> Sorry I've been absent for a while. I built my new transitional
> wearable.
> It's a combo of a wearable and mini-laptop. I should say that it's
Wow, and congratulations! That's the first major step.
> I'm
> working on adding a trackpoint for it as well.
Cirque also has an OEM trackpad available, which can be
mounted either on the surface, or "hidden" like the iBook
laptops did, under metal. Very cool devices.
> The only hold back is the elusiveness of the LCD inverter. It seems
Do you mean the backlight's fluorescent inverter? If so, there was
one available at BGMicro, http://www.bgmicro.com , for an extremely
cheap price -- don't know if they still have them. It's worth a look,
though. As to whether or not it's compatible with your LCD panel,
you'll just have to look.
> What are we
> going to use these for? What application is going to be absolutely
> necessary that you need it on you at all times? Email? That can be
> done by
> cell phone or PDA. Who are we building this for and what are their
> needs?
Let me ask you this. In 1975, what application was so necessary,
that the average person would *want* a computer? In 1980, when
the TS1000 came out, available for $99, what useful purpose did it
serve? In 1992 (when Al Gore invented the internet <g>) how many
average people thought they would ever have any use for email or
for the internet?
Personally, I wouldn't mind a real-time, streaming connection to my
stockbroker, wherever I was, whatever I was doing. Successful
trading is a matter of selection and timing -- it's the timing part
that's
difficult.
Another person could have an always-on "what I'm doing now"
connection, delivering streaming video. Wouldn't it be fascinating
to watch Geraldo Rivera, in Afghanistan, live, 24/7, on streaming
video on a web page? A special purpose wearable could serve in
this fashion, for him.
As to why we are doing this -- we enjoy living on the bleeding edge
of technology. Plain and simple. We're the geeks who were on the
internet in the 1980s, who were programming computers rather than
climbing trees as kids, and who were getting beaten up by the
elementary school's bully. We're also the ones who figured out how
to print the Mona Lisa on a line printer, while making it play music
at the same time. We're GEEKS! Admit it, accept it, revel in it,
enjoy it. GEEKINESS may never be so socially acceptable, again.
> Back to the topic, when is the wearable TOO big? Is there a size
> cut off?
It probably depends on the person, but when I finally assemble
my wearable, if it's particularly "noticable" to me while wearing it,
it will be too big. If its weight is noticable, it will be too big. If
I can't bend over without it "jabbing" me in the ribs, it will be too
big. etc.
Consequently, no part of it will be bigger than a Palm PDA or
one of its accessories...now, we can chain those pieces together
to make a much "larger" machine, but each piece must not
bother me while wearing it. (Yes, I'm making it harder on myself
than it needs to be, to get a working machine up and running, but
I think the effort will be worth it.)
OK, we all know about personal timepieces -- clocks and
watches.
Imagine if you had an old-fashioned "alarm clock" as your only
timepiece -- self contained, and definitely able to be carried with
you. It's sufficiently small, relatively light in weight, always
available, always on...not even any problems with a portable
power source. It can go with you anywhere you want, and be
carried with minimal effort, on your body, working tirelessly the
entire time.
But, in my mind, that's too big. There's a case to be made that
the subsequent pocket watches were small enough -- with time,
they shrank down to the man's wrist watch, then the woman's
wrist watch (I don't know how some women could read dials
smaller than their pinky fingernails!), and today the timekeeping
portion of a watch can fit on a pinhead, while also performing
useful calculations, keeping track of phone numbers, etc.
With increasing sophistication came reduced size AND increased
functionality.
We're still at the "too big, but carryable" stage, right now. Think
about it, though, in these terms. We can fit the equivalent of a
1990's '386 computer into a Motorola T900 pager, today, and
market it for $100. (It's based on Intel's embedded 80386EX)
That was a computer which ran Windows 3.1 adequately, and
even an early release of LINUX and X. GEM was blazingly fast
on a system with these specs, too...far more efficient than Win3x.
(Side note: Has anyone hacked one of these pagers? Sounds
like a reasonable basis for a wearable, now that I think of it. I
know there's an SDK for programs that run on it natively)
The TuxPad/TuxScreen (something like that) is a cell phone with
enough horsepower to run a LINUX distribution, however minimal,
and it's available for the same price.
In a very few years, the equivalent of your current wearable will
fit in a wristwatch case, and run continuously on a button cell
battery, for days or even weeks -- heck, Casio's already got a
color digital camera in one, this year! The limiting factor will not
be the machine or even the power source, but the human interface,
in a VERY short time.
-- Chuck Knight
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
--
Subscription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to 
Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org
Please, *PLEASE* don't subscribe through a forward/expander/false domain
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail