Author Topic: Mobile Orbiters  (Read 2887 times)

hari

  • Administrator
  • LinuxMCE God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2420
    • View Profile
    • ago control
Re: Mobile Orbiters
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2008, 12:16:56 am »
Matthew,

Aye Karumba!

I swear, it seems like the only reason you post is to get your post count up...

now now, don't get all upset.... you deserved that one...

I suppose you've also got a good reason not to use the Web Orbiter as a Mobile Orbiter.

as you have no exact understanding of the Mobile Orbiter features I suggest you either try it out, watch the pluto presentations or look at the code.

best regards,
Hari
rock your home - http://www.agocontrol.com home automation

ddamron

  • Alumni
  • wants to work for LinuxMCE
  • *
  • Posts: 962
    • View Profile
    • My LinuxMCE User Page
Re: Mobile Orbiters
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2008, 04:04:34 am »
Well, with a screen size of 120x80, it's pretty hard to read ;)
Also, how are we to transmit keystrokes to the weborbiter?

I haven't made too much progress yet, but I think Hari has..

I have disected the MO code, and I see what it's doing...

The MO utilizes numeric keys and a 'menuing' system.. with simple background graphics..
Once we 'jump' through a few hurdles, it shouldn't be that hard.

Best Regards, (and thanks for not holding a grudge ;))

Dan
The only intuitive interface is the nipple.  After that it's all learned.
My other computer is your windows box.
I'm out of my mind.  Back in 5 minutes.
Q:  What's Red and smells like blue paint?

A:  Red Paint.

Matthew

  • Douchebag
  • Addicted
  • *
  • Posts: 567
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile Orbiters
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2008, 04:40:25 am »
Well, with a screen size of 120x80, it's pretty hard to read ;)
Also, how are we to transmit keystrokes to the weborbiter?

I wouldn't use the same Web Orbiter image on a mobile device over WAP. I'd use a smaller image, and let people click on their phones the way they do on a screen.

But if you've got a real Mobile Orbiter that will be done anywhere close to converting the Web Orbiter, that's a welcome addition.

1audio

  • Addicted
  • *
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile Orbiters
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2008, 08:35:42 am »
My experience with the Web orbiter has been very disappointing. Slow response, constant refreshing etc. Its pretty kludgy. Try it on an iPhone for frustration. Its more like a video game where you are trying to push the button while its live. And thats through a wifi connection.

I put $300 up for an Indian dev. to update the Symbian orbiter to rev. 3 early last year. He thought it would take a few weeks. Its still not done and he wants more money. This is a big project and not a quick one.

The Bluetooth response on the Symbian implementation is too slow to be satisfactory. It works but as a TV remote you will get frustrated.

Matthew

  • Douchebag
  • Addicted
  • *
  • Posts: 567
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile Orbiters
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2008, 10:16:48 am »
My experience with the Web orbiter has been very disappointing. Slow response, constant refreshing etc. Its pretty kludgy. Try it on an iPhone for frustration. Its more like a video game where you are trying to push the button while its live. And thats through a wifi connection.

I put $300 up for an Indian dev. to update the Symbian orbiter to rev. 3 early last year. He thought it would take a few weeks. Its still not done and he wants more money. This is a big project and not a quick one.

The Bluetooth response on the Symbian implementation is too slow to be satisfactory. It works but as a TV remote you will get frustrated.

Well, if an updated (locally executed) Mobile Orbiter takes a long time despite current efforts, maybe a revised Web Orbiter that works over Bluetooth could deliver limited, but better than nothing, functionality much quicker. If there's already a way to use HTTP over Bluetooth. I'd expect the Bluetooth performance to be faster over the native Web browser than through the full Mobile Orbiter, and I'd expect the Web Orbiter over Bluetooth to be a lot faster than over GPRS or other WWAN.

The whole Web Orbiter is a kluge, but it does seem to work as HTTP over the LAN, and is better than nothing (and not limited to S60 phones).

hari

  • Administrator
  • LinuxMCE God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2420
    • View Profile
    • ago control
Re: Mobile Orbiters
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2008, 10:41:14 am »
My experience with the Web orbiter has been very disappointing. Slow response, constant refreshing etc. Its pretty kludgy. Try it on an iPhone for frustration. Its more like a video game where you are trying to push the button while its live. And thats through a wifi connection.

I put $300 up for an Indian dev. to update the Symbian orbiter to rev. 3 early last year. He thought it would take a few weeks. Its still not done and he wants more money. This is a big project and not a quick one.

The Bluetooth response on the Symbian implementation is too slow to be satisfactory. It works but as a TV remote you will get frustrated.

Well, if an updated (locally executed) Mobile Orbiter takes a long time despite current efforts, maybe a revised Web Orbiter that works over Bluetooth could deliver limited, but better than nothing, functionality much quicker. If there's already a way to use HTTP over Bluetooth. I'd expect the Bluetooth performance to be faster over the native Web browser than through the full Mobile Orbiter, and I'd expect the Web Orbiter over Bluetooth to be a lot faster than over GPRS or other WWAN.

The whole Web Orbiter is a kluge, but it does seem to work as HTTP over the LAN, and is better than nothing (and not limited to S60 phones).

would, could, should...

why should http over ip over l2cap be faster than sending a few structs over rfcomm (BD)?

hari
rock your home - http://www.agocontrol.com home automation

Matthew

  • Douchebag
  • Addicted
  • *
  • Posts: 567
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile Orbiters
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2008, 10:56:26 am »
My experience with the Web orbiter has been very disappointing. Slow response, constant refreshing etc. Its pretty kludgy. Try it on an iPhone for frustration. Its more like a video game where you are trying to push the button while its live. And thats through a wifi connection.

I put $300 up for an Indian dev. to update the Symbian orbiter to rev. 3 early last year. He thought it would take a few weeks. Its still not done and he wants more money. This is a big project and not a quick one.

The Bluetooth response on the Symbian implementation is too slow to be satisfactory. It works but as a TV remote you will get frustrated.

Well, if an updated (locally executed) Mobile Orbiter takes a long time despite current efforts, maybe a revised Web Orbiter that works over Bluetooth could deliver limited, but better than nothing, functionality much quicker. If there's already a way to use HTTP over Bluetooth. I'd expect the Bluetooth performance to be faster over the native Web browser than through the full Mobile Orbiter, and I'd expect the Web Orbiter over Bluetooth to be a lot faster than over GPRS or other WWAN.

The whole Web Orbiter is a kluge, but it does seem to work as HTTP over the LAN, and is better than nothing (and not limited to S60 phones).

why should http over ip over l2cap be faster than sending a few structs over rfcomm (BD)?

I don't know. I didn't say it would be. I said it would be faster than over WAP or GPRS etc, which all have to go across the entire Wireless Wide Area Network (and half the world) just to get across the room.