Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Texan in Calgary for a while
Posts: 1361

Discuss Alan's article here.

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 28

I think that the big problem here is not so much Palm (though you make some cogent points). It is instead Microsoft. Once again, we have Bill and the Boys telling the world that we will eat vanilla and like it. Given the poor quality of Windows 2000 as a desktop OS and the meager Windows ME, I think I will stay with old Win98 and keep my Visor and its blissfully fast USB port. Afterall, with the USB infrastructure (scanners, printers, cameras, etc), wouldn't you think that there will be some service pack that quietly gets released and supports USB?

Registered: Feb 2001
Location:
Posts: 134

Although I agree that Microsoft is "evil" I actually do support these decisions...and I prefer the technologies. I've been using 802.11 and FireWire for over a year...and I have still to see anything arrive from the Bluetooth side. In fact I have been reading quite a few pieces about more delays from Bluetooth.

However...I think what really gauls me is that Palm seems to be behaving much like Microsoft. It seems they feel they no longer have to compete through innovation...because they can "muscle" their way around. I am just saddened by their performance and I don't want to see myself using a Windows handheld in a year.

I fear that the m500 series may be too little too late.

I am just hoping to see a little more...well no...I EXPECT more from them.

I am sure some thrid party will provide USB 2.0 and Bluetooth for Windows...but the fact it won't be tightly bound to the OS makes me wonder how well it can succeed.

__________________
I saw that everyone else had a signature and I felt left out, so here is mine.

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 200

Except for the article introduction, it was more of a "Palm vs. Palm" argument, not "XP vs. Palm." I'm not sure what Alan means about no USB support being a curveball to Palm; first, it's only the still-unreleased m500 series that uses USB in the Palm line; second, Visor owners have always dealt with/known about USB non-support in NT; third, PocketPC products like iPaq are currently using USB sync connections too.

Also, I've also heard that the iMac is the "biggest selling computer of all time," but I'm curious as to how this fact is actually determined. Is it any SINGLE iMac model that has this distinction, or is it the iMac product LINE?

Bigredmed, I'd be surprised if XP didn't support USB 1.0; the issue is that MS apparently isn't supporting the newer, faster USB 2.0 standard. Older USB devices and motherboards should still be fine.

Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 380

Actually Microsoft didn't say that they won't ever support USB 2.0. What was said is basically that there are so few USB 2.0 devices out there that MS does not feel that they can guarantee that system software will work correctly. The exact quote is

"USB 2.0 support will not be included in the final version of Windows XP, due to the fact that there is not a sufficient array of production-quality devices to test against,"

The implication is that in a future service pack, support will be there. In addition, this has nothing to do with the USB support that Palm and HandSpring are using. This is USB 1.x. Windows has supported it since Windows 95 SR2A. this is not going to change.

I suspect that the Bluetooth issue has a similar answer. When the devices are there MS will support it.

You know, I really hate defending MS

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 293

I agree with bradhaak!

__________________
Have A Good Day!
I Love My Prism!

Registered: Feb 2001
Location:
Posts: 134

I am looking at a long term USB strategy...as the need for faster connection speeds between our handhelds and our computers...it is logical to say that there would have been a long term strategy for Palm to support USB 2.0...as they have just crossed into USB for the first time anyway.

My thought is that if MS doesn't support it now...hardware manufacturers won't bother building it in...and will go right for Firewire.

And really the beginning of the piece was just a intro into the fact that Palm seems to be so disconnected from certain aspects of the industry.

It is my belief...from past developments...and history...that we may be looking at MS starting to close the doors on Palm. This is how it always starts...

Hey but discuss away...that's what I like to see...

__________________
I saw that everyone else had a signature and I felt left out, so here is mine.

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 441

Are the pocket PC's that Microsoft touts USB? Will we be seing all new Windows XE(hehe) devices with firewire and 802.11 built in? Also, is 802.11 just wireless networking or is it a way in which cell phones, pdas, pagers, alarm clocks, dish washers, etc etc etc can interface just like Bluetooth? I don't think that Microsoft would not support Bluetooth if 802.11 didn't have that potential.

One more thing, could the delays with Bluetooth be the reason that MS is not going to support it initially? I mean, if the technology isn't ready, it'd be stupid of them to push their own release date back because the Bluetooth people keep delaying.

__________________
You know it's bad when your Calculus Professor uses the word "Unpossible"

"It's a long way from my thoughts to what I'll say, It's a long, long way from paradise to where I am today." -Switchfoot, Home

Registered: Feb 2001
Location:
Posts: 134

As far as my statement about the iMac...the statistics are out there...best setting computer 1998, 1999, 2000, etc...and there are tons of ways to look at it...by industry...by store...etc. I don't want to really debate it since we can all color statistics anyway we want...but you really can't deny the influence Apple has had on our lives in the past three years when it comes to design.


I think the MS announcement of Bluetooth is a mix of the fact that the technology just isn't here and I think there are some strategic concerns they haven't mentioned...but the implications are there.

I really wish people would discuss more about the Palm comments I made regarding their performance...and not jsut USB and 802.11...but I like talking about that as well.

__________________
I saw that everyone else had a signature and I felt left out, so here is mine.

Registered: Nov 2000
Location:
Posts: 714

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigredmed
Given the poor quality of Windows 2000 as a desktop OS

---

__________________
Matt Nichols
[email protected]

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: NC, Indiana
Posts: 465

Excellently written article Alan! I thought the comments on nixing out of box USB 2.0 (doesn't the Visor uses USB 1.1 anyway?) and Bluetooth (isn't the standard, in reality, not established enough) to hinder Palm as a little far fetched. Bluetooth once established can easily be added in a service pack (yes I know, but you know we're gonna get them anyway) along with USB 2.0. How many USB 2.0 devices are out there that are mainstream anyway? Even those are mostly (all?) backwards compatible with USB 1.1.

However, I agreed with your comments on Palms lack of innovation as a hinderence to the whole Palm community. Hit that on the nailhead!

__________________
-Vincent

Last edited by Vinny on 04-13-2001 at 06:23 AM

Registered: Feb 2001
Location:
Posts: 134

Is it far fetched? They aren't doing well in the handheld market and they want it bad!

I am not saying that is the reason MS did it...I guess the point that I didn't make very well...is that Palm is really pushing USB...and yes it isn't 2.0...but it seems logical they will follow the progression to 2.0. And Handspring cradles use USB...but you haven't seen them build USB into a device yet. I am saying that it doesn't hurt the MS platform or even cause it an inconvenience to not support these technologies in the near future...but it could cause Palm quite a problem if they don't start to pay attention to the industry and realize that MS is a threat to them.

I also understand that MS didn't say they would never support it...but they didn't say they would either. From past experience with MS...I think what they have done is provide themselves with wiggle room. I mean come on...they've supported technologies that weren't proven before that had zero marketshare and no industry support (currently the Electronic Book springs to mind)...because it furthered their plans. I know they'll do all they can to kill Tivo. What I think MS is saying without s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g it out is "this is what we want and we want you to do it to." Is anyone going to go against the worlds largest OS company? Between MS and Apple...it is pretty much a foregone conclusion to support Firewire.


Will any company ship a USB 2.0 product when MS doesn't back it 100%? PC makers will have to build in Firewire ports by the fall...do you think they will also add another port for USB 2.0 and all the added cost that will create. I think what MS has done here is made a very plain and bold statement that between the lines says...ditch 2.0 and go Firewire. I don't see that manufacturers of PCs will support both...too expensive.

So one thing I am saying is that MS is pushing what they want...for whatever reasons (and as I made the point above...it isn't lack of USB 2.0 products, but something else) and we may never know those reasons...until later in the year. Let's face it...MS always has a grand scheme...who knows...maybe they plan to build Firewire into their new Ultimate TV...Sony supports Firewire. Let's see, computer, TV, Camcorder, music player, iPaq and hard drive recorder. Maybe they want to get to market with some products faster than USB can provide...who knows with Bill. Anything they do has a lot of reasons behind it...but NONE of them has to do with a lack of product. They push what they want...no hardware companies push them. I just think that is a dumb reason to give. If it is so easy to add USB 2.0 support...then there is no real reason they can't include it now.







As far as Palm...I just wanted to make two points...how come they didn't see this coming and will it have an effect on them...and secondly...isn't that a reflection of how short sighted they can be? If MS doesn't want Bluetooth to make it (for whatever reason) it ain't gonna make it. What I want to know is what is the angle with 802.11...anyone have a bead on this...any theories on any of this?

__________________
I saw that everyone else had a signature and I felt left out, so here is mine.

Last edited by agraham999 on 04-13-2001 at 04:55 AM

Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 3

I HATE MICROSOFT.

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Alive and well on VisorCentral.com
Posts: 861

Linux is looking better and better every day...

__________________
"One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no �them� out there. It�s just an awful lot of �us�." -- Douglas Adams

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Alive and well on VisorCentral.com
Posts: 861

quote:

---

Originally posted by bradhaak
Windows has supported it since Windows 95 SR2A.

---

__________________
"One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no �them� out there. It�s just an awful lot of �us�." -- Douglas Adams

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: NC, Indiana
Posts: 465

Alan

You have a point that the industry often looks to MS to see what they should support in their systems. FireWire will become built in now (it already is in some mid-range systems like HPs if I recall correctly) for all good PCs. However, all PCs since 1997 have had USB ports. I'm not sure if the USB 2.0 spec calls for an alteration of the actual port (I assume by your argument that USB 2.0 ports won't get priority installation to FireWire that this is so), and not just a chipset change. What you would need to do would be have South Bridge manufactureres stick USB 2.0 support in. If VIA made it a standard feature upon its standarization than 2.0 inclusion should go pretty smoothly. Than, if the actual interface to plug into needs changing than this would become a natural progression. A phase out of 1.0 compatible hardware to backwards compatible 2.0 hardware should come easily depending on chipset producers (VIA comes to mind again).

Your argument that because Handspring uses USB cradles, and therefore could be one of the reasons for not supporting USB 2.0 is kind of shaky to me0. Think about it, every peripheral I've bought for my system in the past two years has been USB. It's become the ubiquitious standard for low-bandwidth connections. MS won't just ignore it, even if they are a monopoly.

Palm may have seen it coming actually. But, what were they to do about it. They weren't supposed to know about it anyway since XP was still under wraps at the time.

MS has tried to pull a few fastones, but although they won't admit it, they will go back and do something if the masses get very angry about it most of the time.

__________________
-Vincent

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 200

I know the Mac numbers aren't important to your argument; it was just a sidebar since I'd like to know who's voting on "most popular whatever" -- it sure ain't me.

To the Palm-oriented comments Alan had, Palm's been using the serial port all the up to this year's m100 and m105, so they don't seem to mind sticking with older technology as long as it works and is supported. Also, if you're accusing Palm of doing things their own way, then they wouldn't care that much about what other companies, including Microsoft, do or don't support, right?

Conversely, if MS wants to screw Palm, they can do it quite easily. What if Palm had announced support for 802.11 and Firewire hotsyncing? It would be just as easy for MS to declare only USB 2.0 and Bluetooth support in XP, if they really wanted to.

Finally, I don't know, WAS there any indication that Palm was surprised or caught off guard?

A lot of the other points in the article I think have been discussed in various other threads/forums here. Overall I agree that Palm represents HS, Handera, the Sony Clie, etc., and should be careful... but they're not dead yet. A good VIIx replacement would be quite a killer product, for example.

It's fun to make up all these wild speculations, but that's all I'm doing...

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 1

USB is here to stay, chill out

First of all, USB isn't going anywhere! Microsoft, is keeping out USB 2.0 which is the extstension of the USB protocol that is being primarily pushed by Intel. It is meant to be a competitor of Firewire, that is for high bandwidth applications, such as Digital video. USB is for relatively low bandwidth uses like mice, keyboards and Palms. Palm nor Handspring would be moving to USB 2.0 because it is a total waste of bandwidth.
There are several reasons why Microsoft won't be going with USB 2.0 right away.
Techncally the USB standard was really never meant to be extended to such speeds, so there are technical limitations in the way USB daisy chains, that cause slower devices to logjam the bandwidth. Secondly, by the time USB 2.0 is released Firewire will be even faster than the new USB standard, which really renders USB 2.0 moot. And almost as important as the other reasons, USB 2.0 is not finalized yet, and there are very little manufacture commitments to make products featuring the standard, this does not make a strong case for Microsoft to spend money on developing drivers. Especially when it is in their best interest to get a product out as fast as possible with as few as bugs as possible. (Well in theory at least )
This is not to say that MS will never include integrated USB 2.0, just not now. It is much better for them to leave it out now, rather than promising it and when XP is released telling everyone that it is not there.

Regards,
Paul Meister

Registered: Dec 2000
Location:
Posts: 384

Palm, what happen to you?

I actually posted this comment on another website, but I think it's more relevant here. When I first became interested in a PDA about a year ago, I did some research. I remember reading about Palm. From my reading and research, I was very impress by Palm, I thought they were a very pro-active and innovative company. Those qualities was especially evident when they took on Microsoft.

I remember reading about Palm's battles with Microsoft 5(?) years ago when Microsoft attempted to invade the handheld market. Unlike most of companies that wilted on hearing the Microsoft name, Palm refused to submitt to the bullying tactics of the MS gaint. Palm even formed a task force (they had a cool name for it, but I forgot) to literally counter and topped every move Microsoft made to promote their CE OS and trash Palm. AN ANTI-MS TASK FORCE!!!...that's balls!! Palm and it's OS platform not only survive Microsoft's repeated assults, but they kick MS's CE back into their face! Palm is only one of the few that out-witted, out-played, and out-performed Microsoft. Remember that? I thought that was pretty cool. That was Palm in its prime, it was aggressive depending its turf, it was innovative in promoting its OS and hardware, and its was furious in its marketing. They kicked Microsoft's butt in both product and marketing, and because of those actions, Palm thrive and became the dominant force that it is today.

Well...that was then.

Now, I think Palm has gotten complacent and soft over the past few years. I'm not sure if this complacency was because of it's market share or because Hawkins, Dubinsky and company left. Palm has got fat and out of shape from the rich market shares that it enjoyed.

IMHO, the market shares seduced Palm into a false sense of security. No longer is Palm active and aggressive in it's innovations or marketing. Handspring, TRGpro/HandEra and Sony have overtaken Palm in both product creativity and marketing tactics. Palm was idle when up-start Handspring began taking big chunks of its market shares, and the popularity of the iPAQ began to surface. The Palm 5 years ago would have NEVER stood for that!! NEVER

But sadly...

Palm has been reduced to a reactive company. Palm reacted to the new models from HS and Sony, and we saw the consquences of that move.... Pretty sad.


What happen to you, Palm?

__________________
Fat's

Last edited by Fat_Man on 04-13-2001 at 08:23 AM

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 37

underwhelming

I'm usually the last person to defend Microsoft, but can you really blame them for not supporting a standard that doesn't exist (USB 2)? USB as it exists now, a low bandwidth plug-n-play solution, will continue to be supported in XP, and that's the only connection I can clearly see to Palm or Handspring in this article. Firewire, now standardized as 1394, is a better solution on all fronts. 1394 has some really neat features, like the 6-pin connectors (not 4-pin i.link) that supply power to the device. Essential? No. Nice? Absolutely. The USB standard wasn't developed with high-speed connections in mind, and doesn't support multiple devices as well as 1394. Is 400 megabits per second not fast enough for you? There are already multi-channel options available. The only real support for USB 2.0 is from Intel.

As for 802.11blah vs. Bluetooth, they seem to be targeted for different markets. 802.11 is designed to complement or replace hard wire LANs, and Bluetooth is more a misc. cable replacement. Personally, I think it would be cool to only have a power plug on a computer and have the mouse, keyboard, monitor, printer, Visor, and scanner all wireless. It would be nice to carry around a 'mini-computer' that could use any monitor, keyboard, or accessory, wherever you are. As it stands now, Bluetooth has almost no real-world devices that support it, which is a major blow because the value of a Bluetooth standard is proportional to the it's ubiquity, and 802.11 has serious security issues, so neither is poised to coup the market.

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to chose from.