Sony UX vs the OQO Model 01+
In the Handheld market, size matters (but in reverse):
One of the most important considerations of handtop users is size. (If you're not interested in size, you'll buy a laptop.) As previously noted, the OQO was the first small-format, full-OS-machine to actually live up to the label of "pocketable." The Sony UX comes close. It's still much smaller than any small-format laptop, but it is larger than the OQO. How much larger? Let's take a look:
 |
From the front, you can see that the UX extends wider than the OQO by about half an inch and to the top or bottom by about 1/8 of an inch.
 |
From the side, you can see that the UX is deeper than the OQO by about 1/2 of an inch at the deepest parts. If you use the Extended battery on the OQO, the depth difference is only about 1/4 of an inch.
This kind of comparison tells you a bit, but it doesn't definitively answer the question of "pocketability." The OQO will definitely fit into a regular pants pocket, but will the UX? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is actually yes. The rounded corners on the back of the UX casing make it easier to carry it in the preferred "screen facing inward" orientation. You can easily see the corners of the OQO on the left in the picture below where the UX is almost invisible on the right. However, when either devices shift toward the back as you move around, the result is a rather obvious and pronounced bulge in both cases.
 |
On the other hand (and/or leg), both handtops put out some heat when they run at full power. You may find it uncomfortable to carry either in your pants pocket right after heavy use.
Aside from pocketability, the salient size concern of the handtop crowd would be "handability." Handability speaks to how well the unit fits into your hand and how easy it is to operate once it's there. This includes whether it can be held and operated with only one hand.
You would expect the OQO's size and weight to make it somewhat more easy to hold in your hand but, the curves on the UX make it easier to fit into one or two hands and hold it there for long periods of time. The OQO has a non-slip coating on the metal surfaces that help to keep it in your hand. There is a heat dissipation port, on the left side of the UX, which blows heat into the left hand when you hold it. However, the heat generated is less than that of the OQO. The OQO can reach heat levels that make it uncomfortable to hold.Neither device is really designed for one-handed use. Both work best and are most comfortable held in both hands with the thumbs used for typing and control, or held in one hand while using the stylus in the other. Both work very well in the more typical landscape orientation. In portrait orientation, the OQO works best one-handed when rotated counter-clockwise and held in the right hand for access to the jog-dial for scrolling. Conversely, in portrait mode, the UX works best one-handed when rotated counter-clockwise and held in the left hand for access to the mouse buttons (with the cursor set on the scroll bar) for scrolling. There is an optional patch you can get which also allows you to use the finger-print reader to scroll.
...but size isn't everything:
Although size is important, it isn't everything. (If you're only interested in size, you'll buy a PDA.) Performance also matters and that's where the UX pulls ahead of the current model OQO.
Both the OQO and the UX have an amazing potential for connectivity for their small size. Both include a USB 2.0 port built-into the main unit and both Bluetooth and WiFi for wireless connectivity. Both also have a small module that plugs into the base to allow use with an external monitor. The OQO goes one step further by including a built-in Firewire port but the UX counters with a Memory Stick Duo slot, a microphone input port, and a built-in Compact Flash, Type II slot on the "Japanese" models or a built-in Cingular EDGE wireless modem on the "American" models. Sony does have a Firewire option, but it's on the UX docking station, not on the main unit. You can make a case either way on this. Sony figures that you're unlikely to want to use the Firewire port while out and about. That makes some sense because the Firewire port included in both machines is the smaller, un-powered, 4-wire connector and not the larger, powered, 6-wire connector. Your Firewire peripherals won't be able to power themselves from either the OQO or the UX.
