Old Tech = Useless Tech??? Part 2

Following on from my last post, it's time to bring out the second piece of tech that I bought from E-bay: The Hewlett Packard HP 360LX.
Now, I would not be surprised if you hadn't heard of this one as it was an early device in a niche that produced much more advanced models before the niche itself died off. That's not to say it was bad, per se, just that the march of technology and public reaction to it meant that this model didn't have the staying power as originally intended.

Closed, in good condition

Open, the keyboard is clean and well defined

So, the HP 360LX, a palmtop computer with a built in keyboard, packing a 4 greyscale screen (640x240 resolution) with backlight, 8Mb (!) of RAM and a decent (for the time and form factor) array of expansion options (PC Card slot for networking, Compact Flash for storage). The keyboard is very much like a calculator, with hard plastic keys with only a modicum of travel. The machine runs Windows CE Handhled PC edition that rocks the Windows 95 vibe like a champ. Even this hinge is quite sturdy, clicking open with a satisfying snap, though it does feel a little loose during travel, which I am putting down to t he age of the machine.

This was supposed to offer a desktop style experience in  the palm of your hand, and in true Microsoft style, form dictated function meaning that the usability of the device is vastly impaired by the operating system choices. The relatively slow processor and greyscale screen mean that you get to see plenty of the egg-timer icon and even then, the image is washed out and ghosts horribly, meaning you'll need to use the backlight continuously just to see what you are doing.

It lives, but a smidge dark...

Let there be (back)light!

Stylus to bottom left, CF slot on the left, battery compartment, PC Card on the right, battery back-up in the middle

The screen is touch enabled but, with its age, it's a resistive one, not capacitive. Basically, that means you need to use the included style as your fingers won't do. Using this really does prove that screen, and in particular, touchscreen tech has moved on a hell of a lot in the past twenty years.

Once more, into the Darkness...

Lighting it up like it's 1997!

Software wise, the 360LX comes with the default Pocket PC set up, so pocket versions of the MS Office apps and various utilities. There is also Internet Explorer but as the only connection option available is infra-red and I do not have an Ethernet PC Card, I am unable to demo this. 
So what use is it in 2017?

Well, it has Word and the Compact Flash slot, so a quick trip to Amazon gained me a 1GB CF card (the maximum the 360LX can handle is 2GB which was a sizable piece of storage back then) and I was in business. Files on the card are recognised on a modern day Win 10 machine (remembering to save as .txt or .rtf format first) and copying them over was quick and easy. This means the 360LX can act as a back up portable device if I am looking for something smaller than the AlphaSmart. This is good thing.

Word, with backlight.

Word without backlight.

Another positive: the batteries - the machine takes two AA batteries for about 10 hours of use (7 if you have the backlight on) but that still worked out as about a week of semi-regular usage. Ok, the cost of buying batteries might be an issue but means that the device can still be used today. Later models (labelled the Jornada range) offered traditional style keyboards and colour displays but swapped the AA's for built in rechargeable cells which might not be in the best condition today and will cost more to replace. That is something that people have become used to now, non-replaceable batteries, meaning once the cell has gone, you either replace it or, given the time you have had the machine, replace it with a newer model even though, battery life aside, there was nothing else wrong with your machine. A fine example of built in obsolescence.

This will make a fine back up device and one that will easily fit in a rucksack or satchel (the AlphaSmart is a tad too large for my day-to-day bag). The device format itself died off as laptops became smaller and cheaper, there was just no need to carry something like the 360LX/Jornada range when a much more capable and versatile laptop would do the same but, nonetheless, I have always liked the idea of a handheld device that you can type on.

If I was after something like this with a more modern spin, then it would either one of the GPD handheld PC's here (which are fully fledged Windows PC's with severe constraints on battery life and keyboards, plus there is the cost issue!!!) or the Gemini PDA (Indiegogo link here and company website here) which although looking good, is crowd funded and not yet live hardware until next year and there is a cost issue with that device as well).

Having said all of  that, it is true that there is still some use in older technology if you are prepared to put a bit of thought into it and I can't see any reason apart from complete failure that either the 360LX or the AlphaSmart 3000 cannot be used for a good few years yet.

Old Tech = Useless Tech???

During my recent post about computers I wanted to own when I was younger, I spent a modicum of time on e-Bay, searching for those bits of old kit and seeing how much they were going for. As well as being a bit of an eye opener, it also dropped a couple of old pieces of tech that, whilst they fell out of the purview of that post, were interesting when they were released and might still have a use today. Since the prices weren't silly, I ended up buying two pieces of portable tech that I think still have a use. Today, I'm stalking about the AlphaSmart 3000.

The AlphaSmart 3000 was part of a range of battery powered word processors released by NEO Direct Inc. and the range was on sale from 1993 (the original AlphaSmart) until 2013 when the Neo model was discontinued. There were several models throughout the years but the one I bought appeared around the middle of the lines existence in 2000 and was discontinued in 2006.

