any tablet pc users on degreeinfo?

Howdy all,

I'm ready to get a new computer, and have decided the time is ripe to get a tablet pc (and yes, I'm 100% on that). My problem is, I'm having a hard time trying to decide between three machines, particularly since I can't do a touchy-feely on any of them from over here. I played around on a colleague's (a different model than below, that I'm not interested in), so got to enjoy the functionality, but I'm hoping some of y'all might either have one of these models, and can give me your opinion, or know of someone that does.

What I'm deciding between:
Lenovo/IBM Thinkpad X41
HP TC4200
Fujitsu Lifebook T4010D

The specs are mostly comparable, in that I'll be going for a configuration in the range of:

1.5-1.8 Ghz Pentium M Processor w/2mb cache
40-60GB HD @ 4200 rpm (or 5400 rpm, depending on the model)
1GB SDRAM
all 12.1" screens, XGA 1024x768 w/160-170 degree viewing angle)
Wi-Fi a/b/g
standard ports (USB, SD, IR, modem, ethernet, VGA, Fujitsu also has FireWire)

The IBM and HP have external (optional) optical drives; the Fujitsu comes with a modular, removable one

Dimensions:
IBM: 10.8" x 9.5" x 1~1.3", 3.5 lbs
HP: 11.22" x 9.25" x 1.35", 4.6 lbs
Fujitsu: 11.54" x 9.61" x 1.38~1.48", 4.3 lbs (w/modular drive, 7 oz less without)

Any comments or opinions? I had a Thinkpad years ago, and loved it, esp. the keyboard. Problem is, the X41 is backordered into Sept -- that's a down side. I don't have any experience with either an HP or Fujitsu; right now I'm on a rapidly dying Gateway PIII.

I welcome all techie and non-techie comments on this! Considering I'm about to drop over $2K on this purchase, and ship it overseas, I want to make sure I've researched it as thoroughly as I can before I make my decision.

Cheers,
Adrienne

 

Here are my thoughts, for what they're worth, based on 30 years in the computer industry and an active consulting practice in which I make recommendations precisely like this one...

...for a helluva lot more money that I'll make for this one.

First, good job of narrowing. You're choosing between three winners, to be sure. My thoughts on the three of them...


IBM

IBM has a long history of making quality notebooks; and it has blazed a trail or two in the tablet PC world. IBM, for whatever reason, tends to phase out models more quickly than other brands. The typical life cycle of an IBM model, is, therefore, shorter than many others. This can sometimes be a problem for getting parts down the road. Fortunately, by "down the road," I mean way down the road... probably longer down the road than you'd ever still be owning the device, so unless you're planning on still using it seven or eight years from now (an eternity in computer years), I wouldn't worry too much about it... although IBM's orphaning of the device is a still a remote but nevertheless real possibility before you're done using it. For the reasonable life cycle of the device, however, you should have no problems ever getting it repaired.

IBM also makes quality stuff... no doubt about that. IBM keyboards, as you pointed out, have no rival... except for one brand which, interestingly, is another of your choices. More on that in a moment.

And IBM's support is good -- excellent, actually -- but very "corporate." What I mean is, IBM's support is not as consumer-friendly as some other brands. IBM's products also tend to be slightly over-priced because it knows its market is a corporate world that's typically willing to pay a bit more for the IBM brand.

All that said, IBM has really innovated in the tablet PC arena. Though no longer available, there were two early models -- one which pioneered the type of screen that flips up as a normal notebook screen and then swivels and flips around to cover the keyboard so it can become a tablet. That's common now, I realize, but IBM had two models that did it in late 1999.



HP

The only printer I recommend for anyone, corporate or personal, is HP. It almost doesn't matter what model, HP is pretty much the only recommendation I ever make. Not Epson or Lexmark... in fact, especially not Lexmark... that is, unless a specific piece of software that the client is using requires one of them for some reason. Before HP came out with affordable personal laser printers, I used to sometimes recommend Okidata. And to this day I still recommend Okidata when a dot matrix printer is required. You can drop-kick and Okidata dot matrix printer across a football field and it'll still work. And I will recommend some printer other than HP when a printer of a type which HP doesn't make is required. But I'm digressing.

HP, sadly, doesn't shine as brightly in PCs and notebooks. Scanners, maybe, but not PCs or notebooks. That said, an HP notebook is a perfectly fine machine with good, consumer-friendly customer service. Several of HP's tablets were used by Microsoft to develop and perfect Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, so there are never any driver or other similar problems with Windows XP on an HP tablet.

And HP's price point is usually good. I guess if it were between HP and IBM, I'd go with HP.

But then there's...


Fujitsu

Here's the thing with Fujitsu: It's not "mainstream" like HP or IBM or Compaq or even Dell. But Fujitsu products -- to the last of them -- are extremely well made. Except for back in the days of 286 and 286 AT-style computers when NEC was a fairly major player in desktops and for whatever reason decided to make a keyboard that had as good a tactile feel as an IBM keyboard, only Fujitsu has even come close to making a rugged, good-tactile-feel 101- and 104-key keyboard of the quality of IBM's. I'm using one to type the very letters you're reading. In a day when a decent, medium- to medium-low quality keyboard can be had for as low as $6 bought in bulk, I routinely spend from $50 to as much as $65 for a high-end Fujitsu keyboard whenever I'm buying for myself or for a client who has told me that he wants "only the best." Fujitsu remains IBM's only rival in the keyboard area.