Display
The UX and OQO also differ in terms of screen readability. The UX uses Sony's XBrite technology for a stunningly bright, full-color display. The OQO simply can't hold a candle-power to the UX. However, even though the OQO can't outshine the UX, it can out-reflect it. The XBrite screen is still readable in bright sunlight, but it's not as readable as the trans-flective OQO display. In bright sunlight, you can even shut the back light of the OQO completely off and easily read the screen with reflected light. The surface of the screen on the UX is more reflective than the OQO's, which can make it difficult to read in direct sunlight.
 |
In low-light conditions, the UX has another advantage over the OQO: The UX has a backlit keyboard (as shown above) that makes it possible to type without any additional light source. You can turn the back light on by pressing a single key on the UX keyboard. The back light stays on for about 3 seconds after you press a key. Even if the back light goes out, as soon as you begin typing again, the back light will re-light..
 |
 |
So, in all but direct sunlight, the UX screen shows brighter, more resolved color. Unfortunately, these pictures simply do not do the XBright display of the Sony justice. It really has to be seen to believe. Since the UX is not yet in the "brick and mortar" stores, that seems to be an issue. However, many Sony laptops also have the XBright display and you can get a good idea of how striking the screen is from these.
Readability is also affected by the way in which text and icons appear on the screen. Both the UX and OQO have small enough screens that users without perfect eyesight will surely choose to use large icons and either large or extra-large text. The difference between the two units comes from the fact that the OQO displays 800x480 pixels where the UX displays 1024x600. You need to use larger text on the UX to get the same size text you'll see on the OQO, but, when you do, that text will be crisper and more resolved due to the greater resolution.
 |
In fact, the text is crisp enough on the UX screen that I find myself using the same font size I used on the OQO on the UX. The text is relatively smaller, but just as easy to read.
The greater resolution on the UX also prevents a problem many OQO users are familiar with: Many programs are written for a standard desktop screen. The 480 horizontal lines on the OQO display aren't sufficient to display some unfortunately common dialogs.
 |
Both the OQO and the UX support screen rotation. Both take very little time to do the actual rotation and re-draw the screen, however, the UX comes out ahead by keeping the orientation through a Standby cycle. When the OQO wakes up, it always returns to landscape orientation. That's annoying when you've got an e-book up on the screen when it happens. Aside from manually having to return to portrait orientation after every standby, the e-book repaginates once for landscape and back again when you manually switch back to the easier-to-read-with portrait mode. In addition to doing rotation, the UX also adds a "zoom" function to blow up part of the screen. This is particularly useful for folks whose eyes are getting older and still want to clearly see a small message on the screen.
The last readability comparison concerns using both OQO and UX with external monitors. Both support VGA-out through their docking apparatus (a cradle on the UX and a cable on the OQO). Both also have a smaller adapter for use with an external monitor without resorting to the full cable/cradle. The OQO gets points (again) for size. Their adapter is smaller. The UX get points (again) for functionality as their adapter also includes an Ethernet port and is included in the box. The OQO adapter costs an additional $30 and needs to be ordered as an add-on. In addition to the most common VGA-out, the UX supports A/V-out on both the cradle and smaller adapter. The A/V-out connector is a standard four-connector sub-jack to 3-RCA (red, white, yellow) connector cable that can be found at just about any store that handles A/V cables. You can use this cable to connect the UX to many TV sets and VCRs. You'll want to reduce the resolution on most TV sets for readability, though.
The OQO supports an external monitor with resolutions up to 1280 by 1024. The UX supports an external monitor with resolutions up to 1600 by 1200. The UX additionally supports "A/V out," which allows you to use the UX with devices that take composite or S-Video signals. Finally, and extremely important, the UX supports simultaneous display, either mirror or in dependant, of both LCD and external monitors. The OQO can only switch between the LCD or external monitor. These extra features give the UX the edge in this comparison.
 |
While not related to readability, there is another factor with which to compare the OQO and UX screens. Both OQO and UX use touch screens for stylus operation as well as using the built-in track-stick. The OQO is notorious for having less-than accurate location registration, requiring frequent re-calibration to make the least of the issue. The UX, on the other hand, has registration that's spot-on. This is especially important with the increased resolution of the UX screen.
 |
Some reviewers have argued that a built-in thumb-board is superfluous. If you need to enter text, you can use handwriting recognition, an on-screen keyboard or plug in a full-sized USB keyboard. These reviewers have one thing in common: They don't use a handtop on a daily basis. Those who do universally say that a built-in keyboard is absolutely essential. An on-screen keyboard gets in the way of screen elements. Handwriting input often takes more time correcting misreads. A plug-in keyboard takes time to pull out and connect. Nothing beats being able to simply slide the screen up and start typing. Both the OQO and the UX sport a thumb-board under a slide-up screen. There is one difference in the sliding operation: The OQO screen slides up and down with slight pressure. The UX screen has a "lock-in" at the fully-open and fully-closed positions. Slightly more pressure overcomes the lock, but keeps the screen from accidentally sliding.
The OQO keyboard has one thing the UX keyboard doesn't: It has a full numeric keypad, although it is non-intuitively placed with the lower numbers on top, like a phone instead of lower numbers on the bottom, like PC keyboards. By placing the number keys to the right of the letters, OQO can eliminate the top row of keys. Special symbols and special functions are achieved by using the (fn) key.
The UX goes the standard keyboard route and puts the number keys above the letters, using the (shift) key to get symbols. This has the advantage of being more familiar to people who are used to using a full-sized keyboard. The UX does have a (fn) key though. It's used to get the special function keys that are found on a full-sized keyboard. That includes all of the special keys, not just the F1 through F12, which are also on the OQO. As a result, on the OQO, you can't get some special keys unless you have an external keyboard. On the UX, you can. The UX also has the (Windows) and (Menu) keys right on the keyboard. On the OQO, you need to remember a three-key combination to access the (Windows) key.
The UX keys are larger than the OQO's but, oddly, the OQO is slightly easier to touch-type with two thumbs. This is offset, however, by the odd placement of the symbols on the OQO keyboard. To type symbols, you'll probably have to look at the keyboard. On the whole, I found the OQO keyboard faster to "touch type" (with two thumbs) on than the UX keyboard. I could get about 40 WPM on the OQO and only about 20 on the UX. To be sure, the thumb-boards aren't for long term input, but you can get a short note or message in a bit faster on the OQO as long as there isn't a lot of punctuation.
The other aspect of the OQO keyboard that gives it an advantage is the way the shift, ctrl, alt, and fn keys "stick." Press these keys in combination with another key and it works as it does on a desktop keyboard. Press these keys separately and they do a one-time stick, which makes it easier to press ctrl-alt-(fn)-del for instance. Double-press these keys and they lock on until you press them again. Each of the keys has a small LED next to it that indicates the sticky mode. The UX design team could have learned a lot from careful observation of the OQO keyboard at work. You can, of course, use the "sticky keys" option in Windows to get some of this functionality, but not all of it.
Benchmarks
An organized and statistical means of comparison between two or more systems is by using a set of standard "benchmarks." At times a system may "feel" fast because it does one thing very quickly, but is actually slower at a number of other things. Benchmarks provide an objective analysis of a system throughout its various uses. Benchmarks also provide a way of choosing a system that is faster where you want it to be. For that purpose, I've employed FutureMark's PCMark, version 5. This program has several "suites" of tests for each aspect of a computer system. In order to provide a bit of perspective, I've also included the results of testing my desktop system. [April 06, 2007] I've added the benchmark results for the OQO Model 02 to the following table, thanks to Kenrick's Blog and the UX90SSD, with a solid state drive and running Vista OS.
