AllThingsD » Lenovo ThinkPad

Carriers Go to Battle Over Faster Networks

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 01:07:47 +0000

Most media attention in the cellphone arena is focused on the battle between sexy super-smartphones like Apple’s new iPhone 4 or the latest models based on Google’s (GOOG) Android software. But there is a parallel war under way among U.S. wireless carriers to roll out new, faster data networks to link such sophisticated hand-held computers to the Internet at greater speeds, and to increase the capacity to handle all the data their owners are downloading.

[ See post to watch video ]

This network competition is less visible and flashy, and it involves complex engineering, long time frames and techie terminology. But it is crucial to the future of these super-smartphones, of tablets like the iPad and its coming competitors, and even of laptops that run on cellular networks when their owners are traveling. The goal is to make wireless Internet access on the street as fast or faster than the access people get in homes and offices, and to overcome capacity limitations.

So, here is a very simplified explanation of what is going on, plus the results of some tests I’ve been running on the least known of these new speedier networks: T-Mobile’s “HSPA+” system, now available in some U.S. metro areas.

In a nutshell, most of the industry is gradually moving from networks dubbed as “3G,” or third generation, to faster networks called “4G,” or fourth generation. This will take several years and billions of dollars, and will be turned on city by city.

In the meantime, two of the U.S. carriers, T-Mobile and AT&T (T), will be deploying a souped-up interim 3G system, the aforementioned HSPA+ (the faster version of a common system called HSPA, formally known as High Speed Packet Access).

Today, all but one of the fancy super-smartphones that get all the attention, including the iPhone 4, are 3G phones that can’t even take full advantage of the faster HSPA+ variant of 3G. The sole 4G phone in the U.S. today is the Android-based HTC EVO 4G from Sprint (S), which is the only U.S. carrier already deploying a form of 4G. Sprint’s 4G network is based on a technology called WiMax (for Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) and is now available in 36 metro areas, with more coming.

The two largest U.S. wireless carriers, Verizon (VZ) and AT&T, are planning 4G networks based on a technology called LTE, or Long Term Evolution. Neither has commercially deployed LTE networks in any metro area yet, though Verizon is pledging to roll it out in up to 30 metro areas by the end of this year. AT&T plans to deploy LTE in an unspecified number of cities starting in 2011, and HSPA+ in an unspecified number of cities starting late this year. T-Mobile, the smallest U.S. carrier, hasn’t unveiled any LTE plans, and is instead doubling down on HSPA+. It has so far rolled out HSPA+ in 25 metro areas, with more coming. T-Mobile claims that although HSPA+ is a 3G technology, it can achieve download speeds akin to 4G networks.

T-Mobile’s new webConnect Rocket

In addition to phones, all the companies are planning to build these faster networks into data modems for laptops. Sprint and T-Mobile already sell these faster gadgets.

The speeds of all these networks, including the current 3G systems, are fuzzy. The carriers issue marketing claims that often don’t pan out in real use, partly because of variations in location, network congestion and equipment.

In my tests of numerous devices over the years, most 3G phones attained download speeds of between 500 kilobits per second and 4 megabits per second. Laptop data modems generally have done better for me than phones, getting download speeds of between 1 and 5 mbps. Upload speeds on both phones and laptops always have been much slower for me than download speeds.

In May, when I tested Sprint’s 4G EVO phone, running on its 4G network, I averaged download speeds of just 3.4 megabits per second, even though the company claims a “peak” speed of more than 10 mbps and typical real-life speeds of up to 6 mbps. (Peak speeds on all these networks are usually two to three times as high as real-life speeds.)

This week, I tested the new T-Mobile HSPA+ network in two locations in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., where the carrier told me it had deployed the faster network. T-Mobile has yet to offer a phone that can take full advantage of HSPA+ speeds, though it says 15 of its current phones will go somewhat faster in HSPA+ areas. Its only true HSPA+ device is a laptop data modem called the webConnect Rocket. T-Mobile claims HSPA+ offers peak download speeds of 21 mbps, and says that, in real-life use, its webConnect Rocket should get download speeds of 5 to 8 mbps, and sometimes as high as 10 to 12 mbps.

For my tests, I compared a standard 3G iPhone 4 running on AT&T against T-Mobile’s latest Android phone, the MyTouch 3G Slide. I did a laptop test, comparing the Rocket against a standard 3G data modem from Verizon, called the UM175, using both with the same Lenovo ThinkPad. I disabled Wi-Fi before testing.

In all the tests, the T-Mobile HSPA+ network beat the competition in download speeds, though I never saw the top claimed speeds.

In each spot, I did 10 tests of the devices and averaged their speeds. At the first location, the T-Mobile Slide barely edged out the iPhone, with a download speed averaging 2.84 mbps versus the iPhone’s 2.74 mbps. At the second location, however, the Slide’s edge grew, with an average download speed of 4.26 mbps versus 3.65 mbps for the Apple (AAPL) product.

The laptop tests were much more dramatic. At my first test location, the T-Mobile Rocket drove the ThinkPad to an average download speed of 4.88 megabits per second, versus just 1.36 megabits per second for the Verizon data modem. At the second location, the Rocket achieved an average download speed on the laptop of 6.15 mbps versus 1.58 mbps for Verizon’s modem.

To be fair, the tests were performed in areas of strength for T-Mobile, which may have been weaker coverage areas for AT&T and Verizon. I have gotten much better speeds from the Verizon device in other locations, though never as high as what the Rocket delivered. Also, the Verizon data modem wasn’t the carrier’s newest or possibly its best.

But even though they didn’t back up T-Mobile’s top speed claims, the tests suggest we are heading into a future where the carrier networks may finally catch up with the power of the new smartphones.

Find all of Walter S. Mossberg’s columns and videos, free, at walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

Speedup

U.S. carriers’ planned higher-speed wireless networks

Carrier	Next High-Speed Network	Claimed Peak Download Speed*	When Commercially Deployed	Number Of Metro Areas
Sprint	WiMax 4g	Over 10 mbps	Today	36, more coming
T-Mobile	HSPA+ 3G	21 mbps	Today	25, more coming
Verizon	LTE 4G	40-50 mbps	By year end	Up to 30, more later
AT&T**	HSPA+ 3G and LTE 4G	16 mbps for HSPA+, higher for LTE	HSPA+ this year, LTE in 2011	No number announced

*Speed is expressed in megabits per second. Actual speeds experienced by users vary, but are generally much slower.

**AT&T has announced an intention to deploy both HSPA+, and LTE. Sources: Carriers’ claims

Installing Drivers for Windows 7

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:58:02 +0000

I enjoyed your positive preview of Windows 7, but wondered if we will need to find and install all new device drivers for hardware if we upgrade to Windows 7, as we had to do with Vista?

Microsoft says that, in most cases, the Vista drivers — software that makes hardware like printers or monitors operate with a PC — will work fine with Windows 7, which is the successor to Vista that is coming later this year. In some cases, where Windows 7 has features Vista lacked, such as its multi-touch screen features, new drivers will be required. Hardware manufacturers may also choose to do new Windows 7 drivers to take advantage of under-the-hood improvements in the new version. But Microsoft claims the Vista drivers will work in the vast majority of cases.

If you are running the much older Windows XP, as many folks are, and Windows 7 doesn’t automatically work with your hardware, you may need to obtain a new driver.

In my preliminary tests with a beta version of Windows 7, on two laptops, I found most internal and external hardware worked fine without installing any drivers. But there were some exceptions. For instance, on a Lenovo ThinkPad I was testing, the scroll function on the touch pad didn’t work, and I had to get help from Microsoft to make Windows 7 recognize that my HP printer was capable of automatically printing on both sides of a page. One hopes that, by the time Windows 7 ships, companies like Lenovo, HP and Microsoft will have fixed such issues.

You said that Windows 7 seems better than Vista, but in my view that’s a low bar. How does it compare to Windows XP, which most people I know are still using because they had no interest in switching to Vista?

I didn’t directly compare Windows 7 to XP, partly because I was just offering my first impressions of a beta, or test, version of the new edition of Windows, and was sizing it up against its much-maligned predecessor, Vista. However, my general sense is that Windows 7 will run as quickly and smoothly as Windows XP — especially an average user’s Windows XP installation, since these machines tend to slow down over the years unless you do a lot of techie maintenance on them.

In your Windows 7 preview column, you said upgrading from Vista would be a straightforward process, but that upgrading from XP would be “more cumbersome.” Can you elaborate?

Microsoft hasn’t released details, and may not even have finished the software needed to upgrade an XP machine to Windows 7. But it is likely to be a lengthy, multi-step process, as opposed to the simple, direct, relatively fast upgrade I performed on a Vista laptop. This could deter XP owners from upgrading, even if an upgrade would be worthwhile in the long run. But it might please the computer makers, who would like all those folks running XP to just buy new PCs with Windows 7 pre-installed.

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.

Even in Test Form, Windows 7 Leaves Vista in the Dust

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:02:03 +0000

This will be a big year for new operating systems. Apple (AAPL) plans a new version of its Macintosh operating system, to be called Snow Leopard. Palm (PALM) plans an all-new smart phone operating system called Palm WebOS. But the new release that will affect more users than any other will be Windows 7, the latest major edition of Microsoft‘s dominant platform.

Microsoft (MSFT) hasn’t announced an official release date for Windows 7, but I would be surprised if it wasn’t available to consumers by this fall. The company has just released the first public beta, or test, version of the software, and I’ve been trying it out on two laptops. One is a Lenovo ThinkPad lent me by Microsoft with Windows 7 already installed, and the other is my own Sony Vaio, which I upgraded to Windows 7 from Windows Vista.

[ See post to watch video ]

I won’t be doing a full, detailed review of Windows 7 until it is released in final form, but here’s a preview of some of the main features of this new operating system and some of my initial impressions.

In general, I have found Windows 7 a pleasure to use. There are a few drawbacks, but my preliminary verdict on Windows 7 is positive.

Even in beta form, with some features incomplete or imperfect, Windows 7 is, in my view, much better than Vista, whose sluggishness, annoying nag screens, and incompatibilities have caused many users to shun it. It’s also a serious competitor, in features and ease of use, for Apple’s current Leopard operating system. (I can’t say yet how it will compare with Apple’s planned new release, as I haven’t tried the latter.)

In many respects, Windows 7 isn’t a radical shift from Vista, but is more of an attempt to fix Vista’s main flaws. It shares the same underlying architecture, and retains graphical touches like translucent Window borders. But it introduces some key new navigation and ease-of-use features, plus scores of small usability and performance improvements — too many to list here.

The flashiest departure in Windows 7, and one that may eventually redefine how people use computers, is its multitouch screen navigation. Best known on Apple’s iPhone, this system allows you to use your fingers to directly reposition, resize, and flip through objects on a screen, such as windows and photos. It is smart enough to distinguish between various gestures and combinations of fingers. I haven’t been able to test this feature extensively yet, because it requires a new kind of touch-sensitive screen that my laptops lack.

But even if your current or future PC lacks a touch screen, Windows 7 will have plenty of other benefits. The most important may be speed. In my tests, even the beta version of Windows 7 was dramatically faster than Vista at such tasks as starting up the computer, waking it from sleep and launching programs.

And this speed boost wasn’t only apparent in the preconfigured machine from Microsoft, but on my own Sony (SNE), which had been a dog using Vista, even after I tried to streamline its software. Of course, these speed gains may be compromised by the computer makers, if they add lots of junky software to the machines. Windows 7 is also likely to run well on much more modest hardware configurations than Vista needed.

The familiar Windows taskbar is more customizable and useful in Windows 7. The program icons are larger, and can be “pinned” anywhere along the taskbar for easy, repeated use. There are also “jump lists” that pop out from the icons in the taskbar and start menu, showing frequently used or recent actions.

A screenshot shows several application windows on the desktop of the Beta version of the Microsoft Windows 7 software.

Windows 7 also cuts down on annoying warnings and nag screens. Microsoft notifications have been consolidated in a single icon at the right of the taskbar, and you can now decide under what circumstances Windows will warn you before taking certain actions.

Compatibility with hardware and software, which was a problem in Vista, seems far better in Windows 7 — even in the beta. I tried a wide variety of hardware, including printers, Web cams, external hard disks and cameras, and nearly all worked fine.

I also successfully installed and used popular programs from Microsoft’s rivals, such as Mozilla Firefox, Adobe Reader, Apple’s iTunes, and Google’s (GOOG) Picasa. All worked properly, even though none was designed for Windows 7.

But there are some downsides to Windows 7. First, you will only be able to directly upgrade Vista computers to the new version. People still using Windows XP will need to perform a more cumbersome multistep process. Microsoft is working on a method to help XP owners preserve all their data during this process.

Second, Windows 7 will eliminate some familiar bundled programs from Windows. Vista’s Mail, Calendar, Photo Gallery, Movie Maker, and Address Book programs are being removed. To get similar basic, free, programs, you’ll have to download them from Microsoft’s Windows Live service, or use alternatives from other companies. Microsoft defends this move as supporting consumer choice and better coordination with Web services, but it does remove out-of-the-box functionality from Windows.

Still, even in its preliminary form, Windows 7 looks very promising, and could well help expunge the bad reputation of Vista.

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.