Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lsuc!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura)
Subject: Re: A bunch of Portfolio notes...
Organization: Consultant, Toronto
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 14:19:15 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Jun21.141915.16019@lsuc.on.ca>
Keywords: AtariUser, Portfolio
References: <1991Jun20.001203.24928@rick.cs.ubc.ca> <1991Jun20.190320.8089@lsuc.on.ca> <1991Jun21.010142.14033@Think.COM>

In article <1991Jun21.010142.14033@Think.COM> laird@think.com writes:
>In article <1991Jun20.190320.8089@lsuc.on.ca> jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) writes:
>>In article <1991Jun20.001203.24928@rick.cs.ubc.ca> b3300876@rick.cs.ubc.ca (george chow) writes:

>
>The Portfolio was designed to have either 128K or 512K of internal SRAM.
>All MegaByte Computers is doing is (carefully) pulling out the surface
>mounted SRAM chips in the PF and replacing them with higher capacity chips.
>Atari may have decided that since a third party company was selling a PF
>internal RAM expansion there was no need for Atari to release a "fat PF".
>Atari's market for the PF is the "pocket organizer" market, and I'd guess
>that they don't see too much of a market for a $700 PF (a guess at what a
>PF would sell for with 512K SRAM).
>

...

>>     Well, I'd guess that a "Portfolio II" would still fit into
>>the current scheme of things.  I have no information about such
>>a machine, but from my current messing around, and in light of
>>the HP-95LX I could see them bringing out something.  I think
>>what might be a sellable product would be 320 * 100 pixels of
>
>If there are too many pixels, either the pixels shrink (bad for visibility)
>or the PF would have to be larger (bad for portability).  The current

     Yup.  I thought about that.  But the case top has a *lot* more
space for a bigger display if you move the speaker to the underside
of the keyboard.  And I think you could get a smaller speaker.  I'm
not sure about that.  I still haven't disassembled the thing.
And it wouldn't hurt to have the pixels a *bit* smaller.  Keep in
mind that the "normal" resolution could still be 40 columns wide
by using a thicker font which would be even easier for some people to read.


>display is sufficient for my needs.  Lots of pixels would be OK as long as
>the characters stay large, I suppose.  But the more pixels there are, the
>more power the display draws.  Everything's a tradeoff...  I like the PF

     Yeah, again, that's why I'd keep it to "just a bit more" resolution
than the HP.  I've confirmed that the HP is 240 * 128 = 30,720 pixels.
The 320 * 100 would be 32,000 (oh wow I can work that out in my head! :-).
Interestingly, the 320 * 100 layout would allow square pixels.  I'm
not sure, but I think the HP doesn't have square pixels.  I didn't
look into that when I was playing with one recently.

>particularly because it's small, runs forever on batteries, and readable.
>
>>display, an "industry standard" memory card slot in place of the
>
>I would like to see a PF with the new PCMCIA slot.  Of course that means
>incompatibility with all of the PF cards out now, but it opens the doors to

     Ah, now I anticipated that problem.  The solution is in the
expansion buss.  What you do is bring out a "dual standard card drive".
That would have 2 busses and be switchable.  I don't think this
would be hard.  Now a person who has bought a bunch of "old Atari cards"
could still use them as "B:" drive cards.  That expansion buss
is the one thing that could give the Portfolio a market that the
HP-95LX can't get into.

>>current slot, a slightly revised keyboard and at least 258K RAM
>
>Where did you come up with an odd number like "258K"?

     Well that was easy.  You just think 256 and type it wrong. :-)
Although in light of what you've told me about the RAM upgrade,
I'd guess it would have to be a 512K size if anything.  Which
brings up another point regarding your battery life.  I'm wondering
what the battery life for the HP-95LX is really going to be.
If the same RAM technology is used, then the drain has to be
4 times faster.  Are the higher capacity RAMs more efficient?


>>standard with the expansion up to 1 Meg., but with the current
>>60 pin expansion buss.  That would be usable to "bridge the gap"
>>between the current Portfolio and some future machine that
>>might take off in a new "form factor" direction.  Especially
>>a 320 pixel wide display.  That would be a neat trick to play
>>on HP.  It's only a few more pixels than the HP-95LX as far
>>as I can tell (nobody has counted them for me, but I'd guess they
>>are using 240 * 128), but there are some nifty tricks you can
>>use by having special fonts for 64 character and 80 character lines.
>>A 64 character line would be readable enough for spreadsheets and
>>an 80 character line could be used for "text format previewing".
>>I wouldn't advertise the 80 character line font as being "readable"
>>but in fact it can be read.  We used to use a font of this pixel
>>range on the original Radio Shack Color Computer for "previewing"
>>and I found that I could get used to it enough to read the text.
>>But the 64 character line font would be the *real* surprise.  Such
>>a font would be quite usable for spreadsheets.
>
>I'd like to see a Portfolio II, with 512K RAM standard and a nicer (but no
>larger) keyboard.  The current display is sufficient, though I wouldn't

     For the keyboard, I'd cut off the top of the Return key and stick
the Insert/Delete key below the Backspace key.  Then I'd re-arrange
the cursor keys into either an "inverted T" or a "+" formation, but
leaving a space beside the "Space bar".  At least that's all I'd
do for now.  In the long run I'd look to a new physical package.
But I'd want them to have this intermediate stage product to give
a "smooth upgrade path."

>object if Atari could expand the display to use more of the "cover" area.
>But I wouldn't want much smaller characters -- IMHO readability is more
>important than the number of characters on the display.
>
>Incidentally, someone has posted a program that displays 60 columns by 10
>lines on the current PF.  He is working with Atari, apparently, on a way to
>patch the OS to add a 60x10 display mode transparently to applications.

     Sonofagun!  He's doing pretty much what I described.  Though I wouldn't
bother with more row.  I'd just work on more characters on a row.  But
the 80 character line is the Holy Grail for a lot of things, like
text format previewing.  That's why I feel that the 320 pixel width
is the magic trick that HP missed.

>>     So for a display that would cost about the same as the HP to
>>make you could have greater functionality.  I could see HP executives
>>pulling out their hair on that point.
>
>Well, the HP95LX has a faster processor, but processor speed isn't a big
>deal (IMHO) for a handheld.  It'd be interesting to see if Intel has made a
>CMOS (low power) 8087 -- that would be nice, though probably too expensive
>to be worth while.  Perhaps as an add-on?

     More than a faster processor, the HP-95LX really is a major
step over the Portfolio.  But the cost difference and expansion buss
give the Portfolio possibilities over the HP.  The overall "human
packaging" difference is more than the Byte article covered.  Of
course, the Byte article didn't give a real "in depth comparison"
between the two.  The software in the HP has some huge advances
over the Portfolio, but you have to get into really using the machines
to tell this.  On the otherhand, there are some areas where one
might prefer the Portfolio despite the advances in the HP.  The
big point is the Scheduler packages.  The HP has 3 methods of
approaching the concept, but the main display that I'd probably
use most is the one that resembles the one in the Portfolio.
In this area the HP seems to only display on 1/2 hour increments.
This is good to give you a "feeling" for how your day is organized,
but it means that on the Portfolio I will probably see more of
my scheduled events on the screen despite having fewer lines.

     But the breakthrough is having the background notes tied
to the scheduler in HyperText fashion on the HP.

...

>>     Ick.  That was something I was just about to look into.  Literally
>>look into -- I was about to take apart my Portfolio and see what the
>>guts were like.  Sounds like a surface mounted ROM, or worse. . . .
>
>You could hardly expect Atari to use socketed DIPs in something as small
>(and low cost) as the PF.

     Well not a big thick DIP package, but something "interchangeable".
:-)


-- 
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
