10.21.08
Posted in Review at 11:56 pm by Techie
The T-Mobile G1 was the first effort at a mass market phone built on the Google operating system Android. Combining slick (if not current) hardware from HTC, Google’s web applications, and this new open mobile OS, it was meant to give the iPhone some competition while changing the landscape of mobile application development. I received mine today, and spent some time getting some first impressions.
You have to tie the phone to a Google account, so when starting it up, the first thing you have to do is add your Google account. For those with Google Apps For Your Domain: relax, you can use your Google Apps email address with no problem. This has some other complications, which I’ll go over later. This is great in the sense that you can store your data “in the cloud”. It is terrifying in that it puts a large amount of your personal data in the cloud. That, and you’re storing your data with one vendor. That concern is more than just data resiliency; it’s the fact that you’re giving someone else control over your access to that data. There have already been horror stories of people getting locked out of their Google account, so this is not an irrational fear. Most people are probably willing to take this risk, or are taking this risk already.
If you’re a first timer, you’re also going to want to dive into settings, and enable the GPS. I don’t know why they ship with it off; I’m guessing that half the folks breaking out this phone are going to do what I did: open the Map application and hit “My Location”, then be frustrated when it doesn’t work. Once done, the GPS is actually reasonably accurate — while driving down the street, it kept track of where I was pretty closely.
The hardware itself isn’t winning any beauty contests. It’s twice as thick as an iPhone, and has the aesthetic sensibility of a first generation Zune engineer. Well, it’s not quite that bad, but it’s definitely lacking polish. I drained a battery pretty quickly through a few hours of constant usage. While I probably wouldn’t be using it that extensively on an ongoing basis, it did run out rather alarmingly fast. (Perhaps that’s why the GPS is off by default.) The trackball is a familiar interface for me, coming from a Blackberry Pearl. In fact, the four button organization with trackball in the center was very reminiscent of working with a Blackberry — perhaps they’re setting up Android as a Blackberry killer? I love the full qwerty keyboard, but they recessed the keys far too much, leaving the whole keyboard feeling flat. I would have preferred raised buttons, like a Treo. Everyone complains about the lack of a standard headset jack, so I’ll throw in my complaint regarding that as well. They did include a set of headphones, but they’re not great.
The camera is kind of bunk. While on paper it sounds good, in practice, it’s rather hard to half-depress the tiny shutter button, and when taking a picture, it takes a bit for it to actually snap. This probably takes great pictures of still scenes; anything with action is bound to be extremely blurry.
Technical specs have been covered in pretty good detail on other sites; I seem to have no problems getting a signal so far, and being in the Boston area, 3G coverage is pretty decent. I still lean towards using wifi, of course, as that’s just faster.
Software-wise, Android works reasonably well. It’s not quite as intuitive as it should be, but it responds pretty snappily. While I can see myself getting quite used to it, I can see a lot of frustration for folks who are not as technically inclined and aren’t patient. In this vein, I can’t recommend an Android-based phone over an iPhone yet — the latter is just going to be a less frustrating experience overall. Opening and shutting the screen causes the display to flip between portrait and landscape, and it does this flawlessly. I would start loading a web page and immediately flip open the keyboard, and it’d switch over without missing a beat. This was rather pleasantly surprising.
However, unlike the iPhone, Android doesn’t have as much integration with other applications. Take the Amazon MP3 integration, for example. This is analogous to the iPhone with the iTunes Music Store. However, this application is clearly distinct from the Music system. I can pull up Amazon MP3, browse tunes, and buy a tune. However, I can’t immediately play the tune after purchasing, without switching applications and manually finding the song. Something Google and third party developers will need to do is really examine the UI flow, and clean up things like this — I should be able to go from buying a song to playing in a smooth flow, without having to hunt and peck. Unfortunately, this is quite a bit more difficult because more companies are involved, not to mention (soon) multiple hardware vendors.
There’s always been a little bit of confusion between Google’s regular web applications and the ones they package together as Google Apps. For instance, I can set up my email address on Google Apps, then go to regular Gmail, and try to sign in with it. Rather than taking me to Google Apps email, though, it prompts me to set up a regular @gmail address. This is true of Google Calendar as well. This has been the case for a while, and they haven’t really fixed it. The reason I mention this is that the browser defaults to a Google page, with links to these items. These links won’t work properly for Google Apps addresses for just this reason. The applications on the phone work just fine; just the start page links won’t work properly, which is rather odd. This is just going to get more confusing as more web applications end up in Google Apps. Also, what’s with the omission of Google Docs?
The Gmail application works about as you’d expect. You can’t open attachments, which is quite astounding, but then again, they didn’t include native Google Docs support, so what would you open it in. It works reasonably well and is effective for email. The Mail client, on the other hand, isn’t so good. If you have a lot of IMAP folders, it’s going to be quite painful. URLs aren’t clickable, and you can’t copy / paste them. In essence, the Mail client is roughly functional, but in need of a lot of work — hopefully someone will develop a better one in the Marketplace.
This brings us to the applications. They’re just not up to snuff yet, but as the G1 isn’t technically supposed to get released quite yet, perhaps that’ll change this week. Some of them are cool, some are bloated, some just don’t quite work. There’s also only a few dozen, so you’ll be able to review all of them briefly, until the market gets flooded. This also means that the more esoteric apps you might be looking for (say, an SSH client?) won’t be available just yet. Some of them have odd quirks — such as not quite mapping your starting point for directions or locations properly, resulting in not very good results. Some fine tuning is obviously needed for many applications. On the other hand, some, like the Weather.com application, though simple, are extremely well done.
I think I side with many other reviewers in noting that this is a good first attempt, and a quite nice phone. However, it lacks the polish and usability of Apple’s iPhone, as well as that extra bit of effort to make sure all of the apps are sharp. On the other hand, there is huge potential here: the Android operating system is quite capable, a lot of hardware vendors are developing new phones, and there’s a lot of time until their release to work out all of the bugs. I’m quite satisfied with picking up this phone, but still wouldn’t recommend it for people at large: there’s too much that needs to be cleaned up, and it’s still not intuitive enough for non-technical folks to prevent frustration. However, being an open platform, perhaps that may change quickly. I can’t wait.
Permalink
06.01.07
Posted in Intermediate, Linux, Review, Windows at 8:12 am by Techie
I have two PCs right next to each other, each with their own display. One runs Windows XP Professional, and the other runs Ubuntu Feisty Fawn. I have one keyboard between the two of them. KVM? Nah, that’s too passe. Far better to be able to switch between computers just by moving the mouse.
Synergy describes itself like so:
Synergy lets you easily share a single mouse and keyboard between multiple computers with different operating systems, each with its own display, without special hardware. It’s intended for users with multiple computers on their desk since each system uses its own monitor(s).
This is actually really cool. It’s almost like having a really large display, as the mouse flows between all windows. I type on my Ubuntu desktop, then switch over to a Windows application on a different monitor by moving the mouse. The two computers share an “edge”, so my mouse moves seamlessly between them. To type on Windows, I mouse to the Windows side; to type on Ubuntu, I mouse to the Ubuntu side. Simple and effective. What’s even cooler is that the machines share the clipboard buffer! I can copy text on one side, mouse over to the right side, and paste it.
Configuration
Configuration is simple. Select one machine as your “server”, which has the actual keyboard and mouse you want to use. Other machines are “clients”, and connect to the server. In my case, I set up my Ubuntu PC as my server, and set up my Windows machine as a client. It could have been the other way.
Interestingly enough, it’s slightly easier to configure the “server” on Linux, if you use “quicksynergy”. This allows you to just specify where the other client computers are. Just fire it up, tell it that a client’s display is left / right / above / below your existing display, hit Start, and you’re off to the races. You can also manually configure it, but that just doesn’t seem fun.
Configuring the server on Windows is a bit more complicated, but quite a bit more extensible as a result. You specify which clients share an edge, but have to specify it both ways — e.g., if you say a computer A’s display is to the right of computer B’s display, you must also say computer B’s display is to the left of computer A’s display, or you’ll end up with a one way transport.
As far as client configuration goes, all you need to know is the hostname or IP address of the server. Provide the client names to the server to allow connection, and you’re all set.
Compatibility
Mac has something similar, called Teleport, which actually works better, but only works on Macs. I don’t think Teleport and Synergy are compatible. While there is a Mac version of Synergy available, it’s not fully supported yet. Synergy works on most modern versions of Linux, as well as most versions of Windows, though it has this caveat for Vista: “…when an application running with elevated [privileges] is focused Synergy stops working.”
Conclusion
If you use multiple PCs on one desk, Synergy is a no brainer. Get it, install it, and simplify your keyboard and mouse situation. Also, since most modern keyboards and mice are now shipping as USB, you may find that KVM switches don’t work, as they are often powered off PS/2 devices. Synergy sidesteps that issue completely. Besides which, having a shared copy / paste buffer between PCs is amazing — try doing that with a KVM switch!
Permalink
10.05.06
Posted in Review at 5:40 pm by Techie
Internet on your PC? Why not! Something that’s been kicked around since the advent of Internet video is the idea of an Internet-only television network. If you can stream video, why not stream video channels? You wouldn’t have to worry about building out the network infrastructure, because you’d be running it on top of the Internet. TVU networks is one such company aiming to do just that.
There’s no clear timeline on when the service will actually roll out; according to their site, they anticipate a rollout later this year. Until that point, however, they are offering their software and service for free for beta testing. While it would appear that there is a web browser video player available, I was unable to get it to function in either Firefox 2.0 or Internet Explorer 7, so this review focuses on the downloadable software player (08/04/2006 16:02:10.72 build).
Requirements
- Windows 2000 or XP
- Broadband Internet, such as DSL or cable modem
Installation
Installation is very straightforward. Download the setup file, and run. That’s pretty much it. When you run it, a little spinning green globe will appear in your taskbar. This is no doubt handling part of their distribution — my thoughts on this are that TVU networks is leveraging something similar to Bit Torrent for content distribution, to keep bandwidth costs down. That way, if their subscriber base explodes, they could scale to meet demand without effort — clever.
Usability
The channel viewer is fairly straightforward — channels on the left, viewer on the right. For this beta, there are a lot of channels you might already be familiar with — FOX, NBC, Cartoon Network, ABC, CBS, ESPN (and ESPN2), TV land, CNN, Al Jazeera, and Animal Planet are among them. There are additionally some lower bandwidth channels, as well as some international channels.
As of this writing, there were forty-five channels, including ones from China, Korea, and Italy. To change channels, just click on another one, but be warned — changing channels is painful. You’ll spend several seconds waiting for the video to buffer in, so don’t expect to be channel surfing with this setup. In Full View mode, an on screen display with a volume control appears when you mouse over the display. I found that if you focused on the window, waited until the OSD disappeared, then clicked into another window that the OSD would stay hidden — convenient for multitasking dual monitor users like myself. No program guide was available for channels.
Overall, the interface is quite intuitive, and leaves little room for improvement. I would add some keyboard navigation or other accessibility features, as this could serve as a plug-in for a HTPC setup. I would have also added some quick program guide data in the channel viewer mode. Enabling the scroll wheel on the mouse for the channel listing would also be a plus.
Video Quality
In the picture above, you see the window for the TV. This is essentially a preview viewer, showing a 360×254 size image. In the lower right is a button marked “Full View”, which expands to fill the window, at 800×600. This window is freely resizable. Additionally, if from Full View you then maximize the window, it goes full screen. However, though the image gets bigger in each case, I believe the resolution remains the same, which makes the image pixelated at 800×600, and heavily so at full screen. I would put picture quality at comparable to Standard Definition at this point, and the channels seem to be mostly in 4:3 aspect ratio. (CNN is actually in 16:9 format, using letterbox black bars.) Due to the dearth of information regarding their upgrade plans, I have no idea if TVU networks is planning on improving this. According to their site: “The video quality will be equal to or better than typical digital cable channels and you will be able to switch between multiple TV channels just like on a TV.” That may be the case in the future, but they’re not there yet. I wouldn’t even say it actually competes with Standard Definition at this point, but it is reasonably close. Some channels are better than others.
The video is quite watchable as is, however, artifacting can be seen even in non-fast motion frames. (Pardon me for the lack of video examples; due to the nature of video display, the picture couldn’t be captured via screenshot.) I would not recommend viewing it full screen, as the artifacting becomes extreme. Viewing this on an HDTV’s full resolution may be a little painful.
Conclusion
As far as this technology goes, it’s pretty good. As advertised, you get TV channels on your PC. Maybe not all the channels you currently get, but they have a decent selection, and if you don’t have a TV, this can foot the bill.
Internet TV is an interesting idea, but is unlikely to replace traditional television networks. As a way to get television in an environment where televisions aren’t available, it’s a quite usable solution. Additionally, getting access to additional stations from around the world is a bonus. However, the picture quality offered is not substantially better, and definitely not a competitor to HD broadcasts (yet). There’s also a shortage of channels; though forty-five channels are available, people getting basic cable would be looking for more variety in the offerings — one hopes that with time, they’ll be able to diversify their listings.
Plus, people tend to already have their solutions for network television, be it cable, satellite, or over the air. They’re more likely to be interested in getting access to those channels, rather than access to this separate network, making offerings like Slingbox (which can broadcast your cable to your PC or even your cell phone) much more attractive. They’re certainly not likely to buy both subscriptions, and given that most people watch television in their houses, this is unlikely to be the solution of choice, especially with the lack of high definition content. At least in the US, areas that have broadband connections tend to also be the ones with other cable providers. What might be interesting is the provision of these channels worldwide to areas that set up Internet access, but do not have the wide availability of these channels. What’s interesting about TVU networks is that they’re trying to reverse the shift that television networks are undergoing now: rather than getting news and entertainment from television alone, people are now turning towards the Internet. Turning the Internet into TV is not exactly something that people are clamoring for. People want to watch television on their televisions.
TVU networks is missing one big feature: where’s the DVR-style functionality? The lack of pause, rewind, fast-forward, and slow-motion capabilities is sorely lacking. I’m surprised that they would overlook this functionality.
There’s also a lack of transparency about how the technology actually works. Does this company “torrent” the broadcasts? If so, then many companies specifically wouldn’t allow its use. What about the company? Many of the pages leave a bland “Under Construction” notice, rather than providing any useful information. What are their plans for expansion, and how soon are they releasing their full service? How much would it cost? Will the web player work again? There are a lot of questions left unanswered, leaving me feeling a bit leery about using it.
It’s fun to download and try out, but doesn’t quite get itself out of the novelty category. The technology here is very interesting stuff, and if you’re jonesing for TV where you have an Internet connection but no TV, then this patches in quite well. However, it will not replace your television. (If you don’t have a television, then this may be a good choice.) It will be interesting to see how they improve the service and how they target their markets.
Permalink