The first online chat program I ever used was IRC, or Internet Relay Chat. It’s still around, and is very popular among smaller groups since it’s so flexible and anyone can run a server. Since then we’ve seen everything from AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) to Yahoo chat, ICQ, Jabber, and many others.

Nowadays, with Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites added into the mix, one could have a dozen IM clients open simultaneously. Keeping track of all those windows could be tough, and there’s the annoyance of maintaining each application as upgrades occur.

The good news is that you can probably find a “unified” client application that supports most, if not all your IM and Social Networking sites. Several years back some co-workers and I started using Trillian, which provides plugins for AIM, IRC, and numerous other services. It’s great — fire up one client, configure it with your various login ID and passwords, and you’re ready to go. All your connections appear in one application, and you can toggle through each one as events occur.

The one bad point is that, at present, some of these unified apps support only Windows. Vendors have mostly stated support for Mac and Linux, but have yet to deliver. That said, eBuddy is web based, which means it should be multiplatform already (presuming the developers have done their job well).

Even better — several of these apps are now available for the iPhone and other mobile devices, like the Android phone. So you don’t even need a PC or Mac. You can keep up with your friends and IM on the road as well. And finally, both Adium and Pidgin are Open Source, so “if you want to modify the code to fit your own IM desires, that’s possible. And those in the open-source community are constantly improving the product, whose updates typically install with ease.” Those last points are the sign of a good, stable product. And any app that allows you to monkey with the code is all right by me.

Question: aside from sheer size, what’s the most obvious physical difference between a cell phone and a laptop? Each has a screen, network capability, and battery. Each generally has some sort of external connection (e.g. USB of some flavor) that allows other types of devices to be connected. So what’s the fundamental difference?

If your answer was “the keyboard” you got it right. Until now, cell phones have largely used traditional numeric keypads. Sure, some higher end models (e.g. the BlackBerry) have had real keyboards, but this wasn’t the general form factor seen on the street a thousand times a day. But if trends are any indication, this situation may be changing pretty rapidly. Here it is, in black and white: “at North America’s largest cell phone trade show, running this week in Las Vegas, there were few new phones for the U.S. market that had a numerical keypad instead of an alphabetic keyboard.”

I see this as the sort of technological convergence that’s already consigned PDAs to small niche markets. Why buy a tiny, mainly locked device that uses a stylus (I’ve never been able to get one to work well…have you?) when, for not much more money, you can get a Netbook or other small laptop that does ten times as much and has a real keyboard? As laptops got smaller, PDAs got squeezed out. I know medical people who still use them as quick-reference devices while visiting patients, but that’s about it. Small laptops have taken over.

Now, it seems, cell phones are converging further with laptops. The BlackBerry and other high end models already have real keyboards and Windows. Why not extend this to other models, especially since everyone texts and does email via their phone these days?

I think it’s only a matter of time before the devices converge further. Maybe laptops will start shipping with built-in cell service, so they can be used both as phones and as full-featured computers. This is already possible if (for example) you install a Sprint or Verizon PC card in your laptop and run Skype on it. Why not go all the way and make multi-tasking devices that do it all?

I think it’ll happen. Give it a few years, and we’ll see.

According to a recent study, sales of notebook (laptop) PCs “edged” past desktops in the third quarter of 2008. That’s a first. Until now, desktop systems had always outsold laptops. This is fairly significant news, but it’s hard to say for certain what it means for the industry yet.

Will desktop PCs die a slow death? Maybe. Notebooks have been gaining in power pretty rapidly as of late. In the past, notebooks were nearly always considered poor cousins that didn’t provide the performance and processing capacity that a desktop could muster. That’s really no longer true, and with today’s range of docking stations you can build a full-featured desktop based around a notebook system. When docked you can use USB devices, an external monitor (or two), high speed wired LANs, and even a desktop-style keyboard/mouse combination.

Using this sort of setup, you can undock the system and walk off with all your data and applications intact. No need to copy files to and from a desktop system, maintain separate copies of applications (and maybe licenses), or worry about whether you have the right version of a given file. It’s all in one place.

