0423.1 Hot Topics

Network Associates Unveils Next-Generation Network and Host Intrusion Prevention Solutions

0423.2 Story of the Issue

Joint UWBST & IWUWBS 2004

0423.3 Displays

LCD PC Monitors Are a Flat-Out Success, Outshipping Traditional CRTs by 2004, IDC Says

0423.4 Wireless

Wi-Fi Alliance Designates TerraWave Solutions as an Official Test Bed Fulfillment Source for Wireless Networking Products

0423.5 Software

Savvysoft Announces Patent-Pending Software To Run Excel 300 Times Faster

--------------------------------------

0423.1 Hot Topics

***Network Associates Unveils Next-Generation Network and Host Intrusion Prevention Solutions

SANTA CLARA, Calif.
June 14

Network Associates, Inc., announced its next-generation host and network intrusion prevention (IPS) solution, that offers the industry's most comprehensive, accurate and scalable IPS solutions through the introduction of McAfee Entercept 5.0 and McAfee IntruShield 2.1. The new breakthrough capabilities deliver the industry's first encrypted threat protection by a network IPS, integration of firewall functionality in both McAfee IntruShield and McAfee Entercept products, as well as integrated host and network IPS event management.

Through the combination of McAfee Entercept and McAfee IntruShield solutions, Network Associates uniquely offers the industry's most comprehensive protection that proactively defends customer's servers, desktops, network core and edge from the threat of known, zero-day and encrypted attacks. The combined McAfee IPS solution has delivered zero-day protection against all recent outbreaks, an accomplishment unmatched by any other security solution provider in the industry.

Next-Generation Network IPS

With the release of McAfee IntruShield 2.1, Network Associates redefines network IPS technology through the introduction of network-based encrypted threat protection and internal firewall integration. These breakthrough features underscore the company's proven technology leadership in anticipating customer needs and delivering leading-edge IPS solutions through innovation, integration and advanced intrusion prevention. Among the features included in the release of McAfee IntruShield 2.1:

-- Encrypted Attack Detection and Prevention – McAfee IntruShield is the first and only network IPS to protect
against both clear-text and encrypted attacks. McAfee IntruShield pioneers technology for the decryption and
inspection of SSL encrypted traffic, while maintaining the integrity of the encrypted data and encryption keys. Broad signature, anomaly and DoS analysis for both clear-text and encrypted traffic occurs in real time, without service
degradation.

-- Internal Firewall -- McAfee IntruShield is the industry's first network IPS to deliver internal firewall protection
that extends perimeter-grade protection internal to the network. The internal firewall enables security
professionals to enforce granular and powerful security policies throughout internal networks such as blocking
unwanted or P2P traffic.

-- Virtual Firewall - The McAfee IntruShield solution's unique virtualization capabilities now extend to internal firewall functionality as well. The combination of the McAfee IntruShield virtual IPS and virtual internal firewall
functionality enables security administrators to uniquely implement "Virtual Perimeter" security. The Virtual
Perimeter provides an added layer of protection against attacks that penetrate a perimeter firewall or against
attacks that originate internally, and can deliver unprecedented granularity of security policy enforcement
with unique policies for an internal LAN segments, a collections of hosts or even individual hosts.

-- Host IPS Event Integration -- The McAfee IntruShield Manager integrates host and network IPS event management with a centralized and unified management console for both McAfee IntruShield and McAfee Entercept solutions. Security professionals will have an easy-to-understand, consolidated system-wide view of all security events occurring on both their network and their hosts, enabling them to respond to events faster and better utilizing existing security resources.

http://www.networkassociates.com/

Return to the Menu

0423.2 Story of the Issue

***Joint UWBST & IWUWBS 2004
By John Latta

Kyoto, Japan
May 19 – 21, 2004

The WAVE attended the Joint Ultra Wideband Systems and Technology (UWBST)& International Workshop for Ultra Wideband Systems (IWUWBS). An interesting mix of discussions about standards and regulations, as well as applications, was the basis for an informative and sometimes surprising conference. One thing was very obvious: Japan was most proud that this event was in its own country and especially in Kyoto. With the US in a lead, from a regulatory standpoint, the Japanese are not ready to concede ground on the technology.

Japan Makes Major Investment in UWB

Japan has formed a UWB Consortium under the NICT (CRL – Yokohama National University) UWB Technology Institute. It has 30 companies and 6 universities. The focus is on the R&D for UWB and the promotion of UWB wireless systems in Japan. They are also doing R&D on a low cost module which has a data rate >100Mb/s. There are 83 researchers from 22 organizations working at the Consortium. The companies participating include: Sanyo, OKI, Casio, Fujitsu and many others. The major research areas include: ultra-high accuracy ranging and positioning, devices, antennas and interference suppression technologies. The Consortium has implemented two transceivers for each of MB-OFDM and SSA-UWB (Impulse Radio).

As with many of the research initiatives in Japan, the efforts in UWB have a linkage to an overall vision. Here it is the creation of a Social Infrastructure – called COE. The parts are:

Commerce – eCommerce,
ITS – Intelligent Transportation System,
Energy Supply – the Flex-Energy Network and Powerline
Communications – Common Network for Electricity and
Information, and
Telecommunications and Information

This supports the Japanese view that UWB has many applications:

Wireless Communications
Short distance communications
Indoor wireless including WLANs, wireless tags and PANs
Outdoor wireless including WLL

Intelligent Transport Systems
Collision Avoidance Radar
Integrated ranging and communications

Imaging and Sensors
Medical Imaging
Ground Penetration

Security Systems
Intrusion detection and sensing

The illustration of this showed CE which included PCs, televisions, printers, and digital and video cameras. Thus, Japan sees UWB fitting closely with the businesses which are important to the economy – cars and CE.

Introductory Views from Japan

Professor Ryuji Kohno, Yokohama National University, plays an important role in many of the activities in Japan. In addition to the UWB consortium he is leading the efforts to advise the Japanese government on its regulatory position on UWB.

Professor Ryuji Kohno gave his views of UWB at the conference. These included:

The value of USB is:

Low interference to existing telecommunications systems,
Very low power consumption,
High speeds,
Multi-path resolution, and
One Chip Implementation

The problems of USB include:
The design and mass-production of UWB components,
The detection of accurate pulse waveforms in the, presence of multipath,
Multi-user interference and intra-system interference,
Inter-system interference – Overlaid systems, and
Spectral allocation for UWB.

The UWB Technology Institute in NICT (former Communications Research Laboratory) of the Yokosuka Research Laboratory was formed on May 1, 2002 and headed by Ryuji Kohno.

On 2/04 an interim report on UWB Radio Regulation was released and it is expected that on Q3 2004 that the MPHPT, Japanese regulator, will approve some of these regulations.

There are two proposals for the emission power mask. One that matches the FCC for outdoor and which is more
aggressive in the frequency range outside of the band 3.1 – 10.6GHz.

In summary, the most important development for UWB is how to implement a low cost chip set and SoC with low power for a portable UWB system.

It’s a Draw between OFDM and DS Impulse

R. