John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
Locked
John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
 
|
http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/osx.html
(Yeah, I know that Negroponte says there are good reasons that the OLPC has a bigger screen. He's right. But still...) -- Howard Stearns University of Wisconsin - Madison Division of Information Technology mailto:[hidden email] jabber:[hidden email] voice:+1-608-262-3724 |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
On 9-Jan-07, at 1:12 PM, Howard Stearns wrote: > http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/osx.html Oh, sure we do. In fact I'm sending this email via SophieMailPage from one. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Semolina - a system of signalling with pudding. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Howard Stearns
Oh sure, me and about 50 million other folks are impatiently waiting
for the product actually ship. Also I've not see any info on the software developer kit yet, the iPod was rather closed, but I'd assume this will be more open. That and we are working on Sophie Server to assist in document distribution and reading. On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Howard Stearns wrote: > http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/osx.html > > (Yeah, I know that Negroponte says there are good reasons that the > OLPC has a bigger screen. He's right. But still...) > > -- > Howard Stearns > University of Wisconsin - Madison > Division of Information Technology > mailto:[hidden email] > jabber:[hidden email] > voice:+1-608-262-3724 > -- ======================================================================== === John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ======================================================================== === |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
In reply to this post by Howard Stearns
On 1/9/07, Howard Stearns <[hidden email]> wrote:
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/osx.html > > (Yeah, I know that Negroponte says there are good reasons that the OLPC > has a bigger screen. He's right. But still...) It seems as if it might even not be possible: http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/the-iphone-is-not-a-smartphone/ "And the reality slowly sets in about what the iPhone is and is not. Noted analyst and Engadget pal Michael Gartenberg stated that the iPhone is first party software ONLY -- i.e. not a smartphone by conventional terms, being that a smartphone is a platform device that allows software to be installed. That means hungry power-users -- you know, those people ready and willing to plunk down $600 for an 8GB musicphone -- won't be able to extend the functionality of their phone any more than Apple (but thankfully not Cingular) dictates." -- Danie Roux *shuffle* Adore Unix -- http://blog.acolyte.co.za |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
I think that this may be a smart move from Apple's point of view.
I'm sure that the 200 patents that they applied for don't cover everything, and that after a year or two of exclusive access to their own platform they'll be able to patent "the rest" of the UI techniques that they haven't invented yet. It may basically be a phone right now, but who knows where they still plan to take it. Why let third parties in on the action immediately? There will be plenty of time to re-evaluate whether to let third parties on board, and in the meantime I'm sure that they'll sell plenty. To me, this highlights another instance of the patent system not fulfilling its original purpose, namely to catalyze innovation. There are plenty of bright people who could invent patentable UIs for this new class of device, but because of the high barriers to entry everyone else has to sit on the sidelines while Apple generates new patents at their leisure (of course, this is a simplification). Of course, you can't fault Apple for using the rules of the game to maximally leverage their very real innovation, especially not in a competitive environment where some of the less-innovative players happen to wield big clubs with words like "Monopoly" carved into them. Josh On Jan 10, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Danie Roux wrote: > On 1/9/07, Howard Stearns <[hidden email]> wrote: >> http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/osx.html >> >> (Yeah, I know that Negroponte says there are good reasons that the >> OLPC >> has a bigger screen. He's right. But still...) > > It seems as if it might even not be possible: > > http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/the-iphone-is-not-a-smartphone/ > > "And the reality slowly sets in about what the iPhone is and is not. > Noted analyst and Engadget pal Michael Gartenberg stated that the > iPhone is first party software ONLY -- i.e. not a smartphone by > conventional terms, being that a smartphone is a platform device that > allows software to be installed. That means hungry power-users -- you > know, those people ready and willing to plunk down $600 for an 8GB > musicphone -- won't be able to extend the functionality of their phone > any more than Apple (but thankfully not Cingular) dictates." > > -- > Danie Roux *shuffle* Adore Unix -- http://blog.acolyte.co.za > |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:33:35 -0800, Joshua Gargus <[hidden email]>
wrote: > There are plenty of bright people who could invent patentable UIs for > this new class of device, but because of the high barriers to entry > everyone else has to sit on the sidelines while Apple generates new > patents at their leisure Interestingly, I wrote a touch-scrolling system that works almost identically to the one in the iPhone back in 1997, when I was working on the web browser at Interval Research. Carl Watts had the idea to "flick" the page to make it keep scrolling, and then you could touch the page to stop it anywhere (which didn't count as a click). It also slowed down and stopped on its own. I wonder if they got a patent on that one? Later, Jon -------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Hylands [hidden email] http://www.huv.com/jon Project: Micro Raptor (Small Biped Velociraptor Robot) http://www.huv.com/blog |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
I suspect they'll make 3rd party development go the Web 2.0 route.
