November 23rd, 2009

Chrome OS: More questions than answers?

Posted by Zack Whittaker @ 6:48 am

Categories: Cloud computing, Google, Hardware, Major breakthroughs, Mobile computing, Next-generation technology, Open source, Productivity

Tags: Desktop, Google Inc., Operating System, Google Chrome, Hardware, Operating Systems, Software, Zack Whittaker

Hearing the news of Google’s Chrome OS at the end of last week left me with an uneasy feeling about the future of operating systems and computer use.

The general idea behind Chrome OS is that the operating system as you see it will be nothing more than a web browser with a few things plugged into it, and a massively slimmed down operating system which will load in a fraction of the average time taken with existing products.

But even as a man who looks towards the next generation, this doesn’t sit too well with me. Not only did the announcements and the coverage seem to ask more questions than give answers, but Chrome OS also seems to exclude a very important market - students.

Students won’t be able to take their laptops everywhere as they can now without access to the web. Students can’t live entirely in the cloud, which I’ve already proved once before, even though many university campuses are blanketed with a cloud of wireless signals. And even then, not all students should be able to anyway with applications which are absolutely necessary to run on desktop computers.

To start off, take a spare ten minutes and watch the videos that Jason Perlow added to his blog just before the weekend which will brief you on the latest.

Bandwidth issues

Everything is stored in the cloud is accessed through the web. Even the “applications” such as the calculator and the calendar - simple desktop applications for Windows and Mac OS X - but not for Chrome.

If you have no Internet, I have no idea how Chrome OS would even turn on. Perhaps it’s like the Chrome browser, which works offline with Google Gears enabled sites. But that’s hardly optimal. Will the Chrome OS work where the is no Internet access on the road, on a plane or train (at least in the United Kingdom anyway) or even sitting out in a park in the city. Sure you could use a wireless 3G card or your phone modem but this will cost a lot to run an entire operating system.

And what if the damned broadband goes down? This is something I seem to face quite a bit and frankly, without access to the Internet, the Chrome-specific device just becomes a very expensive paperweight.

Read the rest of this entry »

November 15th, 2009

How could Twitter help in a terrorist attack?

Posted by Zack Whittaker @ 11:33 am

Categories: Discussion, Events, Major breakthroughs, Mobile computing, Security, Social networking

Tags: Network, Mumbai, Twitter Inc., London, Terrorist Attack, Corporate Insurance, Homeland Security, Business Security, Telecom & Utilities, Networking

On 7th July 2005, fifty two people were killed when four suicide bombers detonated home made explosives on the London Underground. During this time, there was panic, confusion, miscommunication and a number of issues relating to where to go and what was going on. Even law enforcement suffered making the situation even more fragile.

With experience of hindsight, with a number of events which social networking from ordinary members of the public (”citizen journalism”) from the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, the Hudson river plane crash and the death of Michael Jackson; Twitter especially has been a key point of communication.

Mumbai was a perfect example of how Twitter dominated the intelligence gathering process, using real people and human intelligence but through an unconventional, insecure medium. Photos were being uploaded to Flickr and Twitpic, and tweets were dominating the blogosphere, and being used as part of commercial news channels as their own journalists simply couldn’t be spread thinly enough.

However in the case of Mumbai, public and very widespread intelligence could have been used to the terrorists’ advantages, also. Not so much the case of the London bombers, though.

How could it have helped London?

Read the rest of this entry »

November 10th, 2009

Size zero devices: How thin is too thin?

Posted by Zack Whittaker @ 12:42 pm

Categories: Hardware, Mobile computing, Next-generation technology, Weird and wonderful

Tags: Phone, Device, Laptop Computer, Notebooks, Telecom & Utilities, Hardware, Notebooks & Tablets, Zack Whittaker

I don’t have the thinnest laptop in the world. If anything it’s quite chunky and quite sturdy, with the exception of the 180° rotating screen, but even then it’s a hearty bit of kit. My BlackBerry is wide and deep in size, fitting my hand quite nicely and the keys are big enough to tap away on quite comfortably.

But I only really noticed this today in comparison with other devices. The fashion at the moment seems to be “the thinner, the better”, as if we would starve our technology in vain effort to slim them down. It’s like this crazed fashion stint we have at the moment is focusing on “size zero technology”.

Why?!

Take the Motorola Razr. The phone is incredibly thin which seemed to be the “killer feature”, besides the simplicity yet expandability of the features within the operating software. The name, stemming from the phone having a similar look to a cutthroat razor. Thin, stylish and incredibly popular with over 100 million being sold.

But for some, strange reason, if I was to be given one, the first thing I would do is stress test it: I’d flip open the phone and push the screen back and see how far I could stress it before it snaps. Perhaps it’s a standard “want” to do; if something seems flimsy or so thin it could break easily, I’d be tempted to give it a go.

Ultra-thin devices like these do seem to be a trend that is spiraling forward and sees no sign of subsiding. But if you were to look at other progressions in technology:

• Mobile phones started out huge, then got smaller, then got slightly bigger and thicker - where they seem to have stayed.
• Televisions started out with small screens but huge in design, then the screens matched the size of the design, and now the bigger they are the better they are.
• Laptops were initially small but chunky, and now they’re thinner and wider.

Maybe through time, the “size zero” phase will wear off. There may be a time where consumers (and therefore manufacturers) will realise that devices need to fit quite a bit of stuff in there. With the MacBook Air, it lacked FireWire and an optical disk drive because they would have thickened out the laptop too much.

I’ve never seen anyone with a MacBook Air. Perhaps those considering buying one realised the importance of an internal optical drive.

My personal opinion? I’d say try and make devices proportionate, but don’t aim for a specific thin design. Fit everything else you can in there first, and then figure out if you can slim it down a bit.

I don’t like my partners to be stick thin. I like a bit of chunk on them, along with the vast majority of English men. Just as technology should be; you know,  something that you can actually feel in your pocket, excuse the innuendo.

So, how thin is too thin? Do you prefer skinny or chunky? Strange question, perhaps, but I hope it’s at least in context.

November 9th, 2009

Paperless students? Never going to happen

Posted by Zack Whittaker @ 1:22 pm

Categories: Discussion, Environment, Gratuitous rant, Hardware, Mobile computing, Productivity, Skills development, University, e-Learning

Tags: Student, Netbook, Computer, Productivity, Netbooks, Nettops & MIDs, Hardware, Zack Whittaker

We live in an age where technology is rife. We cannot escape from mobile phones, computers, netbooks, projectors, e-readers and the rest of it. But students simply couldn’t go paperless. The chances are it’ll never happen, or at least if it does, when I am long gone, dead and buried.

The argument for going paperless is stronger than ever, with learners wanting less paper and more technology, and teachers wanting less paper to manage and deal with.

But this is schoolchildren we are talking about, not university students. Students in higher education relish using paper; allowing them to spread their thoughts across multiple pages and across multiple work surfaces.

The incentives are there; every time I print something off at university, because I need to use my university username and password to print, it records when I do so. But every print-out leaves me with a pop-up guilt trip reminding me of how much of a tree I’m destroying in the process.

Forget computer science students because they are a minority at most institutions. Of course they will be using their netbooks, Androids, smartphones and iPhones to tap away at during a programming lecture. But the rest of the students on campus are more than happy with scraps of paper, Post-it notes and lined paper with scribbles on. The rest of the campus doesn’t engage with technology on an everyday basis so they are not missing out in the first place.

For this, when writing up the notes later into electronic format, we can have a sense of satisfaction about screwing up the paper and chucking it away.

How would you write notes onto a PDF file? Yes, you could use a touchscreen computer, but handwriting recognition isn’t an exact science yet and a pad of paper and a Biro pen are far cheaper.

Taking books out of the library aren’t always possible. Sure, we could grab our Kindle and download the book but why should we when we are spending thousands of our respective currencies on library provisions? Some books are only available for an hour at a time, so instead of scanning them into a computer for later analysis, photocopying is a more sensible solution. Those who remember will know that I have proven this one long ago.

In realistic terms, the only computers students want to use is the one computer that they are using to write their essays on. Besides that, technology has yet to really have a major impact on the main brunt of our degree courses - the discussion seminar - where all you need is your mind and your mouth.

Me? Personally? Many can testify to this. I would be far happier with a handful of notes, scribbles and scraps than a netbook. Would you rather go paperless?

November 4th, 2009

Best use for touch hardware yet? FarmVille

Posted by Zack Whittaker @ 6:13 am

Categories: Hardware, Mobile computing, Multimedia, University fun, Weird and wonderful

Tags: Mouse, Multi-touch, FarmVille, Mice, Games, Hardware, Peripherals, Personal Technology, Zack Whittaker

Day in and day out here I write articles spanning all kinds of relatively boring topics to the untrained eye. Today, after my previous article analysing the business model (yawn) of online game phenomenon, FarmVille, I discovered a rather interesting twist to the gameplay.

