| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
"Athens" PC Photos | |
|
||
| Time: 12:38 EST/17:38 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
Co-developed with HP and code-named "Athens," the advanced PC prototype represents an evolution of the PC as a center for communication and collaboration, one that simultaneously simplifies PC operations while merging all forms of communication -- including next-generation voice, video and text messaging -- into a consistent, streamlined design. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 337 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:23:21 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3 (62.253.128.4) at 5/6/2003 12:57:39 PM |
| Sure looks like it to me...way to go with innovation again. |
| #2 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/6/2003 1:11:33 PM |
|
Yeah, now you can have a PC that looks like a Mac, but actually does something productive!
THAT's innovation. Anyone can sketch a cool sports car design, but making an actual sports car is a whole different ballgame :) |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/6/2003 1:26:25 PM |
|
I don't see anything here that Macintosh did first. Flat panel monitor, wireless keyboard... video camera, synchronized phone.
|
| #4 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/6/2003 2:03:23 PM |
| #3: Responding to trolls, perhaps. But if Byron can make wide, sweeping, baseless claims about how Macs innovated flatscreen monitors, then I can make some claims too :) |
| #5 By 61 (65.32.171.144) at 5/6/2003 2:13:48 PM |
| I don't really see much point... nice to have the power button on a wireless keyboard... but that's all that really intrests me. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/6/2003 2:50:16 PM |
|
"Microsoft wants to work with hardware vendors earlier, as soon as they create new PC technologies, so that they can synchronize hardware and software development and produce better computers."
"The goal is to make Windows-based computers more consistent, easier to navigate and able to provide a better computing experience, Gates said in an e-mail interview." ""The PC industry has been incredibly successful over the years, but hardware and software development have sometimes been a little out of sync," he said. "The best way to advance the state of the art is to work together even more closely, always starting from the customer's perspective and focusing on the combination of hardware and software that works best to create an innovative and compelling next-generation PC." " Sound familiar? "HP executive Louis Kim acknowledged the similarities, noting, "Apple is on a similar track in that they're designing with the end-user in mind and they're integrating hardware and software."" Similar??!!! They've been DOING it for twenty years! |
| #7 By 11888 (64.230.33.240) at 5/6/2003 5:56:11 PM |
| that camera staring at me constantly would start to creep me out |
| #8 By 1868 (141.133.155.28) at 5/6/2003 6:05:49 PM |
| I am interested in knowing what kind of applications this "Athens" device would have. Seriously, what's the big deal about the remote? What am I missing?(or is this a rehash of an idea being called new |
| #9 By 9549 (68.44.192.65) at 5/6/2003 6:11:08 PM |
| Apple may have been doing it for twenty years but when Dell gets into the fold with a design like this we`ll be able to afford it as well as use it. |
| #10 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 5/6/2003 6:31:51 PM |
|
One place where I can see this becoming really useful is in VPN situations. With VOIP, it's conceivable that the employee could login from home (or elsewhere) via Remote Desktop and have access to both their user settings and their phone extension. It would also be nice for the IT department to set up PCs and not have to worry about moving phone extensions or other items around--the PC is the workstation. Roaming profiles were a start in this direction, but by taking over the voice side, they become much more effective. Once SIP becomes widespread, the integration with IM will be very nice as well.
As far as the comments about this being like a Mac, isn't that merely commenting on the plastic shell of the hardware and not the actual technology? If the excitement is about translucent plastic, I think HP should have put a wood shell on it instead to direct the attention where it belongs. The innovation here isn't lickable plastic, it's the combination of the hardware and technology and platform. Say what you want about Apple's tradition of merging hardware with software; the concepts presented here are not ones being presented by Apple and shouldn't be confused as such. |
| #11 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 5/6/2003 6:53:40 PM |
|
"As far as the comments about this being like a Mac, isn't that merely commenting on the plastic shell of the hardware and not the actual technology?"
No, I said it's all about integrating hardware with software which is what Apple has always done. It's not about plastic. "The innovation here isn't lickable plastic, it's the combination of the hardware and technology and platform." Yes, Apple has always integrated hardware and technology with the platform. "Say what you want about Apple's tradition of merging hardware with software; the concepts presented here are not ones being presented by Apple and shouldn't be confused as such." Huh? You just said Apple had a "tradition" of merging hardware and software and you are now saying that Apple doesn't support the idea of combining hardware with the platform? wtf? When did Apple not support integrating hardware with the platform? For two short years when they allowed clones--which PC fans still want them to return to. And even then they supported their own integrated solution. The people that actually get the point understand that Microsoft is under pressure to advance PC tech--and it can't do it without controlling the hardware--and that the best way of distinguishing your product (when you have commoditized hardware AND commoditized software) is to integrate them. Some of us have warned of this for some time. All the PC manufacturers are dying because they can only distinguish themselves on price (excepting Sony possibly). This scares MS so they are getting in the business of designing hardware specs to make PC's closely integrated with their software. But what's the big deal if every PC manufacturer is still using the same spec and it still isn't that integrated because MS is making the software but the OEMs are cobbling together different parts from different manufacturers. The point is: MS and HP see the "FUTURE" of the PC being close integration of hardware and the software platform. This has ALWAYS been Apple's vision. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 at 19:03. |
| #12 By 1868 (141.133.155.28) at 5/6/2003 7:04:27 PM |
|
bluvg
I see your point about integrating the phone into the workstation and making the workstation be everything. When I first thought of this I shuttered. The idea to integrate the phone into the computer is just scary. While having the phone on the machine may let you intergate all of your phone contacts into Outlook, and allow you to move about the office having to only remember your username and password-because the phone would be linked up to your account, I am strongly against the idea. It just doesn't work. At the places I've worked, I've deployed VOIP systems with specific VOIP phones and features. I for one will not spend money on buying new workstations just to integrate the VOIP systems. On top of the cost issues(a whole workstation compared to the cost of a phone), the support would be a nightmare. Just think about it for 2 seconds, a user is having a problem with their computer, so what do they do? They're too worried that if they pick up the computer handset they will cause more damage, so instead they come walking over to the IT department. (I groan to think how many dumb users would do this) As it stands now, we have a VOIP system, but its seperate from the users' computers, and its great. The computer breaks, and like magic everyone picks up the phone to get help because they know that the phone is completely seperate from the computer. Another issue I have with the current model, what if the handset breaks, i bet its going to be more exspensive to repair, take more time, and be more complicated...(user: you forget to import my contacts from my old handset so this fixed handset is useless--just think about having to remember which handset went to which employee....) Last issue, we all know phones are rock steady reliable and no-one I know has ever messed up a phone before, so until computers get that reliable and there isn't a way to mess them up: I don't want the phone and the PC to converge together. Future Activewin News Article Microsoft has issued a patch for its Office Worker Workstation software suite Microsoft Phone Manager 1.0. In issuing the patch Microsoft has admitted that through a security flaw in its Windows ZQ Os hackers gained the ability to listen in on employee phone calls. Microsoft is down playing the hole and is actively trying to track down and attempting delete thousands of recorded phone calls between senior level Microsoft excutive that leaked out on to the internet. |
| #13 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 5/6/2003 7:41:45 PM |
|
Huh? You just said Apple had a "tradition" of merging hardware and software and you are now saying that Apple doesn't support the idea of combining hardware with the platform? wtf?
Take off your Apple-colored glasses, sodajerk. My comments were about the specific technology being presented here, not a vague, general idea of integration of hardware and software. Tell me how Apple is specifically integrating voice, voicemail, IM, and other collaboration in a unified hardware and software platform in this manner, then you'll have a rebuttal to my point. |
| #14 By 1896 (208.61.157.221) at 5/6/2003 7:44:06 PM |
|
It seems to me that in this debate there is a huge missed point: the software!
Obviously at this point I am just speculating but this machine should take advantage of a technology under development at MS called "BestCom" supposedly based on the Bayesian concepts (http://www.isds.duke.edu/sites/bayes.html). Again the hardware could look similar to some Apple products but I remember that when I was still in mid school (meaning 35 years ago) I had a lamp that was structured like an iMac with a base and the movable arm but with the lamp bulb instead of the monitor. This post was edited by Fritzly on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 at 19:46. |
| #15 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 5/6/2003 7:53:13 PM |
|
Zeo01, I thought of that as well. However, this assumes that the phone is only functional through the PC. I don't think that needs to be the case; the phone system simply needs to interface with the PC, similar to how unified messaging systems work today. If the PC breaks down, the phone doesn't have to be offline. Of course, this would be dependent on the OEM implementing the phone in this manner, but I think this notion isn't lost on them. As for the handset breaking down (our phones are notorious for the hookswitch breaking), I can see that being no different than current phones breaking--replace the handset. HP could charge a bundle for it, I suppose, but that would be a mistake on their part. The contacts stay in Outlook, so I'm not sure why you'd need to reprogram the phone.
Your concerns seem to be based on the phone system being inseparable from and controlled--or at least heavily influenced--by the PC and/or Microsoft; I don't see Microsoft getting intimately involved on the enterprise phone system side, so I don't think this will prove to be the case. |
| #16 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 5/6/2003 7:59:14 PM |
| Zeo01--one other thing, though, which makes me agree to some extent with you, is that separate handsets are nice in a lot of ways from a UI standpoint. Having the Hold, Transfer, Conference, and programmable buttons on a console would be hard to give up if you switched to an interface like this. I would love some of the integration that this prototype demos, but a simple handset connected to your machine is probably not the answer. Of course, it is just a prototype, and I think the points about the technology are worthy of consideration. |
| #17 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 5/6/2003 8:25:44 PM |
|
"Tell me how Apple is specifically integrating voice, voicemail, IM, and other collaboration in a unified hardware and software platform in this manner, then you'll have a rebuttal to my point."
Duh. As I said the other day, Apple doesn't announce things two years before they exist if they ever exist at all. However, it is very clear that Apple is working on phone and video conferencing capabilities so I think there are plans. However, I agree with Zeo that this type of integration could be horrible and completely counter to the idea of integrating hardware and software to best serve the end user. I think it would be very easy to have a separate piece of hardware but an integrated design and very integrated software--and I would prefer that. As Fritzly points out, why aren't we thoroughly seeing the software integration... isn't that the main point. Show me a real Microsoft product, show me real integration, and show me hardware that is actually designed well and maybe then you'll have a point. Are you saying there is something innovation about VoIP or something? You mean tying a Lucent phone, a Connectix web cam, and a big flat screen to a PC is innovative. Because--let's go the lickable angle--this machine looks like crap. You've got a green LED on the phone but blue LED-lit buttons on the monitor. You have clear plastic, white plastic, and brushed metal plastic and probably metal too--all over the place--the monitor has different buttons than the keyboard, and I bet the same goes for the phone. You've got a phone hanging on one side that doesn't look at all that integrated with the rest of the hardware design and a cam on the other side that looks like it was manufactured by someone else. The keyboard looks like crap. So from a design/integration perspective this is nothing--they just painted the plastics similar (but not even the same) colors and squeezed it together. Where is the software integration? And what is so innovative about this anyway? You say: "If the PC breaks down, the phone doesn't have to be offline." But that doesn't solve the problem of the two separate pieces of hardware physically being attached--do I ship a whole PC to fix a phone and vice versa? Ludicrous. You also say: "I don't see Microsoft getting intimately involved on the enterprise phone system side, so I don't think this will prove to be the case." So you agree that Microsoft isn't going to be doing Centrix or Lucent software integration into the Windows platform--so where's the revolutionary integration? I think my points are perfectly valid and are not tainted. I see a bunch of high end hardware crammed together--that's it. Not nice industrial design, not superior integration. I see a strategy that Apple has been ridiculed for for twenty years. I see the demise of the OEM model--there will come a day when it's down to two or three and MS will buy one of them. That's all I see. MS in the hardware business. |
| #18 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 5/6/2003 8:45:20 PM |
|
However, it is very clear that Apple is working on phone and video conferencing capabilities so I think there are plans.
"I think there are plans" is purely speculative. That's what I meant--Apple has not claimed to be doing anything like this. It's not a matter of simple integration, it's this specific implementation. "I think there are plans" isn't a strong argument to say that this is copying Apple, which is what I was originally questioning. Are you forgetting that this is a mere prototype??? Your criticizing it as if it's the real thing already... as someone else said, why are you criticizing the paint job when the primer isn't even on yet??? Again, the intent of this prototype is not about how great HP can make plastic look, it's about the concepts and how they might come together. And, I don't see your point about shipping out a whole new PC to fix the phone. Would you ship out a whole new PC if the mouse broke? As far as tying existing things together in a new way, that is innovation, even by perceived Steve Jobs standards (the lamp iMac, iPod, etc.). I don't think any of us are in a position to make anything other than guesses regarding the software integration. My guess is that Microsoft is going to have to work with the phone system providers to introduce the innovative integration--most likely through a common protocol. I see the Microsoft innovation as making their apps and OS phone system-aware and providing an interface for the PC hardware, and working with the OEMs to design appropriate hardware. |
| #19 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 5/6/2003 9:01:15 PM |
|
No, bluvg, you don't get it. Listen to HP, MS, and others talk of this and what they say is important is integrating hardware and software/platform. But there is no mention of the software--there is no apparent integration. This is just another hardware spec.
The fact that the only thing new they found to integrate is a phone system shows how poor MS is at thinking about hardware/software integration--i.e. the issue that Zeo and I raise: I cannot see much apparent GAIN in usability from this integration but I see enormous DEFFICIENCIES in tying phone hardware to PC hardware. MS and HP are touting a new PC spec that supposedly and allegedly integrates hardware with software but all I see is two hardware platforms being integrated. "And, I don't see your point about shipping out a whole new PC to fix the phone. Would you ship out a whole new PC if the mouse broke?" Dude, look at the spec. The handset is wireless but there is a carrage attached to the monitor--am I going to break the plastic so that I can ship the phone separately? The notification controls are on the monitor--if I use my own phone system they are useless--not to mention the useless carriage attached to the monitor. What about the phone buttons on the keyboard--what if they break? There are certainly a number of repair issues that are not even remotely similar to a busted mouse. "I don't think any of us are in a position to make anything other than guesses regarding the software integration." Read the doc posted by Meddijim--linking to a PBX or PSTN network isn't a big issue. The network diagrams are all layed out, but there is zero mention of the software--there isn't any yet. Therefore, why all the talk about hardware/software integration. Notification LEDs and buttons for everything on everything isn't software integration. Let's reiterate, I think this is perfectly clear but doesn't seem apparent to some: Microsoft and HP find that having a hardware spec closely integrated with software and the OS platform is innovative. They hardly care to talk about phone integration. The question is: is integrating hardware and software innovative? No (Sun, SGI, and Apple have been doing it forever); has Microsoft provided hardware/software integration? No, they have provided a prototype that may never be real for something that doesn't even allude to any software controls for these hardware devices; is this strategy counter-intuitive to the Wintel OEM model and can this model actually provide or sustain an integrated hardware/software model? (That I'll leave to be decided.) This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 at 21:10. |
| #20 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 5/6/2003 9:08:08 PM |
|
And one more thing, bluvg: I can't criticize a prototype when MS claims they will deliver this at some unspecificied date in the unforeseeable future, but I can't presume that Apple is working on something that I have good info that they are working on and people have already been expecting in some cases for over a year? Whatever, dude.
""I think there are plans" is purely speculative." Sure it is. But you also say: "I don't think any of us are in a position to make anything other than guesses regarding the software integration." So, in other words, even though Apple doesn't pre-announce ANYTHING, we have to assume it doesn't exist until it does whereas MS, who always preannounces by several years and frequently pushes back schedules by a year or more and delivers a product not even remotely similar, for them, you will presume they will deliver on the software that they aren't even willing to mention in a paragraph or provide mock-ups for when clearly they have every incentive in the world to show some, the slightest bit, of hardware and software integration. Uh, huh. |
| #21 By 1896 (208.61.157.221) at 5/6/2003 10:10:51 PM |
|
The debate keep missing the point here: this is a link to one of the first prototype of this device when it was still called "Agora", Greek word meaning "square" or "place of meeting",
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press_kits/2002/comdex/images/agora.jpg from what I read about the main point of these future devices won't be the ability to make or receive calls but to keep tracking of your schedule and activities and filtering and prioritizing calls, e-mails, sms etc. etc. This "filtering" capacity is waht should be delivered using the Bayesian analysis. If these speculations are correct and I believe they are it the goal here is by far beyond a communication system, it is a "Time and management system". Said that I am pretty sure that not only Apple but IBM, Cisco and many other companies are working on the same concept because nowadays our biggest problem is exactly the optimization of our working time. |
| #22 By 3 (62.253.128.4) at 5/7/2003 2:05:25 AM |
| Will - you only have to mention a Mac or Apple to get 30+ comments on here these days! |
| #23 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 5/7/2003 1:21:15 PM |
|
Sodajerk, obviously then, any attempt at integrating software and hardware is a failed attempt and pointless as Apple has already been integrating software and hardware.
Here: The “Athens” PC design represents a future business desktop PC in which all communication media — including voice, video and text messaging — converge into a simple, consistent experience. That is the goal here--not just any hardware/software integration, but specifically that of integrating collaboration functions. If you can't see the apparent gain, then fine, maybe it isn't for you. I think you're forgetting that this is a CONCEPT, though, and not a final implementation. I can see many gains from those concepts, and outlined some of those already. And as Fritzly pointed out, the hardware integration is only a starting point. The software research that is being done could really make this concept sing. Again, you're confusing the hardware "spec" with the prototype. The "spec" doesn't call for a molded plastic carriage for the wireless handset; besides, who ever said that piece of molded plastic is permanently affixed to the monitor? I personally would want to see a regular phone console for the wireless handset, but there's nothing in the "spec" preventing that. If some phone functions are integrated with the keyboard, then you replace a broken keyboard with one from the OEM--it's not that hard. And who's to say that a 3rd party vendor wouldn't produce replacement keyboards? As an IT manager, I would much rather know what's coming in two year's time rather than finding out at launch time of a new piece of hardware or software. That gives me time to plan and prepare and to think about what possibilities lie ahead. I'm not too fond of any secrecy games for the sake of a few oohs and aahs at product launch time. That, in my opinion, is a mistake on Apple's part. It works great for home users, but it's terrible for corporate consumers. I can't rely on 3rd-hand speculation regarding their plans; Microsoft and their OEMs, on the other hand, often let you know first-hand years in advance of an idea of what to expect. So, yes, I find fault with you criticizing the color schemes and fit and finish of a sample hardware prototype of a concept that's at least two years away from production (similar to how I think it would have been missing the point to say I would never buy the Apple I because of the wooden case). I don't think it follows that comments on 3rd-hand vague evidence of Apple's plans can be treated as equally speculative. Since you want to see evidence of the integration (but neither of us are attending WinHEC) the prototype software is demoed here: http://news.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecnet%2Ecom%2Fvideo%2Fsynd%2Fnews%5Fredir2%2Ehtml%3Fvid%5Fwin%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fnews%2Ecom%2Ecom%2F1601%2D2%2D1000058%2Ehtml&edId=3&siteId=3&oId=2001-12-0&ontId=12&lop=news_fd_vid Again, come outside of the city limits of Appleland for a sec. The question is NOT whether integrating hardware and software is innovative; that statement is too vague and offers no substantive rebuttal with regards to this particular technology. The question IS whether or not THIS combination of hardware and technology is innovative--and more importantly, useful--in tackling productivity issues that consumers face. This post was edited by bluvg on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 at 13:24. |
| #24 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 5/7/2003 1:25:38 PM |
| Byron--the only time Sodajerk speaks up is when something relates to Apple. :) |
| #25 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/7/2003 2:44:43 PM |
|
"The "spec" doesn't call for a molded plastic carriage for the wireless handset"
Watch the video: Gates and his little monkey specifically talk about building most of this stuff into the monitor base. More than once. They also talk about how widescreen, high-density pixel displays are the biggest sources of productivity improvements. Like it took MS to hook up a widescreen LCD to a computer or something. "The question is NOT whether integrating hardware and software is innovative" MS and HP seem to think so. "that statement is too vague and offers no substantive rebuttal with regards to this particular technology" Only because you know that MS has presented almost zero evidence of any software. "The question IS whether or not THIS combination of hardware and technology is innovative--and more importantly, useful--in tackling productivity issues that consumers face." And I have stated that in my opinion it's not. I'm not confused by a vmail notification appearing as a light on my phone rather than one on my phone, monitor, keyboard, and dock... I see this as bloat. Would integration voice systems into computer software be nice without requiring hardware integration? Yes, but they aren't doing that. "Again, come outside of the city limits of Appleland for a sec." I've hardly mentioned them. I brought them up to answer peoples questions about how this is Apple-like. I've answered your questions. I'm trying to focus on MS. For example, why am I dubious of MS being successful at integrating HW and SW? Let's see: they just got it so that a system shutdown from the system would power down hardware--finally--in XP. They still do not have any CD drive media player integration--i.e. I cannot eject a disk from Explorer or WMP; I can have a playlist display in WMP for a disk that is no longer in the drive, etc... If MS wants to do HW/SW integration--why don't they focus on the basics now? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 337 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:23:21 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
