. Essentially, they go into a sort of standby mode.
You have a point.

Even laptops can do that, and are instant on when you put them in standby mode only. Battery life of the OQO is pretty comparable to PPCs at 3 hours, and that's with an 800x600 display.
The laptops I've worked with take considerably longer than a PPC to come out of standby, and any decent PPC has twice the battery life of the OQO.

As for no moving parts...PPCs have 2/525 the storage of the OQO. Expanded to the current max 1 gb on SD only models, that's 1/20th the storage. To 2 gb, 1/10th.

The OQO also has 4 times the average RAM capacity.

It has a 1 ghz processor vs around 612 mhz in the faster PPCs.

It's not quite an apple vs. orange comparison. For a first generation device, the OQO is much closer to PPC specs than a PPC is to its specs.
The storage and RAM comparisons are spot on, but the processor one is completely irrelevant as they use totally different instruction sets.

The true startup time for a PPC can be seen when you soft reset.
I disagree. The expected use of a PPC is to put it in standby when you're done with it, leaving it in a low power mode but not truly off. Therefore, that should be the standard by which you judge it. It's not a race to see who can warm boot faster, it's how long will you have to wait before you can accomplish your task. Also, it looks like WM2005 devices might actually turn off for real, the way smartphones do with RAM reserved solely for program execution (and even if they don't, that's obviously where Microsoft wants to take the platform).

I really like these tiny and/or modular PCs, but personally I don't think they're for me. They'll never be as powerful or have as much storage capacity as your primary desktop or laptop, which means they'll never replace it. And that places them squarely in competition with Pocket PCs. The problem is, the Pocket PC would still be better even if they had the exact same hardware, because of the difference in OS. Windows XP (and Longhorn, and whatever comes next...) is big and clunky and slow. It is not designed for small screens or small devices, and would be less than pleasant to use in the palm of your hand. Windows Mobile, on the other hand, is designed for such usage and generally does a good job of helping you quickly accomplish what you wanted. When the products do eventually merge and the modular PCs are "there," I expect that they'll be running Windows Mobile (although they might also have a full-fledged computing OS as well, for the keyboard/mouse/monitor usage scenarios).

[Vidge]

Even laptops can do that, and are instant on when you put them in standby mode only. Battery life of the OQO is pretty comparable to PPCs at 3 hours, and that's with an 800x600 display.
Just a minor correction: the OQO is 800x480; the Sony U750 is 800x600.

The OQO also has 4 times the average RAM capacity.
At 256 meg. And the U750 has 512.

It has a 1 ghz processor vs around 612 mhz in the faster PPCs.
And it's not even the fastest 1 ghz available (uses te Transmeta processor). The U750 has a 1.1 ghz Pentium M.

It's not quite an apple vs. orange comparison. For a first generation device, the OQO is much closer to PPC specs than a PPC is to its specs.

The true startup time for a PPC can be seen when you soft reset.

I have to agree totally. My hp4155 cannot compare to my Sony U750 - truly a different animal.

[frankenbike]

Which goes on to make my point even better. You have not one, but two entries in the true pocket sized PC market. Though the Sony is bigger than the OQO and doesn't have a built in keyboard ;)

They're only going to get smaller and cheaper from there, and eventually the two markets will intersect. If the market is typical for technology, that would be in 2 to 4 years.

Pocket PCs started out in the $500 range. If I had the choice of buying one of those OQOs or U750s for $500, or a current technology PPC for $200, I'd spend the extra $300 and get it. I think you could see those micro PCs at that price range in a couple of years.

What I'd like to see in the Micro PC market is the ability to take something like SD and run entirely off of it, using it as a cache for the HDD. That way I could use something like that on the bike without destroying the HDD from vibration (which has happened to a couple of people I know with iPods). But I could copy whatever I needed from the HDD to flash when I needed to (music, maps, etc).

[frankenbike]

I disagree. The expected use of a PPC is to put it in standby when you're done with it, leaving it in a low power mode but not truly off. Therefore, that should be the standard by which you judge it. It's not a race to see who can warm boot faster, it's how long will you have to wait before you can accomplish your task.

