AllThingsD » data card

Verizon Now Sells Subsidized Netbook With Cell Service

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:12:03 +0000

As laptops have shrunk in size and price, and cellphones have expanded in size and capability, the two are increasingly overlapping in function. Now, their pricing and sales models are blurring, too.

For a while, some wireless carriers in Europe and in Asia have been selling tiny laptops, called netbooks, equipped with built-in cellular modems, at low, subsidized prices, just as they do with mobile phones. And, just as with a subsidized phone or a plug-in laptop data card, there’s a catch: To get the low upfront price, the customer must agree to a contract and pay a monthly data fee.

[ See post to watch video ]

Starting May 17, Verizon Wireless, the largest U.S. wireless carrier, will try the same thing on these shores, selling a netbook model made by Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) at $200, after a $50 mail-in rebate — less than half its usual price of $520. To get this price, the customer must sign a two-year contract and pay either $40 or $60 a month, depending on the amount of data to be consumed.

I’ve been testing this netbook, the H-P Mini 1151NR, a version of H-P’s Mini 1000 series with a cellular modem built-in. This model sports a 10.1-inch screen, and yet is very compact and easy to tote. It weighs just 2.45 pounds, is about an inch thick, and is only about 10 inches long and 6.5 inches deep. It has an Intel (INTC) Atom processor, common in netbooks; runs Windows XP; and includes one gigabyte of memory, a built-in Webcam and an 80-gigabyte hard disk. Like most netbooks, it includes Wi-Fi, but lacks a DVD drive.

My verdict: This netbook is an adequate light-duty computer, and $200 is a low price for a PC with a hard disk running Windows XP. But Verizon’s charge for Internet service is high if you intend to rely on that service as your main online connection, because the data levels covered by the carrier’s plans aren’t unlimited, and cost extra after you exceed a certain amount. It makes much more sense if you travel a lot, stay within the data limits each month, and want to avoid hotel and airport Wi-Fi fees.

But the Verizon (VZ) service is slower than many Wi-Fi connections, and it can be obtained for almost any laptop by buying a plug-in card that carries the same monthly fees. In my tests, at a typical Marriott (MAR) hotel, the Verizon cellular service achieved download speeds of around 1.6 megabits per second, while the Wi-Fi modem in the same PC got over five mbps.

The H-P Mini 1151NR

Also, even for a netbook, the computer itself is underequipped. Its 80-gigabyte hard disk is cramped by today’s netbook standards, and it has only a small three-cell battery that doesn’t last long. In my tough battery test, where I left the cellular Internet connection on, disabled all power-saving features, and played music continuously, the H-P Mini 1151NR lasted a pathetic one hour and 55 minutes. That suggests that, in normal use, you might get around 2.5 hours of use.

A bigger six-cell battery is available for $130 from Verizon, but that’s a huge price premium on a $200 PC, plus it makes the netbook 75% thicker and 30% heavier. Verizon doesn’t offer a larger internal hard disk.

By comparison, you can buy an Acer One Windows XP netbook with the same size screen as the Verizon netbook, and twice the hard disk and battery capacity, for $340. The Acer lacks the built-in cellular modem, but you can buy that from Verizon in plug-in form for $30, with the same monthly fees. Total upfront price: $370, versus $330 for the Verizon model with the bigger battery.

You could also pay much less at a RadioShack (RSH) store, which is selling a subsidized netbook with a built-in cellular modem and required contract (with AT&T) (T) at $60 a month. This model, also an Acer running XP, has a smaller 8.9-inch screen, but most other specs are similar to those on the Verizon model. Yet there’s one enormous difference: It costs only $50, plus a $36 activation fee.

In my tests, the Verizon/H-P netbook handled all common tasks well, if not at blazing speeds. It lacks Microsoft Office, but includes the lesser Microsoft Works productivity suite. I was able to download and run common third-party programs like Firefox and iTunes. The built-in Verizon software for managing the cellular and Wi-Fi connections worked very well, and can be upgraded to a new version with added features.

The hardware has some notable downsides. The keyboard feels too flexible, and some symbols on the function keys are hard to read. The mouse buttons are awkwardly arrayed on the sides of the touch pad, not below it. And the speaker, while loud, is tinny. Also, the machine has a bunch of craplets, mostly links to H-P Web sites or to companies like eBay (EBAY) and Pandora.

Still, if you travel a lot and like using a cellular modem, the machine’s $200 price is compelling, so long as you can handle the wimpy battery and small hard disk.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

New Safari Browser Succeeds at Speed, Flops on Features

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:02:03 +0000

Apple’s Safari browser has always been speedy and has introduced its share of innovations. While it is mostly used on Apple’s own Macintosh computers, with which it is bundled, Safari also comes in a Windows version and it is the browser on the iPhone as well.

[ See post to watch video ]

Last week, Apple released a new version 4 of Safari, for Mac and Windows, that it claims is the world’s fastest browser, and that has a number of new graphical features Apple says will make it easier to navigate the Web. Safari 4 is labeled as a beta, and both the Windows and Mac versions are free downloads at apple.com/safari.

I’ve been testing the new Safari on both operating systems, comparing it with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome. My verdict is that Safari 4 really is significantly faster than its rivals, but that its user-interface changes are a big disappointment. They either add relatively minor eye candy, are catch-ups to features introduced by rivals, or actually make the browser harder to use.

First, let’s talk about speed. I tested Safari 4 on multiple Macs, and on multiple Windows PCs running Vista and XP. I did these tests on three different networks — a fast fiber-optic service, a typical hotel Internet connection, and a relatively slow cellphone data card.

On each type of connection, I timed the loading of a variety of common Web sites, like Facebook, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and Major League Baseball, both individually and in folders that opened multiple sites simultaneously in tabs.

The results were striking. In nearly every case, Safari 4 was much faster than any of the other browsers. In many of my tests, it required only a third or a half of the time to load a given page, or a group of sites, as the other browsers did, even though all were running on the same computer and the same Internet connection.

I was especially interested to see that Safari 4 for Windows blew away Google’s Chrome in my tests, even though both browsers share some open-source technology managed by Apple but licensed to others.

In some cases, where the new Safari’s speed advantage was just a few seconds, that quickness may seem unimportant. But, when opening a large number of pages in tabs, it really makes a difference. For instance, on my fastest test network, Safari 4 for Windows fully opened a folder of 21 news sites in 43 seconds, while it took the new IE 8 over two minutes to perform the same task.

I wish I could be more enthusiastic about the other changes in Safari, but I can’t. Apple’s worst decision was to move the tabs that represent open pages to the very top edge of the browser screen, above all the toolbars and menus, instead of below the toolbars and menus, where they have traditionally resided.

This move was copied from Chrome, and Apple says it makes the tabs easier to discover. But I disagree strongly. Apple’s implementation, in my opinion, makes the tabs harder to see and use on a crowded computer screen and separates the tabs too much from the content in the pages they represent. This is a particular problem in Vista, whose translucent window title bars can make the tabs almost impossible to read.

In another unfortunate choice, Safari 4 has done away with the progress bar that shows how much of a page has loaded. The company says it did this because Web pages are now so complex that the bar was no longer fully accurate. But I believe users like to see where they are in the page-loading process, even if it’s only a rough approximation.

I am not alone in this sentiment. Already, Apple-oriented Web sites which normally defend the company’s every move are publishing instructions on how to hack Safari 4 to restore the old tab system and the progress bar.

The new graphical features are just OK. Now, when you open a new tab, without specifying a Web address, Safari fills the formerly empty space with a gorgeous graphical representation of your most-visited Web sites. You can simply click on any of these to go right to that page. It even indicates when a page has changed since you last viewed it.

This is nice, but it copies a feature already in Chrome, and I believe most people won’t see it much, since they usually know in advance which site they want to view in a new tab.

Apple has also adopted “cover flow,” iTunes’ visual method for navigating albums, for the bookmark organizer in Safari. It shows a preview of each page in your bookmark list. Again, this is fine, but not a big deal.

Safari 4 also catches up to its rivals by offering suggestions of what you are looking for when you type in a Web address or search term. This worked well, but not any better than it does in other browsers.

Finally, the Windows version of Safari now looks and works much more like a standard Windows program than a Mac program. It has traditional Windows-style buttons and behaviors, which Safari lacked before.

Overall, Safari 4 is a mixed bag. The speed is great, but the design changes range from mildly interesting to downright annoying.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

Using Publisher Documents on a Mac

Walter S. Mossberg — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:52:02 +0000

There’s no other major item most of us own that is as confusing, unpredictable and unreliable as our personal computers. Everybody has questions about them, and we aim to help.

Here are a few questions about computers I’ve received recently from people like you, and my answers. I have edited and restated the questions a bit, for readability.

I need to use Microsoft Publisher documents on my MacBook. Unfortunately, I can’t figure out how to do this. I have tried to run it on Microsoft Word, but this didn’t work.

As far as I know, neither Microsoft nor Apple nor anyone else makes a native Mac program that can open or edit Microsoft Publisher documents, which use their own special format, rather than any common cross-platform format.

However, there may be some workarounds. If you own or can borrow a PC and a copy of Microsoft Publisher, you could export the documents as PDF files from within Publisher, and then open them on a Mac. Or you could run Publisher itself on your MacBook, since Macs can run Windows and Windows programs, if you buy and install Windows.

Your Mossberg Solution column recently recommended an add-on for Firefox called Surf Canyon that improves searches. But I am wondering if it’s safe to use, since it is labeled “beta.”

I have been using Surf Canyon in Firefox for months, without any problems. (It also works in Internet Explorer.) You are correct that it’s a beta, but that label doesn’t usually mean a product is unsafe, just that it’s incomplete or unpolished. In the old days, a “beta” product was usually pretty flaky and available only to a very small number of testers until the kinks were worked out. Now, especially with Web-related products, a “beta” is often just another word for version 1.0 of a product. It is open to all, and may not work perfectly, but is usually not dangerous to your computer.

Is there a legal way to use a smartphone as a modem for a laptop?

Yes, indeed. It depends on your carrier, and your plan, and your phone, but it can be done, perfectly legally, either using a cable or Bluetooth wireless to connect the phone to the laptop. Note that, depending on your plan, the carrier may well charge you an added monthly fee for this privilege. Also, the speed of your connection may be a bit slower than the speed you’d get from a cellular data card you insert directly into the laptop or from one that’s built in.

You can find Mossberg’s Mailbox, and my other columns, online free of charge at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

Wi-Fi on Wheels Is Steady, but Has a Speed Bump

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:04:05 +0000

Wi-Fi wireless Internet connectivity has become nearly ubiquitous. Whether you’re at home, in a coffee shop, or even on some commercial airliners, you can get online with a Wi-Fi-equipped laptop, smart phone or portable game machine.

Now, Wi-Fi is making its way into your car. A small California company, Autonet Mobile, has teamed up with Chrysler and others to sell a service that floods any brand or model of car or truck with Wi-Fi Internet connectivity that can be used by multiple passengers and devices simultaneously. It’s a dealer-installed option on Chrysler vehicles, but Chrysler dealers, and some independent auto electronic shops, will install it on any brand of car for a fee.

[ See post to watch video ]

The system works via a special wireless router, mounted in the trunk or rear cargo area, that draws Internet connectivity from cellphone towers and then converts it into an in-car Wi-Fi signal with a range of 100 feet. This router looks like a military device, because it is ruggedized to survive jolts and vibrations, and is shielded to avoid interference with the car’s electronics or with cellphone calls.

As long as they have built-in Wi-Fi, the laptops and smart phones used in the car don’t need any add-on hardware or software to use Autonet. To them, it looks like any other Wi-Fi signal. And no special car antenna is needed; the router uses its own large antennas.

I’ve been testing Autonet Mobile in a rented Saturn Vue SUV in Washington, D.C., and its suburbs, and found it worked well for most basic Internet tasks like email and Web surfing. The router turns on when the car does, and the Wi-Fi signal shows up about 30 seconds later. However, Autonet is relatively pokey. It’s too slow to be reliable for streaming video longer than brief YouTube clips, or for smooth video chatting.

Perhaps the biggest downside of in-car Wi-Fi is that it provides one more potential distraction for drivers. The company says the service is only for passengers, not drivers, but there’s no technical barrier to a driver using it.

