# Thursday, 05 April 2007


So I saw this little guy in the Sony Wings shop just now, I was considering this form factor when I finally decided to go with the Fujitsu P1610 that I'm using now. But this model UX27, which is what I would have seriously considered last time finally has that 1GB of RAM I look for in a system, it also has a slightly faster 1.33Ghz processor. But it sports a smaller 40GB HDD while my P1610 has an 80GB HDD.

Do I feel regret for choosing the P1610 over the UX27? Nope, 1st reason is of course.. hey, I have an 80GB HDD on the P1610 and 50GB is already used up! Is there that much of a difference between 1.25Ghz and 1.33Ghz? I don't think so! And the main reason why I would never choose the UX as my work laptop.... I can't do my work on it! Yes, the screen resolution is small but I could have configured Visual Studio to make as much use of the available screen real estate as possible, but after fondling the unit a bit more just now I realized that, there's no way in hell that I can write code with the THUMBBOARD on the UX27!!! The miniture keyboard on the P1610 is already slightly cramp inducing for me (that's why at work I need to get a REAL keyboad and display to work better) BUT.. I can still work on it when I'm away from my desk. I doubt I can use the UX27's thumbboard for too long before my thumbs cramp up.

Another weird thing about the UX27 is that, the thing has a touch screen, and it has Vista installed. BUT.. the drivers aren't reporting to Vista that there's a touch screen present, so Vista isn't enabling the Tablet PC functions such as the Tablet Input Panel, etc. etc. I wonder if it's just a bad install on their part or the drivers really aren't ready yet?

So if I DID get the UX previously I would end up still having to lug 2 notebooks with me when I go on trips, cause one would be for work and then one would be for.... errr... entertainment? Web surfing? nah.. no thanks... for a secondary web device THIS is what I'm waiting for... June/July 2007!

Gear | P1610 | Sony UX | UMPC
Thursday, 05 April 2007 23:05:34 (Malay Peninsula Standard Time, UTC+08:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
# Wednesday, 04 April 2007

Hey, look finally a MONEY SHOT!!!

Wooo hooo!!!

Wednesday, 04 April 2007 20:33:46 (Malay Peninsula Standard Time, UTC+08:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

There.. finally got a good frontal shot!

Wednesday, 04 April 2007 09:47:33 (Malay Peninsula Standard Time, UTC+08:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

I was setting up a demo on a partner's notebook. Something which I wasn't expecting to do, since we were suppoesd to be presenting the demo on our equipement. And also because it involved the creation of an Ad Hoc WiFi connection, something which in my past experience had a 50/50 chance of working.

As I tried to get his system to attach to the Ad Hoc network, the OS popped up a message box saying that the system was not configured to connect to AdHoc networks. So I popped into the wireless properties page and toggled the setting to allow connection to Ad Hoc networks and then I clicked Apply and I get a message box saying "Wireless settings could not be saved!"

WTF? So I tried a few more times with the same results. Then I realised that his system was attached to a domain, and wondered if the domain policy was not to allow them to change the settings. So I mentioned that to the partner, telling him that his machine might be locked down by the domain policy and he might need to check with his IT department to get the settings done.

He replied "Don't worry I'm sure the IT engineers can handle it, they all have Cisco certifications."

I was dumbstruck by the sudden name dropping of his IT department's qualifications... DUDE!! I'm your partner, not your client, you don't need to and CAN'T impress me with stuff like this. I DON'T CARE whether your enginners are Cisco certified or not, since if it is a domain policy issue, I hope they have MCSA certifications too!

Wednesday, 04 April 2007 00:03:50 (Malay Peninsula Standard Time, UTC+08:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
# Friday, 30 March 2007

There was a big news around the world of Windows Mobile devices today, Microsoft announced DeepFish which is portrayed as a new browser for Windows Mobile devices which allow them to surf the normal desktop web more efficently.


Why can I say that I'm disappointed even though I didn't manage to get into the Beta? Because after going through the descriptions on the site it was obvious to me that DeepFish is just a very advanced PROXY RENDERING service. And that's the nice way of saying it, the not so nice way of saying it is that DeepFish is a extermely advanced PROXY SERVER.

So... how does DeepFish work? First of all, DeepFish is NOT really a browser, when you navigate to a URL what the program does is that it'll connect to the DeepFish server and tell it to retrieve the URL, the server will then generate a pictorial representation of the image as if it was viewed on the desktop and send it back down to the client program on your Windows Mobile device. That's a very simplify way of saying how it works, there are of course hooks to allow for HTML form filling, navigation, etc. etc.

The immediate problem with this is that since the server generates an image and returns it to the client, any form of interactive content, ie. Flash, AJAX, movies, etc. etc. Won't work. But that's not why I'm disappointed with DeepFish.

The reason why I'm disappointed with DeepFish is that like ALL Proxy services, everything you enter onto a form, every page you browse, anything you seen, submitted, etc. etc. will get passed to the service, and that opens up a HUGE can of worms in the aspect of privacy issues.

I'm disappointed because even though this is a cool idea, this will never be able to take off and become a real usable product for the masses! Why? Simple, like I mentioned, DeepFish is a proxy service, EVERY SINGLE REQUEST goes through the proxy service. The sheer bandwidth and computing power required to service users should this become an actual released product would be too immense to be able offer it for free. (Why else do you think the beta is LIMITED? There's probably only half a dozen servers serving requests right now.) And I don't see how willing people would be in paying a subscription fee for this.

What DeepFish *should* be is to bring the web page image composition engine from the server and put it directly onto the device so there's no need for a proxy service. But the problem with that is resources on a typical Windows Mobile device are highly limited so it'd take some pretty funky coding to be able to get such an engine to work on a typical Windows Mobile device and still be able to give the users a satisfying browsing experience. I *hope* that someone in MS is striving to give Windows Mobile devices a REAL actual Web Browser.

Deepfish is a cool tech demo, but if the ultimate destination for the team is to deliver an advanced proxy server instead of an advanced web browser for Windows Mobile... please guys.. just pull up this DeepFish and slaugther it for sushi before it stinks up the place.

Friday, 30 March 2007 01:45:55 (Malay Peninsula Standard Time, UTC+08:00)  #    Comments [3]  |