This is not a technical obstacle to micro PCs. And considering the much larger number of tasks possible with a full fledged XP OS that aren't possible with PPCs, you may have to wait until you have access to a PC to actually accomplish your task at all.

If all you're using a PPC for is PIM functions, it's one thing. But on nearly every application beyond that, it's functions are nearly always crippled to run within the miniscule standard storage and RAM parameters of the current PPC form.

And my Gateway laptop starts up in less than two seconds from Standby. There's no reason I couldn't leave it on Standby instead of turning it off, I just have the option of actually turning it off. I don't even have that option with a PPC.


Also, it looks like WM2005 devices might actually turn off for real, the way smartphones do with RAM reserved solely for program execution (and even if they don't, that's obviously where Microsoft wants to take the platform).

We'll see when those devices appear. Right now, they're science fiction, and any prediction for the future is based on the same educated guesses I'm making. From all indications, there will still be a huge difference in performance capabilities between PPCs and micro PCs predicated by the differences in storage and memory alone, let alone I/O differences.


I really like these tiny and/or modular PCs, but personally I don't think they're for me. They'll never be as powerful or have as much storage capacity as your primary desktop or laptop, which means they'll never replace it. And that places them squarely in competition with Pocket PCs. The problem is, the Pocket PC would still be better even if they had the exact same hardware, because of the difference in OS.


Exactly. Which is what I've been saying. The lack of that hardware holds the PPC back. The lack of storage, the lack of memory, the lack of standard I/O holds the software back.

For example, other than voice prompts, MS Streets and Trips on a PC is better in many practical ways than most PPC map applications. You can route from anywhere to anywhere without pre-cutting maps. You can pull up an address anywhere in the country, following conversations about places you're not familiar with.


Windows XP (and Longhorn, and whatever comes next...) is big and clunky and slow. It is not designed for small screens or small devices, and would be less than pleasant to use in the palm of your hand. Windows Mobile, on the other hand, is designed for such usage and generally does a good job of helping you quickly accomplish what you wanted.

As long as what you wanted fits in the limited parameters of tasks it's capable of. And those parameters are limited by extremely outdated standard memory and mass storage. Had the PPC followed the technology curve of PCs, all of the devices would come standard with 256 mb of RAM, and at least 512 mb of ROM by now.

I really don't know why you think that an XP based system would be less than pleasant to use in the palm of your hand, either. Have you asked someone who has such a device about that?


When the products do eventually merge and the modular PCs are "there," I expect that they'll be running Windows Mobile (although they might also have a full-fledged computing OS as well, for the keyboard/mouse/monitor usage scenarios).

I expect Windows Mobile to always be hobbled by it's vendor centric philosophy. It's a bastard step-child that will never get the attention or resources it needs to become a "real boy". Maybe MS will prove me wrong, but their recent proclamation that they are concentrating on the "enterprise market" is not encouraging. Their balkanization of the market into separate media devices from Pocket PCs is also not encouraging. We'll see how the WM2005 devices manifest themselves, but I'll bet they still won't be recognized as drives when you plug them into computers that don't have AS installed.

While I think that syncing is a nice feature, suppose that you instead had all your PIM data stored on the PPC, and when you used Outlook it would look to the PPC for the info? Or any software you used on the PC that synced with the PPC now?

When I travel, I often have access to computers on the road. It would be nice to be able to use any of them for whatever I needed, without having to install AS. WiFi and BT are nice, but they aren't ubiquitous.

[Vidge]

Windows XP (and Longhorn, and whatever comes next...) is big and clunky and slow. It is not designed for small screens or small devices, and would be less than pleasant to use in the palm of your hand. Windows Mobile, on the other hand, is designed for such usage and generally does a good job of helping you quickly accomplish what you wanted.

As long as what you wanted fits in the limited parameters of tasks it's capable of. And those parameters are limited by extremely outdated standard memory and mass storage. Had the PPC followed the technology curve of PCs, all of the devices would come standard with 256 mb of RAM, and at least 512 mb of ROM by now.

I really don't know why you think that an XP based system would be less than pleasant to use in the palm of your hand, either. Have you asked someone who has such a device about that?

