I must be missing something here... I agree with you - to a degree. There is a place for thin clients and a place for full blown wearable PC's. It is incorrect to assume that if a "box" doesn't have a PII in it with Gigs of RAM and Storage that it is not a wearable. - Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Cochrane [mailto:] > Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 11:28 AM > To: 'Adrian Thurlow'; liquid; wearables > Subject: RE: Wearable Thinclient > > > It is a very narrow minded view! We have a Gbit/s mobile > radio capability > here on this site - so why would you not trade the location > of storage & > processing? P > ______________________________________________________________ > _________________ > To: 'Adrian Thurlow'; wearables > From: liquid on Wed, Sep 2, 1998 4:37 pm > Subject: RE: Wearable Thinclient > RFC Header:Received: by maczebedee with ADMIN;2 Sep 1998 > 16:37:29 +0100 > Received: from arthur.axion.bt.co.uk (actually mailhub) by > rambo with SMTP > (PP); > Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:39:11 +0100 > Received: from aleve.media.mit.edu by arthur.axion.bt.co.uk > (PP) with ESMTP; > Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:36:05 +0100 > Received: from smtp1.mts.net (smtp1.mts.net [205.200.16.74]) > by aleve.media.mit.edu (8.8.7/ML970927) with ESMTP > id LAA27121 > for <
>; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 > 11:34:46 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from Internet90 (adsl1-135.mts.net [205.200.64.135]) > by smtp1.mts.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA00636; > Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:33:34 -0500 (CDT) > Reply-To: liquid <
> > From: Tony Havelka <
> > To: 'Adrian Thurlow' <
>, > wearables <
> > Subject: RE: Wearable Thinclient > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:35:58 -0500 > Message-ID: <000501bdd687$64e1f1a0$
> > X-Priority: 3 (Normal) > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 > In-reply-to: > <c=GB%a=_%p=BT%l=
> .bt.co.uk> > Importance: Normal > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 > MIME-version: 1.0 > Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > > > > "It does not really apply to wearable computing. By taking > > the computing out of the wearable, and having sole reliance > > on the network, which at 9.6 kbps is inadequate, I feel > > this makes the device no longer a wearable > > computer. By having such little processing power on the > > unit, sensors, and other devices can't be connected and > > the computer's utility is very limited." > > This is an incorrect statement made by the ISWC. I can > remember a time, in > the not to distant past, where 9600 baud was "the limit" - > nothing faster - > ever. We used PC Anywhere to transmit screen updates to > early thin clients > and accept key strokes, and later, mouse movements, on the > upgraded system. > We ran a satellite office 50 miles away for 2 years based on this > inexpensive yet practical method of thin client computing. > > > Is this opinion shared by all, for we firmly believe that the > > thin client has a future as a wearable. It is not true that > > other devices cannot be connected to a thin client and the > > future may bring us a much thinner thin client. > > I do believe that there is a market for a wearable thin > client that has not > been serviced yet. But it is time for baby steps. Lets get > some out there > and see how the market reacts. It is very difficult to get > end users to use > new type of computing devices if there are no applications to use. > Innovation in this market, as most others, is driven by two > factors: the > consumer and the technology - push and pull. Pushing is > consumer driven and > is easier than Pulling the consumer along for the ride. e.g.: > > Push: We need a 14.4k modem, 32mb of ram, 500Mb hard drive and a QVGA > screen. > Pull: You can get a 56k modem, 128mb RAM, 5Gb HD and an XVGA screen. > > Push, Pull > Need, Want > Cheap, Expensive > Buy, Sell > > Without a firm grip on the technology dial, this market may > be headed toward > the same fate as Virtual Reality - over hyped and under > performing. It is > now just starting to come into its own. VR was stuck with > the "Solution > waiting for a problem" moniker, and in most cases it was true > - because the > technology tried to pull the consumer along. With wearable computing, > moreover, a wearable thin client, a strong applications base > will create a > market and product mix beyond what we would expect. Case in > point, the > Palm Pilot. A digital notepad of sorts, somewhat expensive > for what it can > do but WOW what a market response. Why? My guess is that it > fit a need. > Everyone from Geeks to Gurus, Executives to Educators own a Palm Pilot > because it addressed the lowest common denominator - > organization. Now > there are add-ons and new more powerful versions because the > market demanded > it not because the technology was available. > > > Imagine a device similar to a Nokia Communicator 9000 > > with the power of a high end desktop machine combined with a high > > resolution, colour head mounted display. > > Here you are falling into the same trap as the ISWC board did: a > preconceived notion of what a wearable should be. Imagine a > device that is > exactly what you need, no more, no less. It has the > capability to expand > and contract (not the right word, but it works) its > functionality to fit > your computing needs. This device would be appropriately > priced depending > on the level of functionality you desire. That, I believe, is > the perfect > solution. > > Also, I'd like to point out that this dialog only takes into > account one > side of the equation - Hardware. The software side has not > been addressed > and is equally, if not more, important for the success of the wearable > marketplace. > > - Tony > > > > -- Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to
Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.ml.org
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail