Sessamoid
Member
Registered: Mar 2000
Location: El Paso
Posts: 8 |
I found today's announcement of Palm's moving to the ARM processors particularly interesting. I presume that they'll be porting over the Palm OS to the ARM chips and running old binaries in software emulation. The ARM chip is more than fast enough to do that at full speed if not burdened with a bloated OS.
I don't recall how portable the palm os code was, but I'm guessing that the "port" will actually be a near complete rewrite of the os from the ground up to get it to work on ARM. I'm looking forward to what it brings. Whatever they do, they must not increase the complexity required to accomplish simple tasks with the device.
My two cents on the palm os. I've stayed with the palm os because it does exactly what I need it to do. Would I like a device as light and small and FAST with color more memory, more speed, and color? Of course I would. Do I need such a device? No.
I use my visor for work and organizing, which are my main priorities when I'm not near a desktop. Everything else takes a distant second after those, and I'll sacrifice no efficiency to have other features. Work use consists largely of medical reference, and it must be as fast or faster than looking stuff up in a pocket reference. Even a one second delay or one extra tap is unacceptable to me.
I'll considering moving to another platform when it can do what I need better and faster, or when it can do it equally as well and offer other benefits.
That's basically why I think so many have remained loyal to palm os despite better "paper" offerings from msft. It does the important stuff incredibly well, at a very nice price point, in a great form factor. Even my visor is a little larger than I'd like, but it was the cheapest way to get 8MB. Really, the Palm V has *the* form factor to have.
I'm not a great fan of msft's business practices, though some of their products are quite nice. For those msft supporters, I doubt you'd be so supportive if you were in business and msft suddenly were to come in with their deep pockets and give away a comparable product for free just because they liked your market share. That is blatantly anti-competitive. The could afford to do that because they had a lot of money, and more importantly, they could offset the cost of the browser to their more profitable divisions. That they did this specifically to bankrupt a major competitor and to dictate the future standards is exactly the type of behavior that anti-monopoly law was designed to resolve.
That said, I've used msft products all my life, all their os's since the early versions of ms-dos to win2k (yes, even including windows and windows 2.0). Their os's are large and bloated, that nobody can argue, and very crashy for a company that has so many resources. Win2k is much better, but still fairly ugly, especially when compared to osx or beos. I'm really hoping for a breakup of msft, as I think it's not only in the best interests of the market and the consumer, but also for msft.
|