Having XP Pro in the palm of my hand has been wonderful :D Rather than rehash it, you can read my experiences here (http://www.dailygadget.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4408)

[Jason Lee]

*sigh* looks as though we may have stumbled on to the next holy war. pc/mac, pocket pc/palm, and now pocket pc/micro pc... which means this is a no win discussion. ;)

[gibson042]

...
From all indications, there will still be a huge difference in performance capabilities between PPCs and micro PCs predicated by the differences in storage and memory alone, let alone I/O differences.

I really like these tiny and/or modular PCs, but personally I don't think they're for me. They'll never be as powerful or have as much storage capacity as your primary desktop or laptop, which means they'll never replace it. And that places them squarely in competition with Pocket PCs. The problem is, the Pocket PC would still be better even if they had the exact same hardware, because of the difference in OS.


Exactly. Which is what I've been saying. The lack of that hardware holds the PPC back. The lack of storage, the lack of memory, the lack of standard I/O holds the software back.
I think that's something we can all agree on. Simple things like USB hosting for full use of availabe peripherals and emulation of a Mass Storage device when in client mode should just be automatically built-in, rather than lauded as advanced features. All mid-range and many low-range devices should have at least 128 MB of RAM and 256 MB of ROM by now, with the high-range offering 256/1024.

For example, other than voice prompts, MS Streets and Trips on a PC is better in many practical ways than most PPC map applications. You can route from anywhere to anywhere without pre-cutting maps. You can pull up an address anywhere in the country, following conversations about places you're not familiar with.

Windows XP (and Longhorn, and whatever comes next...) is big and clunky and slow. It is not designed for small screens or small devices, and would be less than pleasant to use in the palm of your hand. Windows Mobile, on the other hand, is designed for such usage and generally does a good job of helping you quickly accomplish what you wanted.

As long as what you wanted fits in the limited parameters of tasks it's capable of. And those parameters are limited by extremely outdated standard memory and mass storage. Had the PPC followed the technology curve of PCs, all of the devices would come standard with 256 mb of RAM, and at least 512 mb of ROM by now.
That is, unfortunately, the tradeoff of a Pocket PC versus a "handtop" (to pick a name from a rather large candidate list). You give up some (but an ever-shrinking amount of) functionality and a great deal of power in exchange for maximum portability.

I really don't know why you think that an XP based system would be less than pleasant to use in the palm of your hand, either. Have you asked someone who has such a device about that?
I was speaking subjectively at that point. XP, even (and to some extent, especially) Tablet Edition, is a monster of an operating system. It is not designed for the low screen resolutions, memory, processor power, and storage capacity of extremely small devices. The tradeoff of a handtop versus a Pocket PC is that you give up some (but an ever-shrinking amount of) convenience like instant-on (they, like your laptop, take a couple seconds to come out of standby and 10-30 seconds to come out of hibernate) and an OS designed for low-end hardware in exchange for something as powerful as a laptop but a small fraction of its size.

Handtops are too big to put in your pocket, and Pocket PCs are too weak to do everything that a laptop can. In this light, it becomes obvious that they can and will coexist in the present, perhaps even in the possession of one person in some cases. It's the future that's in question...

When the products do eventually merge and the modular PCs are "there," I expect that they'll be running Windows Mobile (although they might also have a full-fledged computing OS as well, for the keyboard/mouse/monitor usage scenarios).

I expect Windows Mobile to always be hobbled by it's vendor centric philosophy. It's a fatherless-child step-child that will never get the attention or resources it needs to become a "real boy". Maybe MS will prove me wrong, but their recent proclamation that they are concentrating on the "enterprise market" is not encouraging. Their balkanization of the market into separate media devices from Pocket PCs is also not encouraging. We'll see how the WM2005 devices manifest themselves, but I'll bet they still won't be recognized as drives when you plug them into computers that don't have AS installed.
You are all too right about everything in the above paragraph. I really have no loyalty to Windows Mobile per se, I would just like the design and user interface of my OS to match the design and user interface of my hardware. If that ends up being not "Windows Mobile 2010" but "Windows SRT Pocket Edition" (or "Second Edition Tablet Edition for Pocket PC"--gotta love Microsoft naming conventions :wink:), then so be it.

While I think that syncing is a nice feature, suppose that you instead had all your PIM data stored on the PPC, and when you used Outlook it would look to the PPC for the info? Or any software you used on the PC that synced with the PPC now?
Sounds good to me.

When I travel, I often have access to computers on the road. It would be nice to be able to use any of them for whatever I needed, without having to install AS. WiFi and BT are nice, but they aren't ubiquitous.
I couldn't agree more. ActiveSync is a handicap that should already be unnecessary. I will be a happy happy man when PPCs are recognized as Mass Storage devices while plugged into any PC.

[gibson042]

*sigh* looks as though we may have stumbled on to the next holy war. pc/mac, pocket pc/palm, and now pocket pc/micro pc... which means this is a no win discussion. ;)
God, I hope not (pun intended). I see a place for both in today's world, and hope that in tomorrow's world they will be replaced by devices that are superior to both.

[Vidge]

*sigh* looks as though we may have stumbled on to the next holy war. pc/mac, pocket pc/palm, and now pocket pc/micro pc... which means this is a no win discussion. ;)
God, I hope not (pun intended). I see a place for both in today's world, and hope that in tomorrow's world they will be replaced by devices that are superior to both.
I totally agree. At this time, different devices fit different users needs - that doesn't mean that one (Palm, PPC or UPC) is any better than the other, just different. And while I do see the future as being more of a convergence of these devices, I don't see that happening for a number of years. In the meantime, the devices will co-exist and, likely, thrive.

[frankenbike]

*sigh* looks as though we may have stumbled on to the next holy war. pc/mac, pocket pc/palm, and now pocket pc/micro pc... which means this is a no win discussion. ;)

I don't know about that. I mean, I'm a PPC user. Usually the biggest advocates are people who are already converted.

I just want the PPC to live up to its potential, based on what is already being done with other devices.

[Jason Lee]

I want the pocket pc to be all it can be as well but i don't want it to loose what makes it a pocket pc. Size, ease of use, battery life, speed, durability, stability... I would love to have a super itty bitty XP device, even the sony u70 thing. That would be soo cool.. But as that technology is now, it could never replace my pocket pc and the way i use it. But i'm very open to change and improvement of the pocket pc and the micro pc. Yes, i can see the two coming togather somewhere down the line but not in the next few years.
I would truly love to have only one computer/phone/everything device. I want to be able to play World of Warcraft then pull out the core module and have all that functionality with me in a fast, reliable, easy to use on the go device.

I know new tablet pcs can come out of suspend in just a few seconds and i can open outlook and check my schedule but it is a lot harder to do while walking up stairs with 50 other people bumping into you. I would love my pocket pc to be as powerful as my desktop but it better still be as practical/usable as my pocket pc. :)

Even new tablet pcs don't have the graphics, ram, or processor power to cover my desktop needs and they are a lot bigger than these new micro pcs. But maybe some day..... :)

[frankenbike]

From a pure technology standpoint, they could come together in two to three years. Optimize standby mode and hard drive caching, and there's no reason they couldn't.

I'm not sure I'd say the PPC is all that stable. Soft resets are a fact of life, and people have been putting up with hard resets and loss of all RAM data for years.

My point about the whole PPC/MicroPC thing is that it's more possible to make the PPC more than it is, right now. 1gb flash ROM should be standard as the minimum for all WM2005 devices, but you know it won't be. The manufacturers will hail 256mb as some grand improvement, even though it's now laughable.

I think the standards for usability that you're setting as the floor of capabilities is reasonable.

And I'm not suggesting that in every case these Micro PCs or an enhanced PPC could replace a desktop for everyone. Some people, but not everyone.

But for people who travel (which might not really be that big a market), a pocket sized near-desktop (ND ;) ) device could really be a boon.

It doesn't take much imagination to see how such devices could be used for business presentations as well as entertainment. I think the Linux base of the new Archos PVR/PIM/Internet device (which is currently vaporware) is going to hold it back from serious market penetration in the business sector. But if the same device had been WM based with full program compatibility, it would have been the device we'd covet. It really isn't much bigger or heavier than a PPC.

[Typhoon]

That tablet is waayyyy too big.