You develop with their tools on their hosted server (for a fee) and then they control what can go to which phones (for a fee that scales with the number of targeted units). Just a guess. Such a scenario lets them keep user experience uniform, predictable, and fewer disabling side effects. The scenario also keeps the bulk of processing on the servers where one has more room and flexibility for creativity & interactivity with other processing services and other data stores. DabbleDB might be more the development tool we'd use for such a phone. We'd probably prefer developing for the open source phone. Cheers, Darius |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
Good point. This highlights the question of "what's a platform?"
Consider, as just one example, openlaszlo.org (which I mention because I have friends there). Their fat-client Web-delivered apps "compile" to Flash or AJAX. Will iPhone Safari support Flash? Will it support DHTML as much as the standard Safari does? If so, then it's hard for me to technically or legally understand why a Laszlo kind of third-party app would be supported, but not a "native" third-party app? Flash and AJAX have an API for applications to receive gestures and to display output, and so does the operating system. What's the difference? I tend to think of Squeak as just another one of these kinds of platforms, on which apps can run. I wonder when they'll support the Parallels VM... If the reasons for the distinction are just arbitrary, we could make a Flash or Java VM for Squeak, in which the .image/.changes/.sources files all come over the Internet (hopefully with caching!)... I have no idea how to estimate the performance. -Howard Darius Clarke wrote: > I suspect they'll make 3rd party development go the Web 2.0 route. > > You develop with their tools on their hosted server (for a fee) and > then they control what can go to which phones (for a fee that scales > with the number of targeted units). > > Just a guess. Such a scenario lets them keep user experience uniform, > predictable, and fewer disabling side effects. The scenario also keeps > the bulk of processing on the servers where one has more room and > flexibility for creativity & interactivity with other processing > services and other data stores. DabbleDB might be more the development > tool we'd use for such a phone. > > We'd probably prefer developing for the open source phone. > > Cheers, > Darius > -- Howard Stearns University of Wisconsin - Madison Division of Information Technology mailto:[hidden email] jabber:[hidden email] voice:+1-608-262-3724 |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
It's hard to imagine that they'd close the device down to 3rd party development given that it runs OSX...there might be some limited benefits from the patent perspective that Joshua mentions, but seeing as the device is covered by 200 or so patents already, competitors aren't going to be able to come remotely close to this thing for years (unless Apple chooses to license the technology).
I can imagine them developing certain quality standards and certification schemes to ensure that the average user has a high quality experience with any third party apps meeting the requirements (and buyer beware for any that don't)...but a total lock out would be a mistake I think. It was the availability of a wide variety of apps on DOS that held the Mac back from wider adoption. We could be in a similar situation today...people might be willing to accept a more awkward device if it's running a Palm or MS OS that has a large ecosystem of third party apps. Especially when you consider that people will inevitably develop killer niche apps that appeal to small segments of the population, but for those segments, such an app would be an absolute must and any device that doesn't run it would be worthless. I think the iPhone is incredible and I've wanted a miniaturized device capable of running OSX for a long time, but a locked down device is a serious handicap that would give me second thoughts (after all, half the reason I'd want one is to tinker around with it and write my own software for it). - Stephen On 1/10/07, Howard Stearns <[hidden email]> wrote: Good point. This highlights the question of "what's a platform?" |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
Stephen Pair wrote:
> It's hard to imagine that they'd close the device down to 3rd party > development given that it runs OSX...there might be some limited > benefits from the patent perspective that Joshua mentions, but seeing > as the device is covered by 200 or so patents already, competitors > aren't going to be able to come remotely close to this thing for years > (unless Apple chooses to license the technology). > > I can imagine them developing certain quality standards and > certification schemes to ensure that the average user has a high > quality experience with any third party apps meeting the requirements > (and buyer beware for any that don't)...but a total lock out would be > a mistake I think. commercial success. (Have you seen the Nokia 800 http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9981902594.html. Might have more horsepower.) -- brad fuller www.bradfuller.com |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
