User interface, operating system and architecture

Abstract

Disclosed are a novel user interface, operating system, software language and architecture.

Description

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS[0001]The present application for patent incorporates by reference and claims the priority of commonly owned United States Provisional Applications for Patent Ser. No. 60 / 409,483 filed Sep. 10, 2002 and Ser. No. 60 / 428,163 filed Nov. 21, 2002.BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION[0002]In recent years, the mobile computing marketplace has been flooded with smaller and faster personal devices. These next generation handhelds, cell phones, automotive telematics and personal information devices sport high resolution screens in excess of 320 by 240 pixels, processors faster than 300 MHz, and more than 16 Mbyte of dynamic RAM. New cell phones already in the marketplace combine traditional cellular technology with the power of a small personal computer. Future devices will create brand new breeds of handheld personal computers with unparalleled power, mobility and battery life.[0003]Despite these impending revolutions in device capability, the market has failed...

AI Technical Summary

Benefits of technology

[0030]The present invention addresses these limitations of the prior art, by providing methods and structures, aspects of which will be referred to variously hereinafter as “the Simple Quick Go system”, “SQGO,”“SimpleOperatingSystem”, “SimpleOS” and the like, that enable simple, cost-effective design, construction, deployment and distribution of rich applications for computing devices, particularly suited for wireless devices and other mobile computing devices and platforms.

[0032]In one aspect of the invention, the superstructure is an XML information structure. Application appearance and behavior are encapsulated within the superstructure, and application events are expressed to the superstructure via a pathway including a device-native operating system (OS) and a superstructure-dedicated OS acting as an intermediary between the device-native OS and the superstructure. In this way, a defined portion of the application can be addressed and updated in response to application events without necessitating update of the entire application, and the appearance and behavior of the application can be propagated with consistency across heterogeneous device types, to enable cross-device interoperability, replicability, and compatibility of applications and data with a consistency of user experience.

Problems solved by technology

Future devices will create brand new breeds of handheld personal computers with unparalleled power, mobility and battery life.

Despite these impending revolutions in device capability, the market has failed to produce common, underlying standards for mobile interfaces.

Even in this nascent stage of device adoption, it is clear to industry observers that the wireless application market has become fragmented.

Java-based technologies such as J2ME have been stymied with high hurdles to application qualification and numerous manufacturer-specific additions.

Microsoft .NET technology, while promising, has been slow to grow on non-Intel platforms.

Binary-based solutions like SymbianOS and BREW have failed to develop traction in a cautious market.

Several significant hurdles obstruct easy development of rich, widely deployable applications that run (at least partially) natively on a device:Multiple platforms require porting code to a variety of different API standards.

Even within a single architecture specification, different platforms have slight variations that require extensive testing and modification.Competing languages (primarily C and lava) have no easy porting relationship.Service operators have created qualification hurdles that require expensive certification tests for applications before they can be deployed on a given platform.The industry has yet to agree on a common distribution mechanism for applications.

Consequently, getting the application onto multiple devices becomes extremely difficult.

Many developers are small software shops that cannot afford to develop on multiple platforms and seek multiple certifications from operators.

Those familiar with the arts of computer design are aware that modern implementations use extremely complex optimizations and heuristics to achieve greater performance in this basic model, including Intel's Superscalar architecture.

A variation on this method is used by Microsoft's operating system in its hibernation mode, and by the old BSD tool “undump.” This method requires very little work to decompose and marshal private data structure into a secondary form, however it contains a very stringent limitation: The application “image” can only be restored on a system that implements the same hardware and operating system state that the original program had run on.

Any differences could cause unpredictable problems with the executable.

Thus, the Von Neumann model and the program execution models that result from it, while useful and ubiquitous, present limitations that computer scientists and engineers have recognized but failed to address.

Some of these limitations include:Instruction Based Programming: Applications written for instantiations of the Von Neumann architecture must write their applications in the native (or emulated) code set of the given platform.

These algorithms can be complex and rely on an instructive model whereby the changes are made linearly step-by-step.Remote Execution: Remote execution involves either migrating images of a running program to a second location, or through the explicit marshalling and unmarshalling of relevant computing dataState Saving: Programs that are halted and wish to save their state for resumption at a later time must use one of the two difficult strategies listed above, each with potential drawbacks.Private Application Structures: Applications store all of their data using implicit data structures within their memory core.

Images