Twenty years agao, when I was a regional VP for Anderson-Jacobson (at the time, one of the premier manufacturers of synchronous and asynchronous modems and terminal products), we OEMed our 14.4Kbps synch/asynch modem (with internal 6-channel mux) from Fujitsu. And it was a honey! Of course that's ancient technology today, but that's not my point. My point is that in a day when some very serious players in the modem world were in their heyday (makers like Racal Milgo/Vadic, Motorola, Paradyne, AJ, etc.), that little Fujitsu kicked everyone's butts. In fact, the entire little known product line of which it was a member at the time was hot! Over the years I've had occasion to spec-out various Fujitsu products, some of them unique, and some common but simply made better by Fujitsu.

My examination of Fujitsu notebooks and tablets suggests that Fujitsu is making them with the same rock-solid quality as it makes other products with which I have worked. The only problem is that sometimes it can take a little longer to get parts. Sure, it may only be a day or two longer, but in computer repair time, that's an eternity. Fujitsu parts can also be a little pricey if your notebook or tablet is out of warranty and you must purchase them yourself. And there aren't as many places where you can get a Fujitsu device repaired. Of course, the flip side to that is that Fujitsu stuff is so good you may never need it repaired... so everything's a tradeoff.


Recommendation

If it were me, I would be tempted to get the Fujitsu just because I'm such a believer in its quality. But I know how to make my own repairs if I need to (and if I can get the parts); and I know how to get parts... and fast... and cheap. So I always have to remind myself that what's good for me may not be good for the mere mortal consumer.

That being the case, I would have to eliminate Fujitsu for someone else because its support is the least consumer-friendly of all. IBM's is second-least. And HP's, of the three you've mentioned, is best.

And that's important with notebooks and tablets. With desktops, it's easy to go to CompUSA and pick-up an off-the-shelf component that will fit in any motherboard's PCI slot and you're off to the races. But notebooks and tablets, in largest measure because of the miniaturization requirements, tend to be made-up of proprietary, manufacturer-specific components. That's why it's kinda' okay to buy a no-one's-ever-heard-of-it desktop PC, but never a no-one's-ever-heard-of-it notebook or tablet. With notebooks and tablets, you have to kind of hover around the mainstream, big brands, whether you want to or not. For example, while I don't consider Toshiba notebooks to be best-of-breed, I often recommend them because they offer extraordinarily good, fast and easy-to-use warranty and non-warranty service with excellent parts availability for many years after the model is phased out. HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., all have similar quality support and parts availability. Believe it or not, it can actually be difficult to get some older parts for older IBM machines. Fujitsu, too.

Given the three between which you're choosing, the safe-bet recommendation is HP, and not because it's necessarily the best of the three brands (although, who knows, it may be) but, rather, because it will be easiest, quickest and, once it's out of warranty, cheapest to get fixed over time. And its customer support, just generally, is well-suited to individuals who may not necessarily have an IT department on which to lean when there's a problem like a user of an IBM notebook provided to her by her employer would, for example.

Without getting into a feature-for-feature comparison of the three (which I can do if you want me to, but it seems like you've probably done that), those, as I have outlined above, are the other criteria you should consider.

Just my $.02 worth... which my ex-wife will happily tell you is probably all it's worth.

 

Re: Re: any tablet pc users on degreeinfo?

Gregg - As quickly as possible take an extremely cold shower. If you are able you should immerse yourself in some Arctic body of water (the larger the better).

Jack
(P.S. Your x agrees with me)

 

Cheers, Gregg...

That's really excellent advice, and I appreciate the waiver of your consulting fee!

To be honest, I haven't given much thought to support and service. Since I live in the UAE, these are expensive and inconvenient, no matter what the brand, really. But I do have good relations with our IT guys, although most of what we use here at my uni are Dells and older Compaqs.

Plus, the only hardware problem I've ever had on any of my laptops (5 now) was my backlighting on my Thinkpad screen went dark after 3 years, and the cost to replace it was almost as much as getting a new machine (which I opted for). I only figure to get 3 years use out of any laptop before I'm ready to buy again, so, from what I can tell of your description of my three candidates, is that probably any and all of them would be good for that period of time, particularly since I really only do the normal stuff on computers; no programming, gaming, heavy stuff like that.

Okay, I'm leaning toward the Fujitsu, and I'll tell you why: first, as you pointed out, they're not mainstream, so I had no idea of their quality. But your reassurances on that point are a big plus. Second, I like the idea that the optical drive is included with the machine, and is modular, so I can stick in an extra battery, or just the empty filler component, and lighten the weight. With IBM and HP, I'll have to pop for an external optical USB drive, thus adding cost. The biggest negative to me, feature-wise, on the Fujitsu, is the lack of a track-point; I really loved that on the IBM, and HP has both that and touch pad. But, all I've used for the past three years is a touch pad on my Gateway, so I suppose I could get over that.

