On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Petr Fischer wrote:
> Hi. How do you use OS's input methods (Windows [WM5?] virtual keyboard)? > I have problems with OS input methods on my WM5 PDA device. There is no > way to show windows keyboard (main squeak window is completely over > whole windows PDA desktop). Well, mostly the answer is that I've not really used Squeak much on the WM5 device I had. I originally had a WM2003-based Dell Axim x50v, but had it replaced (a few times actually, but that's another story), and I've just not used it much with my x51v running WM5. Under PocketPC 2k/2k2 and WM 2003 you could easily open up the keyboard/input panel- there was an icon in the bottom right. One idea is IIRC you can assign a hardware button to opening up the software input panel (keyboard, etc). If you use Squeak a lot, that might be the ticket to getting the input panel up- at the expense of a useful hardware button, but it should work. Let me know if it does! > Thanks, pf Regards, Aaron [hidden email] || rev in #squeak on irc.freenode.net "Liberty will not descend to a people, a people must raise themselves to Liberty." -- Emma Goldman > > > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Gerald Leeb wrote: > > > As a longtime Squeak PDA user, I've interacted with Squeak in 3 ways: > > > > 1. Using the OS's input methods (virtual keyboard, HWR, etc), > > > > 2. Using a virtual keyboard for Squeak that I wrote, or > > > > ... > > > |
Hola again everyone! This is a very long post. I am posting it here because I feel others might find it useful. If anyone thinks I should polish this and post it on the wiki, please tack that onto a reply or send me a personal message. I'm not sure if this kind of information matters to many folks. I suppose it could be worked up into a more recent and detailed description of Squeak on the PDA- qualitatively, its current status, etc. -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> Below are my impressions of running Squeak on the 770 with various images. It is an incredibly un-scientific study- no profiling, no stop watch, nothing fancy. Not quite apples and oranges, but pretty close sometimes. What I'm trying to convey is to those considering using this specific device for Squeak, like Stef D, and to those who haven't used Squeak on a PDA or other slow/embedded device what it *feels* like. If anyone wants other information- any kind of benchmark, running a certain task, tool or app do not hesitate to let me know. 1. The first image I tried was Kevin Fischer's TinySqueak.image (6.5 MB), which is 3.1alpha. Considering the slowness of the CPU, it ran quite well- while I didn't remember all the strokes, I am very happy to report that the character recognition using Genie and the dictionary of strokes that Kevin put in for this image was faster and more accurate than the sad excuse for HWR, written in C/GTK+, that comes with the 770. -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> 2. The second image I tried was 3.9g-7061 (16.5 MB). This was slow, but not as slow as I had expected. Some metrics for 3.9g: If I quickly highlight a paragraph of text in a workspace by tapping somewhere and dragging down, it takes about a second after I've pulled the stylus up. The world menu takes about two seconds to come up. If you'be a System Browser open, and click on a category with only one class in it- for instance EToys-Buttons- it is about 2 seconds between tap and seeing the class show up. About three seconds between tapping the class and seeing the list of method categories and methods show up. Two to three seconds for a method's code to show up when the method is tapped. I'd like to point out that this is not slowness with Squeak, but with Morphic. The same tests on the same image done in MVC are all instant- even the Browser tests, which are doing some thinking outside of drawing the Morphs. -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> 3. Shrunken2.image (4.4 MB), which is from TweakOnly.zip, something according to my filesystem is from November 2004. It is a 3.6-based image. So, probably not the best for testing Tweak, but I had it on hand. It must be a VM/prims thing- whenever I've tried Tweak on a CE or Pocket PC machine, performance has been beyond hideous, even on a machine with a powerful 624 MHz XScale CPU. On this lowly 220 MHz CPU it is way faster. Some things seem faster than the 3.9g Morphic image, but it might be a bit unfair/not useful to compare two images of difference sizes, versions, etc- Tweak vs Morphic won't be the only factor. But, I report as a user, and I call 'em as I see 'em. Metrics for this 3.6 Tweak image: Three seconds from tap to File menu coming up. A lot of things felt pretty fast, considering the CPU speed. I was surprised and impressed. Dragging Morphs (what are they called in Tweak? I'm sorry, I'm really completely unedumatcated on Tweak) is smooth. Clicking on stuff in a Class Browser is definately faster than I described with the 3.9g image in Morphic. Tweak defiantely warrants some more investigation on my part for using on a PDA. -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> 4. I tried one of my old Dynapad development images, a 2.8-based image that is 5.4 MB. Man, this is the Squeak I remember. I've even got Henrik's awesome Bluelook installed, so it looks great too. If you want to have a look at it, I've got the image up. This image