Yeah, it was the MC16, thanks, I recall that now........ Well, Ericsson
had real problem with the IR, it was very sensitive and shaky. Using the
serial cable was the only reliable option. I also remember that I was trying
to ge a 688 with IR to work with a Dell laptop in Windows, a real mess. Talking
to their support they suggested the using the cable, or the cable+IR. Sigh!
Well the cable+IR made the dataflow somewhat faster than just the cable,
and more reliable, but what a solution and what's the point with IR?.....
IR back in those days wasn't that good. Nowadays it works pretty well. I
can use my old Ericsson T39m with IR connected to my Dell laptop and it works
like a glance.......Well this was a bit off topic.....hrrrrrrrmmmm.....I
> Hi Hans,
> Now I remember some other details. Ericsson tried hard to find their way
> : IIRC, they first had a combo, based on a rebadged HP360LX (called MC16
> : I know it very well, because I bought one - second hand, very cheap
> to have NDO running on this beast instead on this ugly and stupid WinCE)
> sold in a big leather case, along a IR adapter that you could plug at
> the base of your Ericsson-only phone ; then they had a rebadged Psion
> Series 5mx (MC218, still a combo), then I think they moved eventually
> an integrated solution based on EPOC/Symbian.
> Of course, Nokia was at that time 4 years ahead, thanks to Geos (and to
> the Omnigo 700 combo, which was not Geos but DOS, I must recognise).
> > Yep, correct! I forgot that one. But prior to the R380, Ericsson had
> > that were actually two devices connected via a serial cable. This "device"
> > was deployed with WinCe and marketed as a competitior to Nokia 9000.
> > a review in a swedish computer magazine, all the devices had their pros
> > cons, but the Ericsson device was not rated high. The winner of that
> > was Nokia 9000. This is not just a coincidence. I heard from many sources
> > that the Nokia people were "hungry" looking at everything, turning every
> > stone to fine interesting technologies, and having a very humble attitude,
> > but the Ericsson people were considering themselves as one of the champions
> > in cellular phones, and did not have the same drive as Nokia people.
> > this explains the current situation very well, Ericsson as a company
> > and Nokia are the survivors of the baisse......
> > BR,
> > Hans
> > > Ericsson also had one of the first Symbian-based phone (R380 ?). Shortly
> > > after that they searched for money, which ended up in the merge with
> > > Sony. No doubt that Microsoft was (at least) contacted or interested
> > > some point (which would have also meant some technology
> > > transfers/cooperation).
> > > Philippe.
> > > > Nah.....that is just baloney......Nokia does not use any thing Microsoft
> > > > and does not taking order from Bill G. They work hard to keep away
> > them,
> > > > and Microsofts cooperation with Ericsson has been a real failure.
> > wonder
> > > > about that.
> > > > Ericsson is a company in crisis and Nokia is doing pretty well,
> > from
> > > > Microsoft. Breadbox and Nokia is doing well, together. Well, EPOC
> > the
> > > > initial name of Symbian and Bill Gates did not have anything to
> > the
> > > > creation of it. Have you heard anything of the computerized refrigirator
> > > > from Electrolux/White/Microsoft......probably just another failure..........
> > > > BR,
> > > > Hans
> > > > > Symbian did not exist before that visit, but psion did, as far
> > i
> > > > > recall...
> > > > > symbian started in june 1998, so bill gates could not join symbian
> > if
> > > > it
> > > > > did not exist yet.
> > > > > http://www.symbian.com/about/about.html
> > > > > while the cream pie was placed against Bills face on feb 4, 1998,
> > 5
> > > > > months before symbians birth..
> > > > > http://www.bitstorm.org/gates/
> > > > > Bill simply went ot nokia to scare the living daylights out of
> > so
> > > > > they would drop GEOS ( a definite cell phone os threat, and potentially
> > > > > a desktop os threat, after further okia development) and lose
> > > > > regrouping while he scrambled for the next few years to get his
> > > > > CE on track.
> > > > > but you are right about cost sharing with other maufacturers..
> > is the
> > > > > other manufactureres, motorola, ericsson, etc who for some reason
> > were
> > > > > very reluctant to use geos, thus leaving nokia alone in a very
> > > > > geos camp, while the rest of the crowd leaned toward psion which
> > to
> > > > > the formation of symbian..
> > > > > >>we would probably be there now had nokia not dumped geos after
> > Bill
> > > > G's
> > > > > >>famous cream pie in the face european "vacation"
> > > > > > Well, I don't think this is correct. Nokia dumped GEOS because
> > was
> > > > real
> > > > > > mode. They migrated to Symbian because it was 32-bit and an
> > just
> > > > as GEOS,
> > > > > > made for CCD:s. Bill G did not have anything to do with this,
> > he
> > > > was trying
> > > > > > to join the Symbian project, but the Symbian project did not
> > Microsoft
> > > > > > to join. If Nokia have continued the GEOS road they would have
> > take
> > > > all
> > > > > > of the development by themselves. By joining Symbian Noika could
> > share
> > > > the
> > > > > > develpoment costs with others, and create common standards.
> > > > that
> > > > > > is why they dumped GEOS
> > > > > > BR,
> > > > > > Hans