But, here are some sticky points that could sway me one way or another, and they're technical enough that I need an expert's opinion on. These are complaints I've culled from reading all the reviews I could get my hands on, plus hanging out at tabletpcbuzz.com:

1. Is a HD @ 5400rpm going to perform significantly faster than one at 4200rpm? Enough that this should be a consideration?Given that I'll have 1GB RAM, and at least 1.5 clock speed.

2. My boss is of the opinion (being a diehard Mac user) that I shouldn't consider getting any computer without FireWire. Is it that important? Both the IBM and HP don't have it. I could always get it on a PCMCIA card, though, right?

3. I've heard Fujitsu notebooks have a reputation for getting really hot. Any experience with this?

Thanks muchly, again, Gregg! I appreciate it so much. Hopefully, any other degreeinfo folks thinking about getting a tablet pc will benefit, too!

Cheers,
Adrienne, who is looking forward to YABHTU status

 

Part 1 of 2

I was kidding, of course... as was I with my "mere mortals" remark... though Jack seems not to recognize that and, moreover, wishes to presume a darker, more self-serving and pontificating intent.

I wouldn't have it any other way, would you?

Interesting. I almost like the touchpad better... but only after adjusting it a little (which most people don't do). Adjusted properly and for your specific way of using it (swipe speed, cursor travel per swipe, tap sensitivity, double-tap speed, etc.) a touchpad is pretty potent stuff. Of course, I prefer a large (as in nearly 2-inches in diameter or larger) trackball of the type the Logitech makes where in left mousclick is the right thumb; right mousclick is the right ring finger; and the ball itself is controlled mostly by the right middle and ring fingers (or index and middle finger) with a little opening in the top of the device for the right thumb when super precision and steadiness is required. (The device I'm referring to is the old, corded, "Trackman Marble FX" which, sadly, is no longer made. The closest product to it now is The Cordless Optical Trackman.)

Slower hard drive rotation speeds are common in notebooks and tablets in largest measure because they conserve battery power. A faster hard drive rotation speed difference f 1200 RPM (from 4200 to 5400) would make little difference in overall performance. With hard drives, it's more the track-to-track seek time that matters. Faster rotation speeds augment improved seek times. It is a combination of the two, and not rotational speed -- either alone or pricipally -- that makes the biggest difference when it comes to hard drive responsiveness.

Furthermore, super-high speed hard drives are really only an issue in multimedia applications. Capturing 30 frames per second of high quality digital audio/video from a camera via a firewire connection would require both high rotational speed and fast seek times in order to keep from overflowing the drive's buffer and starting to lose data -- or at least traffic-jam the data pipe. That's why you see both higher rotational speeds and faster seek times in such as the wide-screen Toshiba notebooks that are better suited to multimedia work.

Truth be known, though, you'll rarely see a true pro video dude using even one of those devices. They need at least 10,000 RPM rotational speed and seek times in the ultra fractions of a second. Such drives are rarely available in the kind of miniaturized sizes required in notebooks and/or tablets. Pro video dudes who need portability use, at minimum, what are called "lunchbox" computers; or, optimally, a suitcase style computer -- either of which are little more than a desktop machine that's been as portablized (is that even a word?) as possible. They use these larger, lunkier, but-still-portable devices because they want to be able to purchase and use desktop-quality components without being locked-in to both the brand specific and proprietary component problems, along with slower drive performance times, of typical notebooks and tablets.

Bottom line: 4200 RPM is fine. Of course 5400 is better... but not better enough not to get the 4200.

HELPFUL HINT: You can improve overall drive performance by never letting it sleep whenever you're plugged-in to 120VAC (or 220VAC if that's what you've got where you are). A drive must spin down to 0 RPM to sleep; then must spin back up to full rotational speed and then stabilize there for a few milliseconds before the read/write head can begin track-to-track seeking. Sleeping is only helpful for extending battery life when you're using batteries. And most notebook/tablet owners know that despite manufacturer claims, batteries only last two minutes (okay that's an exaggeration... but not by much) and, therefore, are too frustrating to try to use. So if you have a setting that lets you control it, turn off all sleeping -- both of the drive, the screen and everything else -- when plugged-in to the wall; leaving sleep features turned on for battery-operated mode.

Which renders even the use of the word "opinion" as applies to him suspect, in my opinion... but I digress.

Firewire is a hot interface. It's fast as greased lightning (as non-ethernet interfaces go) and is the standard of digital video (and now, finally, most digital audio) applications. Most of the new digital video recorders -- especially the pro or semi-pro models -- all connect to digital video recorders or PCs using firewire either exclusively or primarily (with, if so, S-video or component video or USB as options).

Firewire is even fast enough to run an external hard drive, though probably not for something as demanding as realtime video transfer from camera to a PC/notebook/tablet utilizing a firewire-connected hard drive. However, after the realtime transfer is completed to the PC's main drive, firewire is certainly fast enough to transfer of said video to the external, firewire-connected drive as back-up, for example.

Firewire is, in fact, fast enough to network through instead of (but not better than) an Ethernet connection; and there are now several impressive firewire networking products available out there that are finally affordable. Of course, I've always wondered why network via firewire when the ethernet port is made for that and is as fast as most anyone would ever want to go... but I'm just sayin'.

I most certainly agree that Firewire is important, and that it's nicer if it's built-in to the backplane of the machine, but you've also got to ask yourself when or if you'd ever actually need to use it.

Yes, you could easily get it on a PCMCIA card. If you ever need it (and since many external drives are now firewire enabled, that might just happen), and if both your PCMCIA slots (I presume there are two on these machines) are not already spoken for, there's certainly nothing wrong with using one of them for a decent IEEE 1394 (firewire) card.

Continued in next post...

 

Part 2 of 2

...continued from previous post.

Yes, but not so inordinately more than any other brand that it should be singled-out as unacceptably hot. The problem is that pretty much all notebooks that have anything approaching a 2 GHz (or faster) CPU speed are going to generate some serious heat. The two biggest heat sources in a notebook/tablet are, in fact, the CPU (which is in the half of the device that sits on the tabletop or your lap) and the video backlighting in the upper half of the device behind the screen. The CPU heat can actually be hot enough to slightly melt a cheap plastic laminate tabletop or, if on one's lap, the polyester in cheap pants or a skirt. And it can even give one a temporarily painful red welt on one's leg if on the lap. It's becoming a real problem, and is one of the reasons many notebooks don't have faster CPUs. Gamers who goose-up their CPUs on desktop machines are very familiar with the heat problem; and they employ some fairly sophisticated techniques and products for dissipating said heat, including sometimes-costly liquid-cooled gizmos, expensive and high-end heat sinks, high-silver-content thermal transfer greases, tiny fans or even ducted blowers with outrageous throughput for their sizes, and peltier circuits... among other things... either alone or in combinations.

While notebooks/tablets use a somewhat different kind of far-lower-voltage CPU than do desktops, in order to get the high clock speeds their internal gates impose some very serious electrical impedance which, because the low voltage has to work so much harder to either clear, be redirected, or be impeded by them, gives off some sometimes butt-kickin' heat.

Heat is the #1 killer of integrated circuitry... and batteries, too, now that I think about it. But for now, let's worry more about circuitry: For every degree above the circuit's manufacturer-recommended optimal operating temperature that you run said circuit, a predictable and calculable number of minutes, hours, months, or years (depending on the circuit type) of overall operational time will be shaved off said circuit's life. Heat can also render a machine computationally inaccurate. I've actually seen computers in industrial environments where the inside of the machine has been allowed to get too hot be unable to correctly add two six-digit numbers using Windows' built-in calculator utility. Cool that machine down (and if the CPU has not been permanently damaged by the heat) and, voila, it starts computing correctly again. Computational errors can also affect more things than the obvious mathematical tasks. The same heat that goofs-up the CPUs arithmetic/logical component can also goof-up I/O and the DMA channel, making programs load improperly, and files and databases to become corrupted. It's terribly important to always give heat a place to go -- and away from the circuitry -- some way, somehow.

The #2 killer, in case you're wondering, is change in temperature. Integrated circuits like to be and stay one temperature. Turning them off and on and shooting them from room temperature to operational temperature and back again, over and over, eventually starts to crystallize things inside and shaves useful life off the circuits. That's, in part, why I recommend never turning a computer off -- ever -- if you can figure out a way to do it. Don't let the hard drive sleep, or the monitor... none of it. Use a screen saver or a manual screen blanker that can be clicked-on from the desktop or the start up menu and can be "awakened' with a mouseclick or keyboard press and just leave the machine on 24/7/365. Of course, that's not practical with notebooks/tablets, I realize... but I'm just sayin'.

• WARNING: In office buildings where the air conditioning is turned off at night and on weekends, one must balance the benefits of leaving the computer on 24/7/365 against the damage that can be caused by the tremendous heat that can build-up inside the computer during times when a commercial building is not longer circulating cooling air. All the benefits of never turning a machine off can be offset by the extreme temperatures possible inside a machine in a room where the ambient temperature is 85 degrees or higher. So everything's a tradeoff. One should always keep that in mind.

Notebook/tablet heat is a well-known problem... with several products floating around out there that try to address them. True "slate" tablets tend to focus on lower heat and power consumption; but if you want a combo/flip notebook/tablet convertible device, you're going to have some heat... maybe even some serious heat.

The most common product one sees out there that deals with this problem is some kind of heat sink or shield or cooler that sits below the notebook or clamps onto its bottom section... some, like this one, for example, have fans in them that are powered by the USB port (which, of course, draws down on your battery when in battery mode) or even have an external AC adapter; and some, like these are passive, and don't. (here's another one) and are just heat sinking (or some other means of heat-dissipating) devices. Some, like this one, for example, are just stupid and should be avoided. That said, the seemingly stupid LapDesk 2 is nevertheless weirdly interesting (but should also probably be avoided).

There are a couple in the passive category that are kinda' interesting and may actually work. For example, I kinda' like the LapLogic "Traveler" and "Guardian" series which uses a fairly sophisticated sinking and dissipation technique and can allegedly strip away about 50 to nearly 60 degrees (F) of heat from the underside of the notebook/tablet machine. Its manufacturer claims it's better than devices with fans in them. And NEXUS makes its new model TDD-3000 passive notebook cooler (i.e., no fans) that utilizes what's called "heat pipe" technology that I can tell you, from experience, absolutely works because I've used it in a design for something that I can't actually discuss here but which, believe me, has tremendous heat problems in which I employed heat pipe technology (among other techniques) to help alleviate.

VANTEC is another well-known -- maybe the best-known -- maker of notebook coolers that are well worth a look. Its model LapCool 2 LPC-301 is nice; or, if you'd like to get additional utility out of your cooler, the LPC-305 sports a built-in 4-port USB hub. Or, in the same, multi-function spirit, here's one that has not only a 4-port USB hub, but it also has a 9-in-1 card reader built-in so you can read the memory card from your digital camera and transfer its contents right into to your notebook and onto its hard drive. There are several multi-function products out there like that. I'm not saying you should actual get any of them... I'm just telling you they're there.

And there are others well worth a look. Personally, I'd try to alleviate the problem passively (no fans) first. If that doesn't work, than a unit with a fan or two (or three or four) in it might be better choice. Don't worry about it 'til you get the machine and see just how hot it is. You might find it's not as big a deal as you thought it would be... or, conversely, that you damn-near need a fire extinguisher. Just wait and see and then do the very same kind of good research on a cooling device that you've done on the computer itself. You'll be fine.

One last thing, if you'll permit me: I know you've already narrowed your focus to three machines; and I don't want to goof that up by turning your head toward another. In fact, I recommend that you even consider it only if your application of the notebook/tablet will require that it be extremely (and the operative word, here, is "extremely") rugged. If so (and only if so), and if money's not too much of an issue, you should at least look at the Panasonic tablets in the "Toughbook" or any of its other intentionally "ruggedized" product lines. Panasonic makes more portable computers for military and police applications than just about anyone; and they do it extraordinarily well. But, beware... you will pay for it. If rugged is not required in your application, then don't even worry about Panasonic. Any of the devices to which you've already narrowed it are probably better than any of the non-ruggedized Panasonic products. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the ruggedized option in case you needed it.

Anyway, hope that helps! Of course Jack and my ex-wife will say it didn't, or that the reader had to suffer through too much pontification to derive any benefit... but I dare say Jack wouldn't want to know what I think of my ex-wife's opinion... or his, for that matter... at least as regards that.

 

I'm certainly getting my money's worth...

Hi Gregg,

Don't worry, I knew you were just kidding about the fee! Unfortunately, my snarkiness often falls flat when in written form.

Again, fantastic advice and knowledge, many thanks. You do realize, of course, that this only prompts more questions!

Okay, I can see not much difference between a HD at 4200 compared to 5400. But, what about one at 7200? Would an extra $200 for that one be worth it, in terms of noticeable reduction in boot and app opening times?

Heat/Ruggedness: I was aware of the Panasonic rugged models, but I don't really need to consider that, and as you said, they're quite expensive. However, one good solution to that, and the heat problem for the Fujitsu, as I've found out, is the "Bump Case" that F. makes for its tablets. It gives a good measure of protection, eliminates almost all of the heat problem (at least on the legs), and the tablet can be in either laptop or slate mode without removing it from the case. So, I think that's a worthwhile accessory to get.

As you can see, I think I've made my mind up on the Fujitsu. The more I read about it, the more positive comments I find with regards to its build and quality. There's a Fujitsu dealer here in the UAE (although I can't get the config I want through them, so will still order from the U.S.), and the tablet comes with an int'l warranty, so that's reassuring.

Now, if I could only make up my mind between the screens! Either an XGA 1024 x 768, with 170degree wide angle viewing (which seems very useful on a tablet), or, the SXGA+ 1400 x 1050, wide angle viewing around 100degrees, which would also be useful for more screen real estate, since the screen is 12.1" (and I currently have a 14" on my notebook, a 17" at work, so I might get irritated scrolling all the time with a 1024 x 768 resolution on the smaller screen!).

Thanks again, Gregg!
Adrienne

P.S. I knew there was a good reason why I left my computer on all the time, w/o sleeping! Now I can articulate why.

 

If you can forego the keyboard there is a line of nice portable PCs from Motion Computing (http://www.motioncomputing.com/) in the US.

I have been considering one of these but right now a tablet PC is more a luxury than a necessity what with two IBM ThinkPad X31s with which to complete my assignments. Besides I type faster and more legibly than I write.

 

Cheers, sentinel, Motion slates are sweet, but I definitely need a convertible; I still have a dissertation to write!

I've been researching tablets for a couple of months now, and it's been a hard decision, to be honest. I love the form factor of the HP TC1100, since it is both convertible and slate, but a 10.4" screen is just too small, and its power isn't so great.

I definitely think the Fujitsu is my decision; 5 more days and I can order that puppy, woo-hoo! Then, of course, I have to wait for it to be built and shipped -- and I can be an impatient gal.

Cheers,
Adrienne

 

Part 1 of 3

I agree that the MotionComputing slates are nice. I've had my eye on them for a while. Actually, there are many very nice tablets out there that are innovative and some of which are terribly interesting. And I'm guessing Adrienne knows about most of them because she's visiting the various tablet review and comparison sites (like tabletpcbuzz.com, for example, among others, I'm sure).

The problem, however, remains that when you stray away from the really mainstream brands you run a serious risk of having a repair or parts problem down the road. Heck, I've even seen the big dogs up and run out of a particular part or have temporary service delays. The problem is, in part, that of all industries out there, the computer industry is the most heavily leveraged by venture capital firms that have a nasty habit of cutting bait and shutting down the operation if things start to go bad. Startups and innovators can disappear in a heartbeat, as we've seen over and over again in the computer industry, leaving you with a machine in need of repair and no one to do it (or, at least, nowhere to buy those unique parts). It can be a real problem.

Then a tablet may never be for you 'cause one thing's for sure: Character recognition software still ain't what it will, I hope, one day be; and you gotta' write legibly, recongnizably and -- and this is important -- consistently for a tablet PC to pay off as a means of freehand noting.

Good questions. Two influences are at work, here. First, there's the simple arithmetic we can apply to it that will give us some logical cues. 5400 is around 29% greater than 4200. 7200 is 33% greater than 5400, and 71% greater than 4200. So, logically, we can see that 5400 probably isn't faster enough than 4200 to be worth a $200 difference in price; and 7200 probably isn't faster enough than 5400 to warrant paying $200 more for it (except for what I'm about to mention as the second influence at work, here); but 7200 may very well be faster enough than 4200 to warrant paying $200 for 7200 than for 4200.

And here's the second thing at work, here, that might make 7200 worth $200 more than 5400: Sometimes 7200 RPM drives are just crippled (or dumbed-down or whatever metaphor you want to use) 10,000 RPM drives. When that's true, the 7200 RPM drive usually has all the benefits of the 10,000 RPM drive... including, and especially, faster seek times. If so, then that 7200 RPM drive is going to be even faster, overall, than the percentage of rotational speed faster than the 5400 or the 4200 RPM drives, respectively. Without seeing the specs on all three drives, I really can't say for sure. But you might find that the 7200 could very well be worth the extra $200... but, again, it just depends on your application.

I'm guessing the reason that Fujitsu is even offering a 7200 RPM drive (assuming the capacity of all three drives is the same) is because Fujitsu knows that some users will want to use the device for audio/video/multimedia applications. If there's just no chance that you'll ever do that; if your applications will be limited to typical business apps and Internet usage (including occasional multimedia web content), then, honestly, I don't know, if the 7200 RPM drive would allow the machine to load software or retrieve data sufficiently faster to warrant the added $200 expense.

What I mean is, if you had a way to have three identical Fujitsu machines sitting on the table next to one another, one with the 4200 RPM drive inside, and the other two with the 5400 and 7200 RPM drives inside, respectively; and if all three machines had identical installations of Windows, utilities, and application software on them; and if you had a person sitting at each machine; and if you left-single-clicked on a program icon on the desktop so that all that would be left to do is hit the [Enter] on the keyboard to open it; and then if a 4th, 5th, and 6th person with stop watches were standing behind each of the first three people; and if you said, "Okay... on three," and made it so that all three would hit that [Enter] key at precisely the same instant and at that same instant the other three would start their stop watches and then stop them whenever the program in question fully loaded (as evidenced by either a certain document or file being fully loaded within the application and the cursor stopping being an hourglass, or by the hard drive light no longer flickering, or by whatever indicator everyone agreed on), I believe you would see a not-insignificant difference in speed between the 4200 and the 7200 (but still only a second or two or, if not, then certainly not more than maybe five or six), and maybe even a noticeable difference between the 5400 and the 7200. But would it be two hundred dollars worth of difference? I dunno. Only you could answer that question. Only you know what those few seconds are worth to you.

Here's the thing: If you were doing audio/video work; or if you were, for example, routinely rendering massive 3D drawings that are so big that they won't fit into available memory and so, therefore, in order to rotate the image 360 degrees on any plane many reads from the hard drive, and many swaps from virtual memory space, would be required in order to fully rotate it, then, for sure, you'd need to get the 7200 RPM drive because if you didn't, the image might not rotate smoothly without hesitations and other general herky-jerkiness during virtual memory swaps. If those are your kinds of applications, then spend the extra $200 for sure. But if you're doing word processing, spread sheets, PowerPoint presentations, accounting, email and general web browsing, the 4200 RPM drive might be all you need.

NOTE: Even PowerPoint presentations could require the faster drive... that is, if a presentation incorporated, for example, full-motion video at 30 fps and/or large CAD or 3D drawings that need to rotate without being herky-jerky. So, you see, sometimes even plain ol' business users, and not just multimedia dudes or architects, sometimes need faster drives. Again, it just depends on the application.

Continued in next post...

 

Part 2 of 3

...continued from previous post.

Bottom line: If money's no object, just get the faster drive and be done with it. Heck, we've already expended $200 worth of worry in this post alone! Just know that unless you have an actual use for the faster drive where its added speed will make an actual difference in an observable way, it may not end-up being worth $200 more to you as a practical matter. Just depends. Only you can decide.

Hmmm. 1400x1050 on only 12 inches of physical real estate. I dunno. That's small (not so much the 12 inches -- although, that is small -- but by "small" I mean the size of the image components on only 12 inches of real estate at such a small resolution). You must have good eyes -- or, if you don't, then you're over estimating the ability of your eyes to be comfortable with such small letters and icons, etc.

See, here's the thing to remember: Only if the application has an adjustment in it that allows it to size its components (letters, images, etc.) independently of the screen resolution settings (like alot of CAD software is capable of doing, for example) can it ever really pay off to set to such high -- almost uncomfortable -- resolutions on such physically tiny screens. 1024x768 is already pushing the limit on only a 12" screen, in my opinion. But that's just my opinion. I don't know if you wear glasses -- I'm pushing 50 and I've only worn them for about 3 years -- but if you don't, then believe me when I tell you that when your eyesite finally begins to fail you (as happens with many people in their 40s), you'll really become sensitive to such things.

Sometimes a little scrolling is okay... know what I mean? If your screen were only three inches larger I'd not hesitate to tell you to take the risk on the higher resolution model. But it's only a 12-inch screen. That's really small. I suggest you think really long and hard about this. If your desktop monitor and video card is capable of extraordinarily small resolutions, try playing with them and seeing what I'm talking about. Even if your desktop monitor is 19", set it to 1600xsomethingoranother (or higher) and then get up from your chair and step back about 15 or 20 feet from it and you'll begin to get a feeling for what 1400x1050 might look like on only 12 inches of real estate.

Again, it's your choice. But I think you should spend more time considering this one than the hard drive speed issue. A mistake here could make a huge difference in how much you enjoy your machine over time. Remember that the march of the computer industry toward higher (smaller) resolutions is driven by the monitor makers who are figuring out ways to make larger and larger monitors cheaper and cheaper. I think -- and this is just me -- that 1400x1050 or 1600xwhatever resolutions (or higher) are for 19" and larger monitors, minimally. In my opinion -- and, again, this is just my opinion -- 1024x768 is already the absolute outer limit of what any 12-inch diagonal measure, common, 4:3-aspect-ratio screen should be asked to handle; and 1024x768 is completely, outrageously, and unacceptably off the scale if the screen's aspect ratio is 16:9 (widescreen, like on some of the Toshibas and Sonys). But, again, that's just my opinion... as an old fart eyeglasses wearer who thinks 1024x768 is small even on an old 17-inch CRT-type monitor. So judge the situation -- and my opinion -- accordingly.

I think if someone put a gun to my head and demanded that I accurately predict how happy would be 100 users from a wide distribution of age groups of the 1024x768 on 12 inches of real estate, versus the same number and kind of users of the 1400x1050 on 12 inches of real estate after one year of use, I'm afraid I'd predict that by a not-insignificant margin the 1024x768 users would report a higher overall happiness percentage; and that even the ones who are happy with the 1400x1050 would complain a little that when they're fatigued, their screens are a bit tougher on them. I could be wrong, of course -- and often am -- but that's how my nearly 30 years of listening to end-users' comments about such things would inform my prediction... for whatever that's worth.

If you've got terrific vision -- either with or without correction -- and if you feel confident that you'd be okay with such tiny icons and letters, then what the heck... go for it. Just remember that you can't really compensate by setting the icons and fonts up to a larger size than Windows default optimal because then other things start looking funny... like the icon labels, the lettering in the bar across the tops of the windows, button labels, sometimes even line endings and word wrappings -- especially in desktop publishing applications where WYSIWYG is important and what appears on the screen is supposed to look exactly like what will appear on paper when printed.

And alot of people will question it, believe me... or maybe you've already noticed. Their arguments/questions are always the same: Won't it wear out the machine faster? Or won't it at least wear out the hard drive faster since, after all, as long as it's on, the platters inside are always spinning at 4200 or 5400 or 7200 or 10,000 (or more) RPMs. Won't the spindle inside wear out faster?

And the answer is, "yes, of course... technically." But today's hard drives are built to a mean-time-between-failure (MTBF) standard that is usually longer than the number of hours that computer manufacturer intended for anyone to ever still be using its machine. Hard drives are virtually indestructible today... at least compared with days that old farts like me can remember. They'll sit there and spin for years without a hiccup. In fact, I've seen server hard drives spin and spin and spin for years and only fail to spin (or to at least do it badly for a little while) only after they've been turned off a while and the spindle has been allowed to cool. Then they're flaky for a while when you first fire-up the server again.

Continued in next post...

 

Part 3 of 3

...continued from previous post.

The downside of leaving a machine on 100% of the time is, as I've already mentioned, the possiblity of heat damage because the machine's in an office building in which the interior ambient temperature is allowed to get up to 100 or more on a hot summer weekend when the air conditioning is turned off. But there are some others:

• Always-on computers suck more dust into them in 24 hours than, obviously, a computer that's only on for one-third of that amount of time per 24 hours during a normal workday. Dust is a blanket. It lands on the flat top surfaces of integrated circuit chips and keeps them from being able to dissipate heat off themselves as effectively and, therefore, shaves hours or years off their useful lives. Dust also builds-up on the leading edges of fan blades and renders them unable to move as much air as when said fan blades are clean.
  
  If you don't believe that that can make a huge difference, stand under a dirty ceiling fan in a room with the windows and doors closed, then turn on the fan to its slowest speed and light a match and hold it up to eye level and watch how much it flickers. Then shut off the ceiling fan and get a damp rag and really get the its blades clean... and then repeat the experiment. With clean blades, the match will flicker more and maybe even be blown out by the increased volume of air flow. Nothing inhibits a fan's ability to move air like than caked-up crap on the leading edges and backsides of the blades. In computers, this includes the fan inside the power supply, the fan on the CPU and/or chips on video cards, and any case fans that might happen to be installed.
  
  Computers -- especially if they're left on 24/7/365 -- should be opened-up and have the dust blown out of them, and their fans cleaned, anywhere from no less often than four times a year to sometimes as often as monthly in particularly dusty environments. Even machines that are only run 8 hours a day should be de-dusted at least twice a year... sometimes even more often.
  
• Windows machines left on 24/7/365 should still be periodically rebooted. This is particularly true for versions of Windows that sit atop old-fasioned DOS -- like Windows 9x and ME, for example. Such machines should be rebooted at least daily -- sometimes (but rarely) even more often. Windows NT machines can withstand fewer rebootings, but even then I always reboot NT on the desktop daily, and in the server room weekly. Same for Windows/Server 2000, Server 2003 and XP. People argue with me about this, but trust me: Windows -- especially 9x/ME, but even, to some degree, NT/2K/XP -- is a terrible, terrible memory manager. Windows memory problems and artifact-leaving accumulate for as long as the machine is on. Periodic restarts are essential to keep overall speed and performance from degrading -- and other bad things from happening -- over time.
  
  UNIX/Linux-based systems, on the other hand, are a different matter. Some UNIX/Linux sysadmins take pride in how many hours, days, weeks, months or even years they can keep a server going without ever restarting it. And those operating systems can tolerate that. But not Windows. Not by a long shot -- even versions not based on DOS. Not the Mac OS either (though admittedly less so), no matter what Apple says. With Windows machines, at minimum, reboot daily on the desktop; and at least weekly in the server room. Every server (not web servers, I should point out, but in-house file and other similar types of servers) that I have installed or am supporting anywhere on the planet has a program running on it that I wrote some years ago which sends a pop-up warnning message to all users every two minutes starting about 30 minutes before the scheduled reboot, telling them to close their work and log-off (and stay off until a certain time); then about five minutes before reboot all processes are shut down and all users are forcibly logged-out (and locked-out for 15 minutes; then five minutes later Windows server does an orderly shut down, and then a hard restart (which is the same as turning the machine off and then on again, as opposed to a "soft" restart which is the equivalent of using the Ctrl-Alt-Del keys to restart the machine... which hard restart does the most effective flush of volitile memory possible, which is the point). I usually shedule this for around 3:00 AM on Monday mornings (or what most of us call "Sunday night"), when it's least likely that anyone will be using the system.
  
  On some of my desktop machines, I have a desktop version of that same software utility running as a system tray application on 9x/ME desktop machines, or as a service on NT/2K/XP desktop machines, that does the same pop-up warnings every two minutes for 30 minutes and then an orderly Windows shutdown and a hard reset... also at around 3:00 AM, but, because it's a desktop machine, seven days a week. People without such a utility to handle it for them should just get into the habit of rebooting the machine whenever they're done with it for the day as the last thing they do before getting up from it, putting on their coat, and leaving for home, so that said machine will be fresh and rebooted when they return to work the next morning. On Monday mornings, they should reboot again, regardless. Or so it is my advice. And, of course, this only applies to always-on machines.
  
  Obviously, those who shut down their machines at the end of the day, leave them off all night, and then turn them on again when they first arrive at work the next (or the following Monday) morning don't have to worry about such things. People who do that only have to worry about their machines not lasting as long as machines that are on 24/7/365... but now I'm digressing again.

By the way, am I the only one who's noticed that 24/7/365 doesn't really follow; and that, technically, if the pattern set by "24/7" is to be followed, then the third number should be "52," as in "24/7/52"? Wow. Now I'm really digressing. I must be done with everything I have to say.

Hope that helps. Buh-bye now.

 

Cheers!

Gregg,

My apologies; I haven't been ignoring your last postings. Our new hires have started arriving, and I'm now on the bounce about 16-18 out of 24hrs a day; it's 2030, and I've got to get up again at 0130 to head up to Dubai airport to pick up more.

So, this is short and sweet, but thanks so much for your advice on everything. I've decided to get the lower resolution screen, mainly because I don't want to sacrifice the wide angle display, more than anything else, and will live with a little scrolling (or hook up an external monitor if it drives me too nuts when at home), and I think I'll go ahead and pop for the 7200 speed HD; it's only $170 above the 4200, so I figure that can't hurt, and even a little speed is better than nothing; my current computer literally takes about 11 minutes to fully boot up, so I'm very keen to cut that down to a minimum on my new one!

Okay, off to sleep. I'll be back on here sporadically for the next few weeks, but thanks again, tons, for all your advice; it's helped me a lot in focusing on exactly how to config my new machine.

Cheers,
Adrienne