> Then again, although it doesn't run OSX, the iPod has been phenomenal > commercial success. I just bought a Newton from ebay. |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
In reply to this post by Jon Hylands
Jon-
On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Jon Hylands wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:33:35 -0800, Joshua Gargus <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> There are plenty of bright people who could invent patentable UIs for >> this new class of device, but because of the high barriers to entry >> everyone else has to sit on the sidelines while Apple generates new >> patents at their leisure > > Interestingly, I wrote a touch-scrolling system that works almost > identically to the one in the iPhone back in 1997, when I was > working on > the web browser at Interval Research. Carl Watts had the idea to > "flick" > the page to make it keep scrolling, and then you could touch the > page to > stop it anywhere (which didn't count as a click). It also slowed > down and > stopped on its own. > > I wonder if they got a patent on that one? I hope not! In addition to your work, I've seen that feature in another application, one that I like a great deal- Picsel's Picsel Browser and Picsel Viewer applications. It's a doc viewer (PDF, MS Office) for various mobile platforms. You mostly control it with various gestures- a double tap with a stylus movement in or out while holding the second tap down zoom in and out, and the flick acts like you describe. Incidentally, Picsel Viewer and Browser are awesome apps, and easily is the best mobile PDF reader around. The bummer is that you can't buy it or download a demo- you can only get Picsel OEM with your device. They are starting to change this, but they are moving glacially on that front. Which is a shame, as Picsel is an awesome doc viewer for PDAs and smartphones. Regards, Aaron |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
In reply to this post by Brad Fuller-3
Brad-
The Nokia 800 is sure to be just as great a mobile Squeak platform as the Nokia 770 is. The N800 doesn't have much different from the older 770, but it does have a faster CPU - 320 rather than 250 MHz. While 250 MHz sounds slow for Squeak in Morphic, it works quite admirably- I've been using Squeak on my 770 for a while, and while 3.9 is too slow to use, 3.6 is usable and anything older than that is even better. I've found 3.2 is a great version- it's Morphic feels faster than the newer versions of Squeak, but the built-in classes are similar enough to 3.6-3.9's that writing an app for 3.2 and sharing it to 3.9 users works fine. I've also had little problem getting most code for 3.7 or 3.9 working on 3.2, at least for what I'm doing. Plus, it runs Genie very well. I'm using it for input in Squeak wit no problems- I almost never use the half-done soft keyboard I wrote. In my informed and somewhat humble opinion, the Nokia 770/800 is by far the best mobile platform for Squeak in the keyboard-less device with a 3" to 6" diag screen category, which is the category with a ton of other competitors. Sure, something like the OQO will run Squeak better, but it costs 8 times as much. Just an aside... :) Aaron On Jan 10, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Brad Fuller wrote: > Stephen Pair wrote: >> It's hard to imagine that they'd close the device down to 3rd >> party development given that it runs OSX...there might be some >> limited benefits from the patent perspective that Joshua mentions, >> but seeing as the device is covered by 200 or so patents already, >> competitors aren't going to be able to come remotely close to this >> thing for years (unless Apple chooses to license the technology). >> >> I can imagine them developing certain quality standards and >> certification schemes to ensure that the average user has a high >> quality experience with any third party apps meeting the >> requirements (and buyer beware for any that don't)...but a total >> lock out would be a mistake I think. > Then again, although it doesn't run OSX, the iPod has been > phenomenal commercial success. > > (Have you seen the Nokia 800 http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/ > NS9981902594.html. > Might have more horsepower.) > > > -- > brad fuller > www.bradfuller.com > > |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
Aaron Reichow wrote:
> Brad- > > The Nokia 800 is sure to be just as great a mobile Squeak platform as > the Nokia 770 is. The N800 doesn't have much different from the older > 770, but it does have a faster CPU - 320 rather than 250 MHz. While 250 > MHz sounds slow for Squeak in Morphic, it works quite admirably- I've > been using Squeak on my 770 for a while, and while 3.9 is too slow to > use, 3.6 is usable and anything older than that is even better. I've > found 3.2 is a great version- it's Morphic feels faster than the newer > versions of Squeak, but the built-in classes are similar enough to > 3.6-3.9's that writing an app for 3.2 and sharing it to 3.9 users works > fine. I've also had little problem getting most code for 3.7 or 3.9 > working on 3.2, at least for what I'm doing. That is very sad to hear. Why is it that a newer version of Squeak is slower than older versions? Is it only on small systems? What has changed that makes it so much slower? |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
I want to add that we harvested a lot of speed up improvements in
3.9. (missed the font caching). This is why the work of Pavel on mini image is really interesting since we could rebuild something on top of it. Stef On 13 janv. 07, at 19:04, Brad Fuller wrote: > Aaron Reichow wrote: >> Brad- >> The Nokia 800 is sure to be just as great a mobile Squeak platform >> as the Nokia 770 is. The N800 doesn't have much different from the >> older 770, but it does have a faster CPU - 320 rather than 250 >> MHz. While 250 MHz sounds slow for Squeak in Morphic, it works >> quite admirably- I've been using Squeak on my 770 for a while, and >> while 3.9 is too slow to use, 3.6 is usable and anything older >> than that is even better. I've found 3.2 is a great version- it's >> Morphic feels faster than the newer versions of Squeak, but the >> built-in classes are similar enough to 3.6-3.9's that writing an >> app for 3.2 and sharing it to 3.9 users works fine. I've also had >> little problem getting most code for 3.7 or 3.9 working on 3.2, at >> least for what I'm doing. > > That is very sad to hear. > Why is it that a newer version of Squeak is slower than older > versions? Is it only on small systems? What has changed that makes > it so much slower? > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Brad Fuller-3
Brad Fuller wrote:
> Aaron Reichow wrote: >> Brad- >> >> The Nokia 800 is sure to be just as great a mobile Squeak platform as >> the Nokia 770 is. The N800 doesn't have much different from the older >> 770, but it does have a faster CPU - 320 rather than 250 MHz. While >> 250 MHz sounds slow for Squeak in Morphic, it works quite admirably- >> I've been using Squeak on my 770 for a while, and while 3.9 is too >> slow to use, 3.6 is usable and anything older than that is even >> better. I've found 3.2 is a great version- it's Morphic feels faster >> than the newer versions of Squeak, but the built-in classes are >> similar enough to 3.6-3.9's that writing an app for 3.2 and sharing >> it to 3.9 users works fine. I've also had little problem getting most >> code for 3.7 or 3.9 working on 3.2, at least for what I'm doing. > > That is very sad to hear. > Why is it that a newer version of Squeak is slower than older > versions? Is it only on small systems? What has changed that makes it > so much slower? > > > around Squeak version 3-3.5). This is acceptable on new hardware but can cause old machines to be very slow. I think some tuning could be performed to make newer morphic faster. Karl |
|
|
On Jan 13, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Karl wrote: > I think the layout stuff and event stuff made morphic slower (added > around Squeak version 3-3.5). This is acceptable on new hardware > but can cause old machines to be very slow. I think some tuning > could be performed to make newer morphic faster. > Karl As always I;ll point out the work that I did to make a VM alteration that allows you to write the message dispatch with 1 or more stack levels to syslog when the VM is asked to execute a new method. This logic then captures *all* messages sent without interfering with the image running, thus giving an exact picture of what is going on. I'll note on the website/ftp there is a Vm that is setup to provide this information on the macintosh. I'm sure someone could come up with a program to read the message trace and like the message send process provide a nice trace log of what is going on. Of course if the existing tracing facility in smalltalk provides an accurate picture without altering the behavior then doing this doesn't buy much. However you are busy then dispatching a high priority task to peek at what is going on and I wonder about the side effects. As someone noted earlier there was some interesting interation with the idle process and other processes they had created causing squeak to hang without responding and yet using little CPU. -- ======================================================================== === John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ======================================================================== === |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
In reply to this post by Brad Fuller-3
Brad,
Newer Squeak is slower on any machine- you just don't notice when the machine is sufficiently fast enough. It is dependent on the CPU speed of the machine you're using. When you are running a 200-600 MHz ARM CPU, which don't have floating points units, you definitely notice the difference between the versions of Squeak, feeling a steady decline in responsiveness form 2.4 (the smallest version I've an image sitting around for) up to 3.9. Mind you, when I say "newer Squeaks are slower" I'm referring to Morphic and how it feels, not the result of any benchmark I've run. It is the result of changes- both good and bloat- in Morphic, not something completely fundamental. MVC feels identical in any Squeak image I've used on a slower machine. I'm not sure what makes it slower specifically- all I know is that there has been a steady march of slowdown for each version of Squeak released. I don't know enough about Morphic and the changes to Morphic between each version to tell you why, but I imagine a lot of it is various improvements to Morphic over the years. A lot of these changes could probably be refactored and performance improved, but since that isn't really my area of interest of expertise I simply use an older version of Squeak, like 3.2, a version for which I have no problems porting my code forward to newer Squeak releases and generally for which I don't have problems getting newer code to run with a few tweaks. Some people assume 3.2 is ancient, but aside some visual aspects looking nicer in 3.7-3.9, it is pretty much the same Squeak we all know and love. :) Regards, Aaron On Jan 13, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Brad Fuller wrote: > Aaron Reichow wrote: >> Brad- >> The Nokia 800 is sure to be just as great a mobile Squeak platform >> as the Nokia 770 is. The N800 doesn't have much different from the >> older 770, but it does have a faster CPU - 320 rather than 250 >> MHz. While 250 MHz sounds slow for Squeak in Morphic, it works >> quite admirably- I've been using Squeak on my 770 for a while, and >> while 3.9 is too slow to use, 3.6 is usable and anything older >> than that is even better. I've found 3.2 is a great version- it's >> Morphic feels faster than the newer versions of Squeak, but the >> built-in classes are similar enough to 3.6-3.9's that writing an >> app for 3.2 and sharing it to 3.9 users works fine. I've also had >> little problem getting most code for 3.7 or 3.9 working on 3.2, at >> least for what I'm doing. > > That is very sad to hear. > Why is it that a newer version of Squeak is slower than older > versions? Is it only on small systems? What has changed that makes > it so much slower? > > |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
Aaron Reichow wrote:
> Brad, > > Newer Squeak is slower on any machine- you just don't notice when the > machine is sufficiently fast enough. It is dependent on the CPU speed of > the machine you're using. When you are running a 200-600 MHz ARM CPU, > which don't have floating points units, you definitely notice the > difference between the versions of Squeak, feeling a steady decline in > responsiveness form 2.4 (the smallest version I've an image sitting > around for) up to 3.9. Mind you, when I say "newer Squeaks are slower" > I'm referring to Morphic and how it feels, not the result of any > benchmark I've run. It is the result of changes- both good and bloat- in > Morphic, not something completely fundamental. MVC feels identical in > any Squeak image I've used on a slower machine. > > I'm not sure what makes it slower specifically- all I know is that there > has been a steady march of slowdown for each version of Squeak > released. I don't know enough about Morphic and the changes to Morphic > between each version to tell you why, but I imagine a lot of it is > various improvements to Morphic over the years. A lot of these changes > could probably be refactored and performance improved, but since that > isn't really my area of interest of expertise I simply use an older > version of Squeak, like 3.2, a version for which I have no problems > porting my code forward to newer Squeak releases and generally for which > I don't have problems getting newer code to run with a few tweaks. Some > people assume 3.2 is ancient, but aside some visual aspects looking > nicer in 3.7-3.9, it is pretty much the same Squeak we all know and > love. :) Thanks for the review, Aaron. From what I read, this is a common criticism of the newer squeaks. If Morphic is the sole culprit, or a major contributor (I understand you are reporting observations, not hard tests) then that gives more weight to the Morphic team to test - and if the affirm your observations, refactor. I know that has got to be one tough job. -- brad fuller www.bradfuller.com |
Re: John, do you have Sophie running on this thing yet?
|
|
In reply to this post by Howard Stearns
Howard Stearns wrote:
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/osx.html > > (Yeah, I know that Negroponte says there are good reasons that the OLPC > has a bigger screen. He's right. But still...) > A little levity for Thur - about the iPhone : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p01RjigiYF0 -- brad fuller www.bradfuller.com |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |