Posted 11/11/2009 at 06:25:28pm

Somebody send one of these things to Steve Jobs and make him use it for a week.  I'd like to see the veins stand out on his forehead when he tries to use a mouse with more than one button.  ;-)

Posted 10/06/2009 at 04:28:50pm

I've been reading Loyd Case's articles since he used to write for PC Gaming World back in the early 90s.  In fact, his "hard stuff" section on hardware was the only reason I kept reading that publication after its de-evolution into juvenile imbecility.  (and I say that as a former subscriber to PCXL)  Thanks, Loyd, for your great columns.  Keep them coming. 

Posted 09/18/2009 at 08:24:08am

I can't speak for you folks out in the technological wastlands around Silicon Valley, but here in terribly technologically astute North Carolina we've had Clearwire for several years at that price and it works fine.  Clearwire has let folks operate month-to-month without a long term contract, in fact.  I heard last week that they're partnering in various areas nationwide with Sprint to provide a cross 4G/3G service which is the "Clear" designation you see above on the map.  The device would be USB or express card interface and would use the 4G WiMax network where available, mostly in the downtown areas where Clearwire already covers, then switches automatically to 3G on Sprint to cover the suburbs and interstate corridors.  Now if Sprint will just forego the lengthy contract and improve their 3G service areas, Gomer could get connectivity out out behind Wally's Filling Station for his LTO-5 tape libraries. 

Posted 09/18/2009 at 07:54:37am

Gordon,

thanks for finally giving some creedence to AMD's strategy and engineering.  I think that's the first nice thing I've read that you've written on AMD since the slot A Thunderbird.  Everyone's fighting to survive in this economy.  Without AMD's pressure, how much do you think you or OEMs would be paying for that i5 processor?   I say keep the competition healthy, even if you disagree with their marketing.  

Posted 09/17/2009 at 06:59:18pm

The patent was purchased by the troll in 2002, but when was it issued?  That's the real test for whether it was issued as a valid patent or not.  You can blame the US Patent and Trademark Office's patent examiners, but they can hardly be expected to be educated in technical developments as they happen since there's no mechanism for training them in their fields after they get their job.  For the most part, any geek reading this site is in a better position to decide whether to issue a software patent than the vast majority of examiners. 

Just because a description sounds like something with which you're familiar doesn't mean it applies to every possible situation.  A patent issued on "a device that lets a person talk to another person" in 1876 didn't make Elisha Grey a dime, but it made Alexander Graham Bell a fortune because his patent got issued first.  A generic description in a patent makes the patent weaker over time, not stronger, despite the recent poor decisions in the federal district court in eastern Texas.  

 I can believe that a reporter quoted the plaintiff's attorney and thought he'd get an accurate description of the law from him based on the sorry state of modern reporting and fact checking, but that doesn't make the Globe reporter or the attorney any less wrong.  If Microsquish settled out of court in the earlier case, there is NO PRECEDENT.  There was no ruling by the court.  Microsquish probably decided to take a tactical retreat based on available resources.  Certainly, there is no persuasive authority to be had in this case that would make it any easier for the plaintiff/troll to win.  

Posted 09/08/2009 at 10:35:57am

Wow.  Back in my day we called that a lap desk.  I used to do my homework on one when I got tired of sitting at my desk, or wanted to pretend to do algebra while watching TV in the living room.  Do you really need an external speaker when the laptop ones are pointing right at your head, as shown in the picture?  I'm thinking...no. 

Posted 03/03/2009 at 10:40:46am

I think this is a great demonstration of adding flexibility to markets already in existance.  Nearly everyone has a cell phone, but they're locked into a carrier and a platform, at least one of which is not their first choice.  As an owner of an N800 tablet PC, I can verify that the native platform on this Nokia device (Maemo Linux) is probably the most likely candidate for testing VMWare's mobile offering.  I'd certainly like to have that kind of flexibility on my phone, to run whatever app I wanted in whatever environment.  We already see with the actions of the LiMo Foundation (Linux for Mobiles) that seem to be putting resources toward interoperability.   How great would it be to have a phone that can run Linux natively but also run Windows CE, Palm, or even MacOS apps in emulation?  This would especially be useful when you've (or your company) bought an app that must be run but you want to migrate to a new phone with a new OS.  Given more powerful processors and more memory expansion in the future, I see this as the missing link to pressure companies to open up their platforms and networks.  As far as support goes, Nokia provides forums for the N8xx series tablets which are fairly comprehensive and as useful as the Ubuntu forums.  I don't find phone support in its current non-English speaking, script reading incarnation to be a particularly useful support mechanism.  In the end, it's up to the user or someone in direct proximity to the user to make something work. 

Posted 01/20/2009 at 09:57:04pm

Funny how all the comments seem to be panning the device.  These guys obviously are confusing the HP 2133 series with the Eee netbooks and other first generation devices. I use a Mini-note daily and it's the only "netbook" with a near full sized keyboard and high resolution screen.  I'm running Ubuntu 8.10 and Vista (came pre-loaded) in a dual boot with 2 gb of RAM and it's pretty speedy.  No, it's not a desktop replacement and I'm not playing anything better than OpenArena on it, but for those of us trying to actually get work done on the go, it's been a great thing to keep with me on the road.  I could use a slightly larger screen, but just like "when the music is too loud, you're too old" if you're really grumpy about the 9 inch screen, then get some bifocals or don't buy one.  I'll take the better battery life every time.  I'd rather have WiMax support than 3G down the road, but I'd like to have a usable WiMax network near me, too, so if I really needed to connect anywhere 3G is the only real choice.  For now I'm satisfied with the 802.11g support on mine and the durable alumnium case.  I'd also recommend the Lenovo Idea Book netbooks.  The keyboard is the same tiny device as other netbooks, but the screens are the best I've seen in this class of machine. 

Posted 12/17/2008 at 11:50:55pm

I found the FreeSynd project online last year:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/freesynd/  Apparently some folks were working on an Open Source version of that fine piece of software but it's sadly still in the alpha stages and may be abandoned.  I still have my original install media of Syndicate if the disc still works.  First CD I ever owned--in fact, it came with my Creative 4x CD-ROM bundle along with a spiffy 8 bit Soundblaster card.  I'm also a big fan of BurgerSpace (an Open Source version of the arcade classic Burgertime) and ScummVM for playing LucasArts classics in Linux.   

Posted 12/06/2008 at 09:00:52pm

This is just plain weak on the part of Monster Cable.  Trademarks aren't quite that easy to abuse.  The problem is that people tend to fold when they're sent a letter from a faceless attorney.  If you actually handle a legal challenge in a reasonable, responsible manner, you'll find that the U.S. legal system isn't the ludicrous black hole that it's often made out to be.  Monster is just making a play to make some cheap and easy cash from uneducated suckers who would rather pay off a bully than face them down. 

This happens to school systems all the time when they're sent nasty letters by Disney attorneys around the holidays because some poor teacher showed Monsters, Inc. one day before Christmas instead of trying to teach the little monsters in their classroom.  If the school can demonstrate that the movie is being showed for educational reasons (which the administration will darn well wring SOMETHING out of it such as teaching kids their colors, counting the number of participle phrases used, or providing background for a comparative study in exozoology) then there's a gaping exception in the law of copyright that you can drive a truck through.  How about some love for our fair use rights?  If we don't exercise them, we lose them.  Educational use is one of our fair use rights for copyright law. 

 There is no fair use for trademarks, of course, but one cannot simply have a trademark or servicemark for a term that enjoys such a blanket use throughout the country as Monster is proposing.  A balancing test is applied that considers 1) how widespread the proposed trademark would be 2) how unique or limited the trademark is  3) the scope of the proposed trademark.  For example, you could have a brand of soap called "Soapy" that was only sold in the state of Florida even if there was a soap company making "Soapy Soap" on the West coast but didn't market to or sell in Florida.  Likewise, you would have a stronger trademark in a soap called "Buubrick" (a made up term) than you would if you called it "Soapy", a descriptive term.  You would always have the ability to call your soap "Fred's Soap" if your name was Fred, even if a large company already had a "Fred's Soap" marketed in your area provided that consumers could reasonably tell the difference.

The issue here with Monster though, is the SCOPE of the trademark at hand.  Monster is likely the senior (longest holding) mark holder nationwide for audio/video cables for the name "Monster Cables" since they're sold by a nationwide company, Beast Buy.  I would not get a competing mark granted by a state or by the USPTO for a product that mimics what Monster produces simply because it's not fair for me to be able to benefit from the "goodwill" and marketing done by Monster in that area.  However, I could very well produce a line of shoes called Monster, a car called a Monster, or a line of furniture called Monster because a reasonable consumer would not confuse a Monster Cable with a pair of shoes.  Monster Cables has absolutely no basis for making claims that their trademark extends into these areas because they do not make shoes, cars, or furniture.  In fact, Monster Mini-Golf has every right under the law (which is none) to sue Monster Cables for infringing on their trademark.  What the mini-golf folks need to do is simply go into Federal District court and let Monster Cables try to explain to a judge why the average American would confuse a stereo cable with a putter.  Monster Cable's lawyer would very likely be hit with sanctions and a gavel for good measure just for using the legal system to bully a smaller business entity.  The mini-golf place could possibly get their legal fees back on the judge's order.  It's not optimal since it wastes everyone's time, but if you don't protect your rights, you'll lose them.  We cannot afford to set bad precedents in cases like this lest we allow entities such as the RIAA, Disney, or other corporate bullies make our rules for us.  It's bad enough we have to have Congress make our laws but at least we elect them.