FarmVille is grid based, similar to SImCity in the way that every item uses up a number of squares on the canvas you have. A chicken will take up one square, a plantation patch will take up 4×4 squares, and buildings take up far more.

Considering the game is so hefty on the computer’s resources through Flash consumption and CPU usage, even with scaling the graphics down a notch, even moving the mouse can be laggy, slow and sluggish.

But throw in the multi-touch capabilities of my laptop, I can simply tap away using multiple fingers at a time and plough, plant and harvest my entire canvas of crops in a fraction of the time simply by not using the mouse cursor.

Flash doesn’t support multi-touch just yet, but perhaps with the help of the iPhone popularity, it will soon be around the corner. But for gaming purposes, a single finger at a time is still far quicker than the mouse.

Is this the only practical use I have found for multi-touch computing? Perhaps so, yes.

October 23rd, 2009

Email Overload Syndrome: Too much in too many places

Posted by Zack Whittaker @ 7:56 am

Categories: Cloud computing, Gratuitous rant, Java, Mobile computing, Productivity, University, Windows Live, Workplaces

Tags: E-mail, Online Communications, Zack Whittaker

As I prepare for “reading week”, a mid-point in the Autumn term which gives us a week off to catch up with all of our reading materials, I have reflected back upon the frustration of communication failures since the new arrivals started.

I sit here at home on a Friday morning an exhausted man. The reason? The constant influx of information from left, right, center… email account, BlackBerry, Outlook and Facebook has reached the point where I am tempted to pack the lot of them in and head to the most isolated part of England for a week.

If only life were that simple.

I have four email addresses. One is a @hotmail.com which has newsletters and mostly spam come through, and a second is a @live.com which pretty much just manages my social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. My third is an xGSi account which I now rarely use, but only use for keeping up to date with my former workplace, and my last but most important is my university email account @kent.ac.uk.

With the exception of my university email account, my communications are a shambles. Read the rest of this entry »

September 24th, 2009

What if Windows 8 was touch-input only?

Posted by Zack Whittaker @ 3:21 am

Categories: Discussion, Hardware, Microsoft, Mobile computing, Next-generation technology, Productivity, Research, University

Tags: Touch Screen, Operating System, Multi-touch, Microsoft Corp., Keyboards, Microsoft Windows, Monitors & Displays, Tablets, Operating Systems, Hardware

With the news that Microsoft are bringing out a touch-screen tablet which could rival that of Apple’s alleged tablet device, it made me consider what is next for future operating systems.

Some would argue that Windows 7 was designed in and around touch capabilities, as the operating system finally included multi-touch technology which Microsoft had perfected since the “Longhorn” days.

With the Ribbon being integrated into most common programs and the operating system being designed for finger-input, you can tell Microsoft has made a significant push on the touch-screen user.

Bearing this in mind, could the next wave of operating systems - “Windows 8″ specifically, expected to be released in 2011 which by then anything could go, be based on a touch-only interface?

(And of course, I say Windows because I have yet to visit or experience an office or university environment which has a network of over 25 non-Windows machines. It just doesn’t happen).

Mary Jo Foley already has a snapshot of what we can expect in Windows 8 but it doesn’t really tell us about what the hardware will be; the hardware will most likely be out of Microsoft’s hands, unless they decide to make specific devices for their own operating system like Apple do with the Mac.

Because technology is moving forwards so quickly, it is difficult to determine what the next generation operating system could even support, let alone take advantage of. Windows 7 is lucky to have multi-touch support because another six-month delay to the multi-touch technology and it may not be supported in it at all.

As with Pandora’s Box theory, once it is out there in the world, you cannot take it back. Touch is most certainly a viable way of data input and will never leave post-modern operating systems. It first arrived in Windows XP and since then has grown from strength to strength; perhaps not as much as people first thought, however.

Who knows, really? By 2011, the success of the “Courier” tablet, the hardware touch-screen device which Microsoft are developing, could prove so popular that the entire concept of mobile hardware could change entirely. Perhaps the death of the laptop can be seen upon the horizon?

Of course, with their other supposed prototype, “Codex”, which works as a dual-screen journal-like touch device which allows multiple positioning and adjusting, using a Filofax-type device with electronic functionality is sociologically interesting on multiple levels. It is as if we are oxymoronically regressing yet progressing by holding onto a relic of the past only to develop into an electronic device which encourages better collaboration and productivity.

The video is here, but be sure to hold on for the initial conversation in the first scenario; the most uncomfortable, scripted and blatantly obvious acting is about 40 seconds in.

Touch technology is steadily improving and has even twisted my arm round to a touch-way-of-thinking. It is interesting to see what’s next and how viable touch will be. However I cannot get over the thought of working in the university library with a single touch-screen monitor and no keyboard, tapping on a hard surface as I write one of my criminology essays.

The keyboard, as in line with Pandora’s box theory, is out and serves its purpose well. It is a technology which has struggled to be improved over the course of the last three decades because it does exactly what it needs to. Besides the ergonomic design of these methods of input, the technology works. If it isn’t broken, why fix it?

As for data input in the next version of Windows, or any future operating system for that matter, touch will still be in second place to the keyboard, no doubt.

So, what if Windows 8 was touch-input only?

September 18th, 2009

iPhone application for UK university fresher's

Posted by Zack Whittaker @ 10:06 am

Categories: Apple, Events, Hardware, Mobile computing, Productivity, University, University fun

Tags: Apple iPhone, University, U.K., Smart Phones, Consumer Electronics, Personal Technology, Zack Whittaker

From tomorrow, the vast majority of new students in the UK will be arriving at their new home for the next three or four years. A UK university has taken advantage of popular technologies to provide support for the new arrivals on campus in form of an iPhone application.

The University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN) in the north of England have developed and rolled out an iPhone application which provides most if not all of the information the new freshers will need for their first week at their new home.

Considering the iPhone is one of the most popular phones and/or mobile devices of our generation, they are utilising the technologies that most people already have, and saving costs in printing and other services as a result.

With this application, features can be added and customised to suit every individual freshman. It includes standard access to university email accounts, availability of campus facilities, entertainment services, local transport links and maps.

With the campus being predominately wireless, it also allows them to save on network operator costs and data charges.

This is a fantastic way of utilising technologies available to many, and for a university to take this step is quite significant. This would ordinarily be the sort of thing the student union may provide, but for an educational establishment to really recognise modern day advancements in mass-user organisation is nothing short of brilliant.

Should all universities and student unions embrace the latest technologies to improve their welcome services for new freshers? Have your say. It’s free, you know.

September 14th, 2009

802.11n approved; Not 'new' and hardly groundbreaking

Posted by Zack Whittaker @ 5:21 am

Categories: Breaking news, Hardware, Mobile computing, Next-generation technology, Security, University

Tags: Router, IEEE 802.11n, Wireless Network, Wireless, Wi-Fi, Wireless And Mobility, Zack Whittaker

The next generation wireless network technology has finally been approved today by the IEEE who ratifies new wireless standards. Even though it has been in “draft” in devices for years, the final standard will still work fully with existing devices.

So - considering that 802.11n is now roughly seven years old, why aren’t we as excited as we should be? It isn’t a new technology and hasn’t been for many years, and the cost of an n-router is considerably more than a standard b/g-router.

In relation to 802.11a/b compared to 802.11n, yes there is a clear difference and those adopting should be very happy. But for the home consumer, such as myself, and the university student - oh yeah, such as myself - I am failed to be overly enthusiastic about the new standard.

I bought a Netgear Wireless-N ADSL2+ DGN2000 router only a few weeks ago to get myself a true Media Center experience. My house, unlike many student houses, is built of brick internally so having wireless signals from the top floor to the other was somewhat difficult.

I quickly realised that it wouldn’t give me a full 802.11n experience because the wireless encryption wouldn’t support it. It seems even the manufacturers agree, yet I disagree in that I believe it has nothing to do with the fact, at the time, it wasn’t a ratified standard. From my router setup I see:

• None - can’t be done, the neighbours next door will nick it.
• WEP - only available on b/g wireless modes.
• WPA-PSK - only available on b/g wireless modes.
• WPA2-PSK - only available on b/g wireless modes, or if I have a “high performance client” such as a WN511B I would be able to get maximum performance, ie. 802.11n speeds.
• WPA-802.1x - basically Radius authentication, can’t have that.

So even though I select the “up to 270mbps” option in the wireless network section, it will attempt to push to those very high speeds over the network, but will never reach it as the authentication doesn’t support it.

Perhaps I’ve done something hideously wrong and actually it can all work just fine. But somehow, I am not holding my breath for this new technology.

And with universities offering wireless network across campuses and offices, buildings and companies doing the same, will they adopt to 802.11n technology?

Well, probably not just yet, no. Unless they have a wireless infrastructure in place already, I find it difficult to justify the spending of so much money in removing existing 802.11b/g routers, and then buying new 802.11n routers - even though I’d be buying less of them due to the higher ranges.

The draft specification and both the now ratified standard will have backwards compatibility, but it’s just not cost effective. If you have no wireless network at your establishment, then go with 802.11n to keep the techies happy. But for my university, switching to 802.11n is unlikely as the money spent will last them. The coverage is good enough and will last for a good few years yet.

For my house, the 802.11n router was the only standard powerful enough to blast signals from one side of my house to the other. For that, I am thankful. However, with WiMAX being taken on by universities now, I cannot get too excited over a standard which offers slightly faster local-only speeds and slightly better coverage indoors.

But then again, it is a rainy Monday morning here, and even the birds chirping outside are starting to annoy me. What about you, do you think 802.11n will really take off now it is a ratified standard?

August 24th, 2009

Mobile TV: Why it stalled and why it won't take off

Posted by Zack Whittaker @ 11:37 am

Categories: Cloud computing, Environment, Gratuitous rant, Mobile computing, Next-generation technology, Research, University fun

Tags: Phone, Mobile, Mobile TV, TVs, Tv & Home Theater, Advertising & Promotion, Personal Technology, Home Entertainment, Marketing, Zack Whittaker

Being able to watch digital television on your mobile phone seemed to send the Western world into a craze two years ago. The thought of being able to watch your favourite channels or programmes from anywhere and everywhere made sense, with the apparent infrastructure already being in place.

Frank Dickson, Reed Business - Europe’s biggest online and offline publisher, told the BBC:

“The idea combines the two biggest things around: TV and phones. Everyone has a TV and everyone has a mobile phone. So of course the industry thought the prospect of bringing the two together was going to be huge. In reality, live mobile TV has been very slow to take off.”

To put this in perspective, I have been to numerous conferences, travelled daily around London for six months straight, commute from Canterbury to London both ways at least once a week, and spend the rest of my time in the city or on the university campus. I have never seen anybody watching live television on their phone. It just doesn’t seem to happen in this country.

Everyone has a phone, and everyone has a television. People use their phones for making and receiving phone calls, with the exception of evolutionary changes in mobile devices. Television is used as a device to watch at the end of a long day; to unwind and to relax, or in some cases to watch daytime tripe when you can’t get a job.

The two wouldn’t mix together well, like pouring Lysol into a pro-biotic drink.

There are currently two ways of getting mobile TV, and these two ways are flawed beyond belief:

1. A mobile TV receiver such as a Nokia SU-33W, which only works with only three compatible Nokia models at the time of print. Not only that, take a look down the average suburban street and you’ll see all the aerials on the roof pointing in the same direction. I see a mobile TV receiver working like a GPS on a train; holding it precariously against the window whilst shouting, “GET SIGNAL!”. Most of my analogies seem to involve sitting on the train…
2. Over-the-air using network streaming, which needs a network strong and powerful enough to get the stream across. I have proved with mobile broadband that it is hard enough to get downstream bandwidth over 200kbps. Mobile networks could not sustain a decent stream in the UK and US even with 3G technology. If you are using home or public wi-fi, you might be in for a shot.

Home and office broadband speeds haven’t necessarily rocketed in the last few years but have increased in bandwidth potential. With this, the chance arose for television broadcasters and networks to provide on-demand access to live and already broadcast material.

The BBC report that the slump in numbers of those utilising mobile TV is down to the fact that just under 50 million of the 270 million mobile phone users have smartphones capable of receiving these services.

But with access to these on-demand sites and mobile broadband speeds which can’t compare to those that landline broadband services provide us, the logical step is to watch television on a computer instead.

No matter which way analysts and other bloggers look at it, a good part of my degree involves looking at, understanding and predicting society and its needs. I cannot see how or why mobile TV could or would take off. I just don’t see a point to it.

You’re more than welcome to prove me wrong. Leave a comment and tell me why.