I also suspect more people want mobility due to the increased availability of WiFi access in public spaces. I do a lot of work via my laptop systems (I have two, one owned by my employer and another I bought for writing and consulting work). It’s great to be able to work from any location with a network connection, and I was able to pick up my notebook and work from Starbucks during the recent Northeast ice storms. I couldn’t do that with a desktop system.

The obvious issue is security. If you’re using a notebook as your primary machine, you need to keep it locked down from both a physical and a data security perspective. Lose your machine, and you could be out of luck in several ways: compromised data and a total inability to do any work until the system is replaced.

If you go totally mobile, your notebook becomes a SPoF (Single Point of Failure). If it’s gone, so is your ability to work. Keep this in mind if you decide to pitch your desktop system.

In a move that’s sure to please business travelers everywhere, several airlines have started offering in-flight Internet access for laptops, PDAs, and other devices. It’s about time. There was no real technological barrier to this type of access, but nonetheless it’s taken years to appear. I suspect it’ll give early-adopter airlines like Delta a temporary competitive advantage over other companies that are lagging behind.

Access, which is provided through a service called Gogo Inflight Internet service from Aircell LLC, is managed like any other cafe-style provider. Users pay a flat fee of $12.95 for flights over 3 hours, or $9.95 for shorter hops. Delta just started the service this week and provides it on a limited number of flights, but “says that the service will be offered on five more flights by the end of the month and that it will be available on as many as 300 planes by the end of 2009.” American and Virgin America have been offering it for a few months now. Other carriers have deployment plans over the next year or so.

Users get the same access they’d find at Starbucks or in a hotel — text messaging, standard Internet access, and the ability to connect to corporate VPNs. This means all those hours passengers formerly spent operating in disconnected mode can now be more productive, which is both good and bad depending on your point of view. No more “I couldn’t connect to the server because I was in the air” excuses will be accepted by in-the-know bosses, I suspect.

Some things you still can’t do. For instance, “cell phone and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, such as Skype, are not available due to FAA restrictions.” I can, to some degree, understand prohibiting cell service and would hate it if 95% of my fellow passengers spent the entire flight yapping on their CrackBerries, but why VoIP? It’s just another service running over the net, after all. Why prohibit it?

For myself, I’ll be happy if I can watch movies on Hulu during a long and boring flight. But I suspect I’ll have to bring my own popcorn.

Nearly everyone who uses a laptop, cell phone, or PDA suffers from a lack of usable battery life. Whenever I travel, I see users in airports and coffee shops frantically hunting for seats near outlets. Even with low-use CPU chips and power-saving features, most laptops realistically get 3-4 hours between charges. That’s barely enough time to write a report, much less do anything significant.

For years we’ve been told that fuel cell technology is just around the corner, and that it’ll revolutionize mobile devices by offering days worth of power rather than just a few hours. the main problems have been safety and reliability. Fuel cells typically use some sort of combustible material (butane is an example) and the last thing anyone wants is a laptop bursting into flames or detonating messily in a user’s lap. Also, the US Department of Transportation had banned these materials from fuel cells, citing safety concerns.

That may now be changing, since these rules have apparently been rescinded and industry pundits say they were one of the last major obstacles to commercial deployment. Thus it’s possible we “are now truly a year or two away, as electronics manufacturers show more interest and fuel cell makers move beyond trade-show prototypes.”

This would be outstanding news, not just for laptop users but for anyone who needs to run a mobile device for an extended period. At least one manufacturer is working on a device that uses standard butane cartridges to charge any device that can be charged from a USB port. The cool thing is that these systems are very efficient and don’t require much fuel. One claims that a “teaspoon of the fuel can provide 20 times the run time of a battery of the same size. The charging system would likely sell for $100 to $150 with refill cartridges retailing for $1 to $3.”

Personally, I can’t wait. I hate being tethered to an outlet, especially when writing long articles or working on code. It’d be nice to have the ability to go to a park or other outdoor location and not worry about needing access to an outlet 3-4 hours after commencing work.

If someone starts selling a device that’ll let me recharge my laptop, cell, and iPod multiple times for a few dollars a shot, I’ll be first in line to buy one. Let’s just hope this isn’t another “just around the corner” come-on deal. I’ve heard it before, and I’ll believe it when I see the devices on store shelves.

An interesting new Pittsburgh startup company is offering users a new tool to help them deal with questionable personal situations using the latest technology. The company, called My Mobile Witness, provides a service that allows users to store digital images of strangers or other unknown people with whom they need to interact.

For example: you’re a young woman going on a blind date. You snap a shot of your date before leaving for the restaurant or movie theater, and send it to your “vault” on the service’s website. Alternately, you can text message your vault and store the information (say, his name and mobile number) there. All messages are stored with timestamp information.

If you turn up missing, police or other investigative personnel can retrieve the message/photo from the vault. If this person was the last to see you alive, they’ll automatically become a “person of interest” in the case. The company’s founders originated the concept in order to provide a measure of safety to real estate agents who often must visit questionable locations.

The other use for this type of service is as a deterrent to physical assault. If someone’s about to attack you, stating that you’ve just messaged your current location and other information about the person (especially a cell-phone photo) to the My Mobile Witness site might just keep the assault from happening in the first place. It’s the digital equivalent to “I’ve left a letter with my lawyer, and if I turn up missing after meeting you he’ll give it to the police.”

It could also be used by travelers to store their most recent location: if you’re driving from Boston to St. Louis and your last recorded position fix was in Chicago, authorities could probably figure out approximately where you had an accident or were assaulted on the road.

Does this product play into modern paranoia about strangers, date rape, psychopaths, and other fears? Absolutely. And it’ll probably sell, since fear is a strong selling point. Just look at all the people who bought “terrorism survival kits” after 9/11, and the perpetually strong sales of products like Mace and pepper spray. For many people, it’ll be another tool in the arsenal. Whether it catches on and actually proves useful in deterring or solving crimes is another story altogether.

In a truly stunning announcement today, Verizon Wireless said it would start shipping phones with the Linux operating system installed. Yes that’s right — Linux. Verizon officials said they “expected it to become the ‘preferred’ software on its network.” It turns out they’re working with the LiMo (Linux Mobile) Foundation, which is just plain good news for everyone but Microsoft.

It’s a perfect marriage, really. Linux is freely distributed and can be modified by anyone who wants to put in the time. The kernel (not “kernal,” which is an ancient misspelling that made it into OS lore decades ago) can be shrunk considerably by eliminating non-essential features. This makes it relatively easy to fit onto smaller, memory-constrained devices.

The LiMo Foundation’s objective “is to create an open, Linux-based software platform for use by the whole global industry to produce mobile devices through a balanced and transparent contribution process enabling a rich ecosystem of differentiated products, applications, and services from device manufacturers, operators, ISVs and integrators.” That’s a mouthful, but more companies are joining in. The foundation released its Version 1 software back in March, so it’s the real thing.

Basically, the whole idea is to prevent one vendor’s OS from becoming dominant on phones (especially, I suspect, integrated devices) as the market transitions from PDA + cell phone + laptop to multi-functional gadgets that can do everything. In other words, Windows Mobile won’t end up “owning” this market space since it’ll have direct competition from other established vendors from the beginning.

I’m also of the opinion this is good news for consumers, since phone companies won’t have to charge customers per-device Windows licensing fees. A free OS means a cheaper phone system, and one that’s not tied to the peculiar desires of a single vendor.

Competition in the marketplace is a good thing for everyone. It helps keep vendors from becoming lazy, keeps prices low, and provides consumers with choice. Market forces make for better systems.

As if on cue, following my recent article on PC/PDA/phone convergence, PC World ran an article discussing the difference between various classes of “new” devices. Along with this, there’s also the recent introduction of the MacBook Air, allegedly the thinnest full-sized laptop in the world so far. Yes, things just keep getting smaller all the time.

You can look at this trend another way, though. Laptops are getting smaller as users (especially students and business travelers) demand devices that won’t cause their chiropractors to become overly rich. At the same time, you can argue that phones are getting bigger as new features are added. Ultra-tiny phones used to be all the rage. Now they’re vanishing as phone technology converges with PDAs and laptops.

It’s interesting to note that each class of device has its own designation. There are UMPC types, which are also called “tweeners” because (ha ha) their size and feature set places them in between laptops and PDA Phones. Then there are the “ultraportable” laptops, which sacrifice certain features — say, PC card capability — in order to achieve a more bearable lightness of being. As the article notes, a device has to weigh in at under 3.5 lbs in order to be considered an ultraportable.

Most interesting are the MIDs, or “Mobile Internet Devices. ” These guys are designed almost solely for browsing the Internet, which seems strange given the trend toward convergence. Will this class survive, or will it vanish like the PDA is soon to do?

All these ultra-small devices have their shortcomings and advantages. While they’re very lightweight and easy to carry around, the screens are frequently small and performance can be less than brilliant. They’re not really designed for ongoing, full-day labor (I’d go blind using the Fujitsu LifeBook’s 5.6″ screen for a full day of writing). They’re meant for people who are on the road and in need of something that can handle messaging, light “Office” applications, and occasional web browsing.

The other disadvantage is that they’re all-in-one devices. While it’s great to have your phone and laptop in a single package, you’re in trouble if one or the other component decides to die suddenly. Think of old compact stereo systems (turntable, radio, amplifier, and tape player in one box). If the turntable died, your whole system was crippled until it was fixed or you bought a new unit. With separate components, you can keep working while one gets fixed.

These things are great for road warriors, but don’t pitch your full-sized machine or cell phone just yet.

Although they look like fine devices, I’ve never managed to convince myself to invest in a PDA. I’ve tried a few, have read articles comparing their features and user interfaces, and have spoken with colleagues who say they couldn’t live without theirs. But my handwriting is so abysmal that no PDA has ever had a chance of learning it to any significant degree, so I can’t use one for note taking. Now, it appears the whole concept may be heading into the dustbin of history as PDA functionality is overtaken by “converged” devices like the BlackBerry, iPhone, and tiny laptops. According to the above article, only about 730,000 units were sold in the 3rd quarter of 2007, meaning that overall shipments “fell 39.3 percent year-over-year.”

A lot of the problem is that PDAs only do one thing well, whereas “converged” devices are multi-taskers. Who wants to have a PDA, cell phone, pager, camera, and other items hanging on a “Bat utility belt” around their waist when a single item like an iPhone can encapsulate most popular functions in a much smaller package? Even my MotoRazr phone can surf the Web, play music, and take notes! This said, the main disadvantage with a multi-tasking device is that it’s a single point of failure - if your BlackBerry or iPhone dies, or you leave it in the back seat of a taxi, you’ve lost everything (phone, PDA, camera, etc.).

I suspect the convergence trend will continue, as device sizes shrink while capabilities grow exponentially. I recall some years ago watching a colleague have a conversation on his infrared-equipped dual-channel cell phone while simultaneously opening a connection to a corporate network via his similarly equipped PDA. He was able to access files on a company UNIX system and make changes to them while talking with a co-worker. That was pretty cool in the year 2000, but today he could perform the same task using a single device. The speed and interface would probably be much better as well.

It’s only a matter of time before we all have access to universal devices that perform and look (well, maybe not…) like Star Trek “Tricorder” units - they’ll be capable of recording audio & video, transmitting and receiving it via a universally accessible high speed network, as well as providing us with real-time information about our environment based on GPS data and selected preferences. They’ll be able to access information on our home computing systems, and will probably be able to talk to our Internet-enabled home appliances as well. They’ll be set up with a personal phone number that we’ll retain for life (no more changing numbers when we move), so we’ll be accessible anywhere we go as long as there’s a signal.

Since the iPhone can already do most of these things, I predict we’ll see the full package before the year 2010. Now if we could only add the ability to detect alien life forms…