has a handful of PDA-friendly features. However, you're going to want to crank up the fonts for use on the Nokia, because it has some tiny ones now, meant for QVGA devices. This is image is incredibly usable, though ancient. Though, gauging from the questions and comments I've heard on the #squeak irc channel, not as ancient as people might think- it has a great deal of what we know as Squeak these days. http://www.d.umn.edu/~areichow/squeak/images/mp-03b-1.images http://www.d.umn.edu/~areichow/squeak/images/mp-03b-1.changes -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> 5. Next up, my personally configured 3.2 image (10 MB). This image, nor surprisingly, is between the speed of 2.8 and the features of 3.9a. If anything, I was quite surprised to see how relatively fast 3.1a felt compared to the 3.1a image I talked about in #1. -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> Overall, I'd say I was pretty happy with the performance, it was definately better than I expected (dreaded?). However, this is me- a guy who has sought to use Squeak on PDAs from pretty much the first time a consumer could do so- in 1999/2000 with the 66 MHz MIPS-based VTech Helio, all the way up to whatever new Linux, vanilla WinCE or PocketPC/Windows Mobile device I can get my hands on, which came with CPUs between 206 MHz StrongARMs to 624 MHz XScales. And, to the surprise of some, I've used Morphic for all my PDA Squeaking with the exception of the VTech Helio. CPU usage was pretty high- 75% or so while idling. However, I have been very impressed by the battery life of this thing. The screen has been off for most of the time- I've been doing testing via SSH and VNC, with the screen off. At the same time, the CPU has been quite high, and the wifi connection has been in use the whole time. I've been doing this testing for 3 hours- with Squeak idling and using CPU for most of that time- but the battery meter still reads as having 4 out of 4 bars. I'm quite surprised- the marketing says 3 hours of browse time, but between this evening of testing and my use of it up to this point for web browsing and ebook reading, I've been getting way better battery life than that. A big advantage that a Linux device has over a CE device is memory management. On CE it can be a hassle to get bigger images to work because of the way memory management works. But I've never had a problem running bigger images (15-20 MB or so is big to me!) on Linux, where I have on CE. There are trade offs for either system. Anyway, I hope this gave folks who care an idea of what the Nokia is like running Squeak, especially newer images. ....off to play with Squeak on his Nokia!... Regards, Aaron [hidden email] || rev in #squeak on irc.freenode.net "Liberty will not descend to a people, a people must raise themselves to Liberty." -- Emma Goldman |
Aaron Reichow wrote:
> Hola again everyone! > > This is a very long post. I am posting it here because I feel others might > find it useful. If anyone thinks I should polish this and post it on the > wiki, please tack that onto a reply or send me a personal message. I'm > not sure if this kind of information matters to many folks. I suppose it > could be worked up into a more recent and detailed description of Squeak > on the PDA- qualitatively, its current status, etc. > > -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> > thinking on purchasing a 770, or if I find something with a bit more power with Linux, sometime. So, it's good to know that someone else has blazed the trail! brad |
In reply to this post by Aaron Reichow
tx!
This is cool to know. On 10 oct. 06, at 05:44, Aaron Reichow wrote: > > Hola again everyone! > > This is a very long post. I am posting it here because I feel > others might > find it useful. If anyone thinks I should polish this and post it > on the > wiki, please tack that onto a reply or send me a personal message. > I'm > not sure if this kind of information matters to many folks. I > suppose it > could be worked up into a more recent and detailed description of > Squeak > on the PDA- qualitatively, its current status, etc. > > -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> > > Below are my impressions of running Squeak on the 770 with various > images. It is an incredibly un-scientific study- no profiling, no stop > watch, nothing fancy. Not quite apples and oranges, but pretty close > sometimes. What I'm trying to convey is to those considering using > this > specific device for Squeak, like Stef D, and to those who haven't used > Squeak on a PDA or other slow/embedded device what it *feels* > like. If > anyone wants other information- any kind of benchmark, running a > certain > task, tool or app do not hesitate to let me know. > > 1. The first image I tried was Kevin Fischer's TinySqueak.image > (6.5 MB), > which is 3.1alpha. Considering the slowness of the CPU, it ran > quite well- > while I didn't remember all the strokes, I am very happy to report > that > the character recognition using Genie and the dictionary of strokes > that > Kevin put in for this image was faster and more accurate than the sad > excuse for HWR, written in C/GTK+, that comes with the 770. > > -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> > > 2. The second image I tried was 3.9g-7061 (16.5 MB). This was > slow, but > not as slow as I had expected. > > Some metrics for 3.9g: If I quickly highlight a paragraph of text in a > workspace by tapping somewhere and dragging down, it takes about a > second > after I've pulled the stylus up. The world menu takes about two > seconds to > come up. If you'be a System Browser open, and click on a category > with > only one class in it- for instance EToys-Buttons- it is about 2 > seconds > between tap and seeing the class show up. About three seconds between > tapping the class and seeing the list of method categories and methods > show up. Two to three seconds for a method's code to show up when the > method is tapped. > > I'd like to point out that this is not slowness with Squeak, but with > Morphic. The same tests on the same image done in MVC are all instant- > even the Browser tests, which are doing some thinking outside of > drawing > the Morphs. > > -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> > > 3. Shrunken2.image (4.4 MB), which is from TweakOnly.zip, something > according to my filesystem is from November 2004. It is a 3.6-based > image. > So, probably not the best for testing Tweak, but I had it on hand. It > must be a VM/prims thing- whenever I've tried Tweak on a CE or > Pocket PC > machine, performance has been beyond hideous, even on a machine with a > powerful 624 MHz XScale CPU. On this lowly 220 MHz CPU it is way > faster. > Some things seem faster than the 3.9g Morphic image, but it might > be a bit > unfair/not useful to compare two images of difference sizes, versions, > etc- Tweak vs Morphic won't be the only factor. But, I report as a > user, > and I call 'em as I see 'em. > > Metrics for this 3.6 Tweak image: Three seconds from tap to File menu > coming up. A lot of things felt pretty fast, considering the CPU > speed. I > was surprised and impressed. Dragging Morphs (what are they called in > Tweak? I'm sorry, I'm really completely unedumatcated on Tweak) is > smooth. > Clicking on stuff in a Class Browser is definately faster than I > described > with the 3.9g image in Morphic. Tweak defiantely warrants some more > investigation on my part for using on a PDA. > > -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> > > 4. I tried one of my old Dynapad development images, a 2.8-based image > that is 5.4 MB. Man, this is the Squeak I remember. I've even got > Henrik's awesome Bluelook installed, so it looks great too. If you > want to > have a look at it, I've got the image up. This image has a handful of > PDA-friendly features. However, you're going to want to crank up the > fonts for use on the Nokia, because it has some tiny ones now, > meant for > QVGA devices. This is image is incredibly usable, though ancient. > Though, > gauging from the questions and comments I've heard on the #squeak irc > channel, not as ancient as people might think- it has a great deal > of what > we know as Squeak these days. > > http://www.d.umn.edu/~areichow/squeak/images/mp-03b-1.images > http://www.d.umn.edu/~areichow/squeak/images/mp-03b-1.changes > > -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> > > 5. Next up, my personally configured 3.2 image (10 MB). This > image, nor > surprisingly, is between the speed of 2.8 and the features of 3.9a. If > anything, I was quite surprised to see how relatively fast 3.1a felt > compared to the 3.1a image I talked about in #1. > > -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<> > > Overall, I'd say I was pretty happy with the performance, it was > definately better than I expected (dreaded?). However, this is me- > a guy > who has sought to use Squeak on PDAs from pretty much the first time a > consumer could do so- in 1999/2000 with the 66 MHz MIPS-based VTech > Helio, > all the way up to whatever new Linux, vanilla WinCE or PocketPC/ > Windows > Mobile device I can get my hands on, which came with CPUs between > 206 MHz > StrongARMs to 624 MHz XScales. And, to the surprise of some, I've > used > Morphic for all my PDA Squeaking with the exception of the VTech > Helio. > > CPU usage was pretty high- 75% or so while idling. However, I have > been > very impressed by the battery life of this thing. The screen has > been off > for most of the time- I've been doing testing via SSH and VNC, with > the > screen off. At the same time, the CPU has been quite high, and the > wifi > connection has been in use the whole time. I've been doing this > testing > for 3 hours- with Squeak idling and using CPU for most of that > time- but > the battery meter still reads as having 4 out of 4 bars. I'm quite > surprised- the marketing says 3 hours of browse time, but between this > evening of testing and my use of it up to this point for web > browsing and > ebook reading, I've been getting way better battery life than that. > > A big advantage that a Linux device has over a CE device is memory > management. On CE it can be a hassle to get bigger images to work > because > of the way memory management works. But I've never had a problem > running > bigger images (15-20 MB or so is big to me!) on Linux, where I have > on CE. > There are trade offs for either system. Anyway, I hope this gave > folks > who care an idea of what the Nokia is like running Squeak, especially > newer images. > > ....off to play with Squeak on his Nokia!... > > Regards, > Aaron > > [hidden email] || rev in #squeak on irc.freenode.net > "Liberty will not descend to a people, a people must > raise themselves to Liberty." -- Emma Goldman > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |