NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/sys/palmtops/2506

Text File | 1992-07-28 | 4.2 KB | 75 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.palmtops
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!src.honeywell.com!kanefsky
From: [e-mail] (Steve Kanefsky)
Subject: Re: HP95LX or Sharp PC 3000 ? Available in the SF Bay area ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News interface)
Nntp-Posting-Host: troi.src.honeywell.com
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:37:03 GMT
Lines: 62

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen J. Okay) writes:
>
>My take on the current Newton flap:
>It sounds great, and the picture of it I've seen are horribly horribly
>slick and way cool. But the lack of a keyboard and lack of immediate
>cursive recognition have kind of put me off. I just can't block write
>with any speed and until it'll recognize my script, or come with a keyboard
>attachment, I'll stick to my 95. I can two-finger much faster than I can
>block write.

I don't know about you, but most of the typing I do on my 95LX isn't text
that I want saved -- most of the keys I press are to start up programs,
maneuver around lists of files or within documents, type in commands, etc.
The Newton will certainly do all of those things more efficiently with pen
gestures than the 95LX does with keyboard commands.  Perhaps a keyboard is
more efficient for typing large amounts of text, but just think of the
possibilities for shorthand on the Newton, especially with the Intelligent
Assistant (IA) capabilities.  For example, the IA could expand any number
of abbreviations automatically, perhaps asking you to choose from among a
couple of choices if you entered something that was ambiguous (you could
set it to ask you right away, or wait until later if you were trying to
take notes or something).  You could even teach it new abbreviations on
the fly -- it could catch the IA abbreviation I introduced above, for
example, as soon as I wrote it.  It could look in your phonebook to
replace a person's initials with their full name and with a couple taps of
the pen you could insert their phone and fax numbers and email address in
the document as well (and it would remain linked to the phone book and be
kept up-to-date from then on).  In time, I'm sure you'll be able to
customize your Newton to the extent that you can communicate volumes of
information with just a few strokes of the pen.

Having said all that, I don't think anyone wants a Newton to produce large
volumes of perfectly formatted text quickly.  That's what desktop machines
are for.  The Newton is for capturing and accessing *information* quickly
and conveniently (that information can be transferred to another machine
for more specialized processing). I want to be able to access another
document, grab some chunk of information, and stick it in my current
document without a lot of hassle.  I want to jot down notes in the margin.
I want to draw pictures in my documents without even having to think about
it.  I want to delete and change text easily.  I can enter text rapidly on
my 95LX, but it's quite cumbersome to go back and change it.  If I'm in
class or in a meeting taking notes I need to go back and make changes in
real-time (say a date is changed or an item is added to a list).  Even if
I'm just writing off the top of my head I like to go back and make changes
right away without interrupting the flow of writing.  Stuff like that is
just too cumbersome on a keyboard-based machine (even one with a mouse, if
you have to constantly switch back and forth between the two).


>             The modularity of it and the way its being designed around
>the Mac architecture is definitely the way to go though.

The Newton isn't really designed around the Mac architecture.  It's new
from the ground up.  They both use a graphical user's interface, but the
Newton is optimized for a small screen, limited memory and (most
importantly) pen-based input.  It also has preemptive multitasking while
the Mac OS does not and it uses an RISC processor, unlike any current
Mac (which all use Motorola 680x0 CISC processors).


--
Steve Kanefsky