The Autonet Mobile router

Of course, drivers already can court danger this way by using cellphone wireless connectivity on a laptop, iPhone, BlackBerry or other connected device. And that raises another question: Since you can already connect to the Internet from a car with a smart phone or a cellular data card for a laptop, why would you want Autonet?

There are three reasons. First, cellular Internet access is typically tied to a single device at a time. But Autonet’s Wi-Fi service works just like Wi-Fi in your house: Multiple people with multiple devices can use it at the same time. In fact, the company envisions that the service’s primary use will be to allow children in the back seat to use laptops for social networking, online games or homework; and multiple adult passengers to conduct online business or research routes and destinations.

Second, the monthly fees can be lower, at least for laptops. A typical cellular data card for a single laptop costs $60 a month. But Autonet’s service starts at $29 a month for the entire car, regardless of how many devices are being used. A premium plan costs $59. The plans differ by how much data you are allowed to consume monthly. And Autonet requires no special laptop cards or software.

Lastly, the company claims that it has invented a technology that keeps the connection steadier while moving than the typical direct cellular connection. Although some videos froze on me, I never lost Autonet’s Internet connection, whether moving slowly through downtown D.C. or moving faster on suburban highways and streets.

In my tests, with a laptop and an iPhone, Autonet’s speeds ranged from around 100 kilobits per second to around 500 kbps — far slower than a typical cable Internet service in a home. My average speed was between 400 kbps and 450 kbps.

There are some other drawbacks. First, the router costs $499, though that will soon drop to $399 in a holiday price promotion. Second, you have to sign at least a one-year contract, even if you pay monthly. Third, your Internet usage is limited. The $29 plan gets you just 1 gigabyte of data a month, while the $59 plan gets you 5 gigabytes. That should be plenty for most typical users, but not for those with large appetites for data.

These service fees are all-inclusive. You don’t have to pay anything to any cellphone carrier. But there is also a $35 “activation fee,” whose justification is murky, and installation costs are estimated at $50 to $75.

For security, you can set Autonet up with a password, but it doesn’t yet use the most advanced version of Wi-Fi security. The company says that, while it can track and manage your Internet connection, it cannot determine the content of what you are doing online.

Finally, because the router is hard-mounted, you can’t remove it for use in, say, a hotel room or second car.

If you’re willing to invest in the router and can tolerate the slow speeds, Autonet might be what you want — as long as you can resist using it while driving.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

Installing Microsoft's 'SP3′ Upgrade to Windows XP

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:26:02 +0000

Here are a few questions I’ve received recently from people like you, and my answers. I have edited and restated the questions a bit, for readability.

Should I install Microsoft’s “SP3″ upgrade to Windows XP? I hear opinions on both sides.

In general, I recommend this upgrade, officially called Service Pack 3, because it beefs up security, and that helps not only you, but all Windows users, to avoid the spread of malicious software. If your PC is more secure, it is less likely to be used as a source from which other PCs can be infected.

I have upgraded a couple of XP PCs to SP3 without any downside. However, like you, I have also heard from some users that the upgrade caused them problems.

As with any major operating-system upgrade, either outcome can occur, depending upon your computer’s particular configuration and condition. So, if you’re on the fence, consider your level of concern about security.

How do cellular data cards compare with fast cable modems in terms of Internet speed? Are these cards more secure than Wi-Fi?

In my experience, using and testing cellular data cards on various laptops, they typically deliver, in real day-to-day use, somewhere between 300 kilobits per second and 1.5 megabits per second. By contrast, a fast cable Internet service can actually deliver up to 16 mbps. So cable is much faster.

Your security question is much more complicated. Wi-Fi security can range from very poor to quite good. It depends on where and how you use Wi-Fi, how you or others have set up the wireless network, and how you have configured your own computer.

Accessing the Internet over a cellular network is a more controlled process, because the cellphone-network operator manages the transmission, and in most cases supplies and configures the software on your computer. So, it is likely to be safer than the worst Wi-Fi setups. But I would never suggest that cellular data card transmissions are invulnerable to hackers or criminals.

What’s the difference between file-based backup and image-based backup software? Why would I choose one over the other?

Image-based backup software copies an image of your entire hard-disk, including all the programs, settings and obscure files that you never see. While it can be used to recover individual files, in some cases, it is mainly designed to allow you to restore your entire hard disk in the event that you lose it all.

File-based backup software, which is more common among consumers, is typically designed to preserve a copy of only your personal data, the material you can’t re-purchase or re-install if your hard disk dies.

That includes word-processing files, spreadsheets, presentations, emails, contacts, calendar items, photos and other items you created. It also is often used to back up music and video files that would be time-consuming, or very expensive, to re-acquire. And in some cases, it can preserve settings and preferences, such as Web bookmarks.

Both types of backup generally begin with a time-consuming initial session, followed by shorter sessions to update the backup with incremental changes.

Many people choose file-based backup because it occupies less space, and is generally quicker and also less expensive. Image-based backup is for folks who are willing to spend the added money and time to be sure they can restore their whole computer, or clone its contents completely to another machine.

You can find Mossberg’s Mailbox, and my other columns, online free of charge at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

Defragmenting a Hard Disk

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:46:01 +0000

Here are a few questions I’ve received recently from people like you, and my answers. I have edited and restated the questions a bit, for readability.

A friend of mine suggested that I “defragment” my computer every once in a while. He says it will boost performance, but he also said it will move my data around. I tend to be very organized as to where I put documents on my computer. Will defragmenting my computer jumble my files and put them into random places?

No. Defragmenting a hard disk doesn’t change or scramble the organization of files and folders that you have established. Your file organization should look just the same after defragmenting the disk. What defragmenting does is rearrange the location on the disk of the data segments that make up your files. In some cases, a single file like a word-processor document might actually be made up of multiple data segments, invisible to you, that are located in widely separated physical spots on the disk. Defragmenting tries to optimize the location of these segments so that the computer operates more efficiently.

I saw your review of Norton Internet Security 2009, and wonder what is the difference between this product and Norton 360?

Norton 360 has the same features as Norton Internet Security, but adds some additional ones, like online backup and PC “tune-up.” It also costs more. However, the current version of Norton 360 doesn’t include the improvements I wrote about in the NIS product that make it faster and less of a burden on your computer. Those are planned for a future version of Norton 360.

Can I use one of the new 3G iPhones as a wireless modem for my Apple laptop?

No. That function isn’t built into the iPhone and Apple yanked from distribution a third-party program that enabled using the phone as a modem. I suspect the reason is a business one, not a technical one. Cellphone carriers like AT&T typically take the position that connecting a laptop to their networks, whether via a data card or via a cellphone used as a modem, should command a higher monthly data charge than they typically levy for a cellphone alone.

You can find Mossberg’s Mailbox and my other columns online free at the All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

Cellphone Data Cards and the iPod Touch

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:01:00 +0000

Here are a few questions I’ve received recently from people like you, and my answers. I have edited and restated the questions a bit, for readability.

I have a USB cell phone data card that I use with my laptop. This card offers me world-wide connectivity wherever there is GSM cellphone service available. Is there an adapter that will allow me to use this card with the iPod Touch?

I know of no such adapter, nor of the software that would be needed to make one work. However, although the iPod Touch has no cellphone capability, it does include Wi-Fi, which can give you high-speed Internet access world-wide whenever you are in range of a Wi-Fi wireless network.

What U.S. cellphone service provider should I consider when purchasing a new contract and phone that can be easily used in most western European countries and also get good coverage in the U.S.?

In the United States, the only two major carriers that use the technology compatible with European networks are AT&T and T-Mobile. As to which has better coverage in the U.S., my own anecdotal experience is that this varies greatly depending on where you are, and that neither has coverage that’s as good as Verizon’s in as many major cities. However, Verizon (like Sprint) uses a technology that isn’t compatible with European networks, though it has one or two phone models that include both technologies.

I have just switched to the Mac from Windows. Is there a tutorial somewhere on how to use the Mac user interface and operating system?

There are a couple of books on switching to the Mac, which you can find at online bookstores. Also, Apple maintains two free, illustrated online tutorials called “Mac 101″ and “Switch 101,” the latter being specifically for former Windows users. They are available at apple.com/support/mac101 and apple.com/support/switch101.

You can find Mossberg’s Mailbox, and my other columns, online free at the All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.