| System | My Desktop |
OQO 01+ |
OQO 02 | UX90s |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Processor | AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (2.0 GHz) |
Transmeta Crusoe 1.0 GHz |
VIA C7M 1.5 GHz | Intel Core Solo 1.2 GHz |
| Memory | 2.0 GB RAM |
512 MB RAM |
1GB RAM | 512 MB RAM / 1GB RAM |
| Display | nVidia GeForce FX 5900XT |
OQO Lynx 3DM |
Via S3G UniChrome Pro II IGP, Shared Memory | Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 |
| Sound | nVidia nForce Audio |
ALi Audio Wave |
ALi Audio Wave | Intel 915GMS Express |
| Hard Disk | WDC WD20 00JD sATA 200GB |
Toshiba MKC3006GAL IDE ATA 30GB |
Toshiba MK6008GAH 4200 RPM | Ultra ATA/100 30GB / 32GB Solid State drive |
My Desktop |
OQO 01+ |
OQO 02 |
UX90s |
UX90SSD |
||||
| CPU Test Suite | (units) |
|||||||
| File Compression | MB/s | 7.219 | 2.455 | 2.44 | 5.035 | 4.950 | ||
| File Decompression | MB/s | 110.660 | 29.818 | 31.77 | 69.201 | 67.804 | ||
| File Encryption | MB/s | 38.833 | 14.857 | 12.6 | 29.584 | 28.873 | ||
| File Decryption | MB/s | 32.618 | 14.887 | 11.43 | 29.266 | 28.668 | ||
| Image Decompression | MPixels/s | 21.457 | 4.707 | 6.28 | 14.064 | 13.850 | ||
| Audio Compression | KB/s | 2,157.556 | 529.170 | 546.69 | 1390.965 | 1368.531 | ||
| Multithreaded Test 1 | ||||||||
| File Compression | MB/s | 3.719 | 1.257 | 1.23 | 2.596 | 2.590 | ||
| File Encryption | MB/s | 19.583 | 7.410 | 6.21 | 14.763 | 14.634 | ||
| Multithreaded Test 2 | ||||||||
| File Decompression | MB/s | 27.839 | 7.657 | 8.08 | 16.146 | 16.626 | ||
| File Decryption | MB/s | 8.188 | 3.959 | 2.98 | 6.814 | 7.263 | ||
| Audio Decompression | KB/s | 436.660 | 114.020 | 123.1 | 297.000 | 291.456 | ||
| Image Decompression | MPixels/s | 5.363 | 1.212 | 1.65 | 3.230 | 3.579 | ||
| Memory Test Suite | ||||||||
| Read 16 MB | MB/s | 2,740.372 | 551.902 | 495.11 | 2191.227 | 2338.885 | ||
| Read 8 MB | MB/s | 2,759.710 | 548.302 | 572.45 | 2239.861 | 2409.425 | ||
| Read 192 KB | MB/s | 9,090.221 | 1735.888 | 1835.3 | 4773.772 | 4715.162 | ||
| Read 4 KB | MB/s | 24,518.330 | 4252.953 | 7296.71 | 8832.952 | 8643.951 | ||
| Write 16 MB | MB/s | 2,699.240 | 206.837 | 605.77 | 2207.916 | 2153.012 | ||
| Write 8 MB | MB/s | 2,692.333 | 211.051 | 607.27 | 2214.490 | 2152.785 | ||
| Write 192 KB | MB/s | 6,075.493 | 1324.445 | 2207.02 | 5070.567 | 4976.952 | ||
| Write 4 KB | MB/s | 18,529.195 | 4228.387 | 7321.43 | 8232.689 | 8082.938 | ||
| Copy 16 MB | MB/s | 2,707.097 | 418.601 | 868.08 | 2045.727 | 2064.517 | ||
| Copy 8 MB | MB/s | 2,735.167 | 426.342 | 863.92 | 2052.027 | 2072.743 | ||
| Copy 192 KB | MB/s | 3,433.209 | 1339.591 | 1250.85 | 4158.687 | 4063.538 | ||
| Copy 4 KB | MB/s | 9,894.322 | 2728.945 | 2994.46 | 7316.725 | 7182.215 | ||
| Latency - random 16 MB | MAccesses/s | 10.515 | 4.486 | 5.1 | 6.118 | 5.903 | ||
| Latency - random 8 MB | MAccesses/s | 11.603 | 5.427 | 5.95 | 6.867 | 6.798 | ||
| Latency - random 192 KB | MAccesses/s | 122.253 | 77.647 | 47.41 | 84.004 | 83.759 | ||
| Latency - random 4 KB | MAccesses/s | 663.361 | 316.531 | 248.27 | 398.361 | 398.361 | ||
| Graphics Test Suite | ||||||||
| 2D Transparent Windows | windows/s | 646.450 | n/a |
n/a | 71.795 | 71.795 | ||
| 2D Graphics Memory | ||||||||
| 64 lines | fps | 424.191 | n/a |
122.91 | 224.194 | 114.886 | ||
| 128 lines | fps | 332.640 | n/a |
73.11 | 180.359 | 73.680 | ||
| 2D Video Playback | fps | 32.944 | n/a |
10.72 | 23.491 | 14.154 | ||
| 3D Fill Rate - texturing | MTexels/s | 2,811.695 | n/a |
1438.33 | 487.190 | 332.423 | ||
| 3D Polygon Throughput | MTriangles/s | 9.897 | n/a |
1.0 | 2.725 | 0.974 | ||
| 3D Pixel Shader | fps | 20.930 | n/a |
1.0 | 6.969 | 4.861 | ||
| 3D Vertex Shader | MVertices/s | 14.101 | n/a |
1.0 | 1.554 | 1.648 | ||
| HDD Test Suite | ||||||||
| XP Startup | MB/s | 6.678 | 4.135 | 4.58 | 4.309 | 11.828 | ||
| Application Loading | MB/s | 5.854 | 3.046 | 3.47 | 3.196 | 11.697 | ||
| General Use | MB/s | 4.719 | 2.391 | 2.76 | 2.528 | 8.551 | ||
| Virus Scan | MB/s | 47.535 | 20.229 | 22.25 | 21.932 | 43.041 | ||
| File Write | MB/s | 42.797 | 15.488 | 20.54 | 19.158 | 16.746 | ||
As you can see, both systems are, as expected, slower than the desktop, which dedicates a fair bit of its space to heat dissipation. You'll also notice that the UX benefits quite a bit from a faster processor, faster front bus speed, and faster memory. Toward the bottom of the table, you'll notice the major difference between the OQO and UX: The OQO 01 graphics accelerator doesn't support DirectX rendering that is used by the benchmark program and a number of programs that need to quickly display graphical information on the screen. The OQO 02 graphics accellerator does support DirectX, but obviously, not at the same level as the UX Intel chipset. One of the reason that the UX is listed as "Vista ready" and the OQO 01+ isn't is because Vista requires DirectX operations for many of its window display operations. You'll also notice that the UX running Vista appears to be slower in some of the CPU tests and especially in the graphics tests. The first is due to the fact that Vista runs many more background services than XP and the additional load on the CPU effects the tests. The graphics results are a bit of a "red-herring" in that Vista has DirectX 10 built in, but the tests only use DirectX 9. Microsoft completely re-wrote the DirectX renderer for Vista and the graphics displays are often much faster than when using DirectX 9. The tests simply don't show this. At the bottom of the table, you'll see that the UX performs significantly better than the OQO 01 and better than the OQO 02 at disk operations. Even though the OQO and UX hard-drives systems are virtually identical otherwise, the UX benefits from the greater speed of the Serial ATA interface and faster bus speed. You'll also see the difference a Solid State Drive makes. The benchmarks are almost doubled between a standard hard-drive and a Solid State Drive.
WiFi and Bluetooth
The OQO and UX development teams took different paths to the two products. The OQO team essentially abandoned the "reference designs" that specify support chip sets for the processor. That allowed the OQO team to build the OQO "from the ground up" with small size as the constant focus. The UX team, on the other hand, started with the reference design and then attempted to place it in as small a package as could be managed. The result is that the UX benefits from all the features that come as a result of the standard chipset at the cost of being a bit larger where the OQO benefits from smaller size at the cost of a some functionality. For instance, the OQO has only WiFi "b," with a maximum of 11Mb/s where the UX has WiFi "g" with a maximum of 54 Mb/s. In both machines, the WiFi and Bluetooth subsystems interfere with each other when operating together, but the UX still gets better range, even with the interference. The following tables show approximate range for the OQO and UX, with and without Bluetooth active.
| OQO WiFi (b) | UX WiFi (g) | |
|---|---|---|
| 5 bars | 21 ft | 25 ft |
| 4 bars | 42 ft | 50 ft |
| 3 bars | 63 ft | 75 ft |
| 2 bars | 84 ft | 100 ft |
| 1 bar | 105 ft | 125 ft |
| OQO WiFi (b) | UX WiFi (g) | |
|---|---|---|
| 5 bars | 24 ft | 30 ft |
| 4 bars | 48 ft | 60 ft |
| 3 bars | 72 ft | 90 ft |
| 2 bars | 96 ft | 120 ft |
| 1 bar | 120 ft | 150 ft |
In addition to increased range, the UX also performs better in other ways. With my WiFi access point, using full WPA encryption, the UX also connected faster. It takes the OQO 10 seconds, on average, to negotiate the connection. The UX does it in an average of 3 seconds.
Both the UX and OQO also include Bluetooth cable-replacement wireless connectivity. The OQO uses the Microsoft stack, but the UX uses the Toshiba Stack. The Microsoft stack is very stable, but limited in terms of the profiles it supports. The Toshiba stack is a bit more robust (It supports the High Quality Stereo Headset profile.) and appears to be just as stable as the Microsoft stack. In addition to supporting additional profiles, the UX comes out slightly ahead when it comes to negotiating a "PIN-less" Bluetooth connection. The OQO, unfortunately, insists on having a PIN, even when you specify that there isn't one and even when paired. This made it difficult, when using the OQO with my Bluetooth GPS unit. It called for the PIN every time I connected to the GPS. The UX doesn't do that.
Battery time
With portable systems, battery use time is an extremely important consideration. Manufacturers are known to engage in a little hyperbole when they list battery times. In the absence of any information to the contrary, I tend to read the manufacturers times as maximums; how long the system would last without taxing it in any way.
In order to get a good feel for how the UX battery fares, I've timed it under three conditions: The first is under maximum drain. This is with WiFi and Bluetooth both on and with something occupying both the hard drive and the processor. To occupy the hard drive and processor, I used the "burn-in" test from Si Software's Sandra 2007. The second test is done "under normal use." This test should be taken with the largest grain of salt because "normal" differs between every user. The final test is under as little drain as possible. The system is simply idle, but without the option of switching to standby. Here are the results, also including the time it takes to charge each type of battery.
| Battery Times | Charge Time | High use | "Normal" use | Low use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UX 2600 | 2 hours, 15 minutes | 2 hours, 10 minutes | 3 hours, 30 minutes | 4 hours, 53 minutes |
| OQO 4000 | 2 hours, 5 minutes | 1 hour, 6 minutes | 1 hour, 25 minutes | 1 hour, 48 minutes |
| UX 5200 | 3 hours, 30 minutes | 4 hours, 25 minutes | 7 hours, 0 minutes | 8 hours, 53 minutes |
| OQO 8000 | 4 hours, 11 minutes | 2 hours, 5 minutes | 3 hours, 30 minutes | 4 hours, 53 minutes |
I should also mention three other battery-related items. First, while both the OQO and UX have the option of ordering extra batteries to maximize your time away from a charger, the OQO has an additional option of a small adapter that allows you to charge a battery without the OQO itself. The UX does not yet have this option so you'll have to charge your UX batteries while they're installed in the UX. Hopefully, Sony will soon correct this oversight.
Second, the above tests were done as a "worst case" with power management turned off. Sony has a "VAIO Optimized" power setting which can almost triple battery time, especially under medium use. It's fine to turn this off for tests, but real-life users (that means you) should definitely turn it on.
Finally it should be noted that OQO and Sony use different capacities for both standard and high-capacity batteries. The OQO batteries supply 3.7v at 4000mAH or 8000mAH respectively. That translates to 14.8WH and 29.6WH. The UX batteries supply 7.4v at 2600mAH or 5200mAH respecively. That translates to 19.24WH and 38.48WH. So the UX lasts 38% longer on 30% more power; about what one would expect without using any of the power saving features. This is almost a moot point, because you can only use OQO batteries on the OQO and UX batteries on the UX anyway.
The final battery-related point concerns both machines. From the chart above, you'll notice that, at high use, it is possible to drain the battery faster than it can be recharged. The bottom line on this is, that if you're using either machine at maximum, you'll need to have it plugged in. This is true of most laptops as well, but it's important to know.
A few other points of comparison:
There are a few other factors that don't fit neatly into the categories above, so I've included them here. First, the OQO uses a touch screen that requires a special stylus to use it like the Tablet PCs. The UX, on the other hand, uses a touch screen like PDAs and the UMPCs that will react to any object, including your finger. The OQO benefits from its screen by not reacting to accidental touches or brushing up against your pocket or case when it's put away. It also allows the OQO stylus to have a built-in right-mouse-button function. The UX benefits from its screen by allowing you to use third-party styli or even your finger to work the display. The UX gets around the second button issue by adding a "tap-and-hold" option which allow you to emulate a right click by holding the stylus down in the same location for a few seconds. It gets around the accidental triggering issue by adding a "lock" button to prevent the display or buttons from reacting. The OQO's touch screen is also notorious for losing accuracy over time, requiring re-calibration. So far, I've found the UX touch screen to be better at getting and keeping accurate calibration, even with the increased resolution.
Control Buttons and Such
The OQO has one feature that the UX lacks: The OQO has a jog-dial that allows you to scroll windows, page through documents, and even, with the help of OQO's utility to scroll through currently running programs or programs you frequently run. The UX doesn't have a jog-dial, but, in addition to the dedicated zoom buttons, the UX has a number of other buttons on the side of the screen. At the left, there are the mouse buttons; left, middle, and right going from top to bottom. While placing those buttons on the outside of the screen means the UX has to be wider than the OQO, it also means you can use them without having to slide the screen up. The menu button allows quick access to Sony's utilities as well as user-selectable favorite programs for e-mail, browsing, etc.
When I originally saw the UX track-stick, I wondered about the square shape. As it turns out, I like the UX track-stick much better than the OQO's. The OQO uses the standard "furry eraser" texture on a small, round stick. The UX uses a larger, textured rubber surface that makes it extremely easy to move the cursor on the UX.
Power Adapters
Next, there is a matter of the power adapter. The OQO has a power adapter that terminates in an odd, proprietary, five-pin connector. The UX power adapter terminates in a barrel-connector that is common to a number of Sony, Fujitsu, and some other laptops.
 |
The use of an unlike-any-other connector on the OQO essentially demands that you have AC power available and an OQO specific power adapter to power or charge the OQO. The latest power adapter from OQO does give the additional options of using airplane and vehicle power outlets. The closer-to-a-standard UX connector is a lot more flexible, allowing for a much wider variety of DC as well as AC sources. The use of a (more or less) standard connector by Sony allows UX users to use a number of third-party adapters as well as the Sony-supplied ones. It also allows users to power the UX from external battery packs, solar cells, and many other power supplies.
Once you get past the tip, the OQO and UX power adapters are fairly similar. They occupy approximately the same volume, with the UX power brick being both shorter and wider than the OQO's.
 |
 |
 |
The OQO cords, both to the AC outlet and to the tip are about half again as large as their UX counterparts, so the UX takes an extra point in the space-saving comparison. Sony also provides a clever holding device, shown in the top picture, which allows you to easily stow your power adapter and the VGA-A/V-Ethernet dongle in a briefcase, carry-on pocket, or even suit or pants pocket without getting things all tangled up. This carrier makes sure you don't lose any pieces while transporting and keeps everything orderly, even while in use.
A final power use-related issue is with the cooling fans built into the OQO and UX. Both of these only turn on when the internal heat reaches a particular level. Both are reasonably quiet, but the OQO fan is considerably more noisy than the UX. Unless you hold it up to your ear, you won't know if the UX fan is running, even in a quiet environment.
Connecting Peripherals
Another point of comparison between the OQO and UX is in connecting peripherals. The OQO comes with a "docking cable," a long cable with an array of ports that you can plug devices into. The cable is well-built and unlikely to fray, but it makes a mess of any desktop, with wires hanging off at odd points and going every which way. The UX comes with a "port replicator" docking cradle, which is a much more tidy way of connecting peripherals. The OQO cable does have one advantage, however: It takes up less space and is more flexible with how you stow it than the UX cradle.
 |
In addition to the docking devices, both the OQO and UX have a USB port built into the unit. The only point of comparison between these two is that the OQO USB port is on the bottom of the unit, where the USB port is placed on the left side of the Sony UX. The placement on the bottom of the OQO can cause some difficulties when used while the OQO is sitting on its stand. There may not be enough clearance on the bottom and the USB connector may prop up one side of the OQO as a result.
 |
Interestingly enough, both the OQO and UX suffer from this problem when it comes to using the VGA-out adapter. The OQO uses a small "brick" which has both a power and standard VGA connector, when you connect all but the most compact of VGA cables, the OQO won't fit will in the stand. Likewise, when you connect the UX's VGA-out/Ethernet adapter to the UX, it won't stand up properly on the built-in stand. Obviously, that's not an issue with the UX port replicator.
 |
|
This is less of an issue with the OQO, as it doesn't support simultaneous display on both the built-in and external screens. When you plug in the screen adapter, the OQO automatically switches to the external display so you don't need to be able to view the built in one. On the UX, this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Not Quite Reaching Hibernation
The OQO community has recently become aware of the "battery drain under hibernation" issue. This issue is also present in some of the new UMPCs and some laptops. It involves the system not adequately shifting to very-low-power consumption mode when you put it into hibernate mode. Instead of losing approximately the same amount of charge that the battery would if the unit were shut off, the OQO and these other machines continue to draw power from the battery at a rate of about 25% over six hours. Different design often leads to different bugs and the UX is no exception. It does not suffer from this battery drain in hibernation issue.
The OQO has another, unrelated issue with hibernation: If the unit is in standby mode, it will not shift to hibernate mode when the batter level reaches critical level. The UX, on the other hand, does this. Failure to shift into hibernation means that the OQO will continue to discharge the battery until it is completely drained and the system loses power. When you install a new battery or connect to the power adapter, the unit will re-boot. The UX, on the other hand, makes the shift into hibernation mode and, once a new battery is installed, will take up right where you left off.
Future Possibilities
It should be noted that this comparison is between technology that is essentially two years old and very current technology. OQO will almost certainly respond to the UX with a new model of its own, incorporating at least part of the new technology. While OQO is very tight-lipped about any future development, there are some conclusions that seem reasonable: First, the next model OQO will surely use one of the more up-to-date processors available now. This will improve the power use and allow more time on battery power. If OQO keeps the same batteries for the new model, it could result in a machine that would last 4 hours on the standard battery. However, using the new processors has one downside: They are all larger than the Transmeta Crusoe installed in today's OQOs. The larger processor may necessitate a larger overall machine. OQO's singular advantage, at present, is it's size. It may have to give up part of that to gain processing power.
Second, the next model OQO will almost surely have a more agile display processor. This nearly certain because Vista, Microsoft's new version of Windows, requires it. Bringing out a non-Vista-capable machine would obviously hurt sales.
Third, OQO will almost certainly have a backlit keyboard in the next model. They have received such a volume of commentary on this particular issue, that it would be astounding for them not to provide it.
There is some question on the remaining features. OQO may choose to go with a full 800x600 display, allowing a wider variety of software to display properly. OQO will probably not go with a reference design, but instead design from the ground up for small size. As with the current OQO, there would be disadvantages that go along with that process in terms of overall compatibility with specialized software.
We'll only know for certain when OQO actually releases its next model. That could happen as early as this fall.
Click here to return to the home page.