Includes carry case, quick start sheet and manual

The 3000 I bought is in good condition and cost £40. I have seen them for a tad less but the condition, case and accessories made the price quite decent anyway.

Remember the Bondi Blue iMac? This was inspired by that due to the inclusion of USB connectivity.

The monochrome display shows four lines of text, the memory holds eight files of approximately 12.5 pages of text and connectivity is either by a USB port or 8-pin serial.

USB to the left, Serial to the right...

Power is provided by three AA batteries which have a life of around 700 hours(!). As a practical guide, I have had the AlphaSmart for two months and the first set of cells are still going strong. Whilst it would be nice to have a backlit display, I can certainly understand why one isn't present and with the use intended, it isn't needed. This also helps battery life.

The screen is very clear, but not backlit.

As designed, the AlphaSmart was meant for children in a classroom environment. The light, compact design and plastic case make it easily portable and quite durable. The keyboard is a tad on  the small side for an adult but still very useable, indeed, most of this was typed on the 3000 and transferred over to a Chromebook for posting and images. The keys are a bit clacky and lightweight but they do have a decent amount of travel and I have used far worse in my time.

Operation is simple, the functions keys are pretty straight forward and there is even a cheat sheet of key commands on the back of the device.

Handy help guide on the base of the device

Whilst earlier models used infra-red to transfer files, and later devices had memory card slots, it was either USB or serial port for this one and as a cable wasn't included with mine, I did wonder how I would transfer text over. I needn't have worried. You see, the USB port is of the kind found on most printers so that solved the cable issues. As for compatibility issues, not a bother. Once plugged into my desktop, the 3000 detected the connection and asked me if I wanted to send a file over (file 1 by default but you can change that with a couple of key presses). I opened Google Docs in a browser window and hit the Send key on the 3000. Within a few seconds, the test had appeared line by line in the document. It was that easy. Talk about user friendly. Incidentally, once connected, the AlphaSmart goes into keyboard mode and you can use it as a regular keyboard. Just watch out for the swap between " and @. That caught me out the first time.

So what do I use it for? Well, it's a text entry device, so typing on the go. The 3000 has been to Amsterdam twice and proved a boon each time. Okay, it's not as compact as a laptop and it's a one purpose device, but what more do I need? The battery life is not an issue, the storage is more than enough and the keyboard is far more comfortable to use than my Chromebook. It does for me very nicely.

That it's not sold today is a reflection of changes to the market. Ever since cheap (under £200) laptops became available, educational buyers have flocked to the more versatile option. That this plays to the big businesses like Google and Microsoft misses the point of having such devices. If all you want is text entry for classroom and homework use, then additional features just get in the way, but since the big corporations want you to use more of their features, of course they are going to up-sell. 

Is there still a market for text entry devices like this in the age of cheap Windows/Chromebook laptops? Well, kinda. You see, if you want a no frills portable electronic typewriter, you are limited to the second hand AlphaSmart market or the Astrohaus Freewrite. This started as a crowd funded electronic typewriter called the Hemmingwrite, based on the practice Hemmingway used to write on the fly and not edit. The Freewrite is a far bigger device but with a proper Cherry-switched keyboard and an e-ink display. The battery life is far shorter and whilst you can connect via USB, they promote cloud services to send the files you create to your service of choice. It only holds three files but storage is much larger than the 3000. To be honest, it looks okay, the major problem being the price: £383 as of the last time I checked. That is a serious wodge of cash and for a one task only device, that is not justifiable to me. Yes, it gives you distraction free writing that a traditional laptop doesn't but at a price. Plus, its portability is suspect. 

For me, and maybe others, since the AlphaSmarts on e-Bay always sell, these devices are certainly useful today and prove that just because the tech is old doesn't mean to say it no longer has a use. Yeah, it's a niche use, but compared to the Chromebook I have used for the last four years, the 3000 is much better at text entry and will continue to be used for as long as it lasts. After that, maybe another trip to e-Bay.

Films and thoughts

With a smidge of spare time recently, I have managed to catch up with a few of films that I didn't get to see whilst they had a cinema release (or didn't get a cinema release at all). Whilst they differ in genre and tone, they each highlight a different section of modern day film making that made me think.

The Mummy (2017)

First up, The Mummy, starring Tom Cruise and intending to launch the Universal Dark Universe franchise (Well, kinda, Dracula Untold in 2014 was supposed to launch the series but that was savaged upon release). Now, you'd expect the usual Tom Cruise affair here, toothy smile, charming wit, a relatable character. Well, no, you don't get any of those. As this is supposed to be a horror film, Cruise's character is a rough diamond, except he's not likeable at all. In fact, he's a bit of a dick. Even though there is an attempt to build a buddy comedy vibe at the beginning of the film, this falls incredibly flat, even with the final reveal at the end.
The rest of the cast is ok, if not forgettable with the exception of Russell Crowe. Oscar winner, all round good actor, this film gives him Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde to play with and Jesus wept, it's bad. Not the Jekyll sections, he's passable, it's the Hyde appearance and the 'mockney' accent served with enough ham to start a deli counter that really stomp on any pretensions the film has.
Coupled with an overuse of CGI (which is a fault of many films these days) and a story/script that credits six individuals(!), The Mummy is a disappointing film that feels very much like a committee designed film with it's eyes focused on the Dark Universe series rather than telling a good tale on its own. That attitude seems to encompass a lot of films (and the series they are in/trying to start these days - the DC Universe suffers badly form this yet the Marvel Cinematic Universe seems so far to have avoided that trap, even after 17 ish films and counting.) which then leads to the next film I want to talk about.

Transformers: The Last Knight

Number five (5!) in the Transformers franchise, The Last Knight is a prime example of trying to keep a money making franchise going long after it should have been put down. However, when your series hits $1 billion is earnings each for films 3 and 4, the money men and the studio know that there be gold in them there hills. Or so you would think...
The Transformers series started off with a decent first film, successful enough to get a sequel. The following three earned more each time but were (to kindly put it) critically mauled. That didn't, however, hurt the box office takings and it was decided to have number 5 re-boot the series mythology. This would allow spin off films (Bumblebee is due next year) and also provide a foundation for several future films. All to enhance the bottom line of the studio and the toy company.
That didn't work with this film. In fact, The Last Knight seems to have proved that if you shovel enough crap at people, no matter how shiny it looks, they will get sick of it in the end.
Whilst I have seen films one to four, I had put off watching five as it just didn't interest me. But then one night, flicking through what to watch, there it was and I decided to give it a go. Hmmm...
Firstly, the negatives: the story is convoluted, boring and the film is far, fat too long, by atleast 40 minutes. Again, it's the mythology set up, because as they were trying to start it off again, they not only referenced the previous films, but then added new layers that didn't gel but had to be in there to set up the future entries (see the pattern?). Positives? There is more humour (and not the robot testicles of the 2nd film either) and the core of the film is decent enough. There is still too much confusing CGI and characters are paper thin (and that's the male characters, the women of the film are effectively place holders).
It tells you how much you are enjoying a film when the conversation whilst watching it centres on how well Alnwick Castle, Bamburgh and Newcastle are featured (the latter less so, possibly not at all, it's the blink and you'll miss it editing of a car chase). That and calling bullshit every time logic goes out of the window, which in a Transformers movie, is very common. If you liked the previous entries, this is a film you might enjoy (the box office for this entry was down over 40% from number 4, a big disappointment for all concerned). If you haven't seen any of the films, watch the first one and leave it there. If there is a 6th film, I doubt it very much I'll see it.

The Man From U.N.C.L.E.

From two franchise targeted films to a TV-originated big screen adaptation that ticks almost every box in the positive column and still wasn't successful. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is an origin story that nails the period, style and charm of the TV show with two good choices as Solo and Kuryakin (Henry Cavill as Solo is superb). The cinematography has that early 60's colour saturation and the military geek in me went wild when they had a scene setting shot of what appeared to be HMS Hermes (but with the radar from Victorious) with Scimitars on deck. Yeah, I know it is only CGI but it was well done and not obvious - which is what CGI should be used for. The story is interesting and makes logical sense, the action is well staged and the comedy veers towards subtle rather than over the top.
Why wasn't is successful?
There seems to be two lines of thought, one where the film and its source material were too old fashioned, that no-one remembers the TV show so have no real desire to see a film. The other, that is was released too closely to another spy film, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (I should point out that that film was number 5 in that series and because they take their time and make these event films, the series is going strong, unlike the frequent, re-hashed releases of the Transformers series). I tend to fall in the latter camp. This is a good film and if you have the chance to watch it, please do. You can do far, far worse (see the above two entries). It didn't make enough at the box office so it will remain a lovely attempt at launching a franchise but one that remained focused on creating a good film first, a franchise second.

6 Days

Finally, a low budget re-telling of the Iranian Embassy Siege of 1981. This had a limited cinematic release and that's a shame as it's a rather decent film. Yes, it's quite slow and there are no flash/bang/wallop scenes as such, but that does not detract from the way the siege is portrayed. Filmed on location in London and having one of the SAS troopers as a technical adviser, the cast is uniformly great and the period is well presented. The final assault is well staged although lacks the pizzazz of a big-budget blockbuster, yet that makes it even better as to be honest, you could not make the early 1980's look glamourous if you tried. I remember it as being brown. Beige and brown.
Anyhoo, it you have access to a streaming service (I watched this on Netflix), give it a go. It has a tight 909 minute run time and deserves a viewing.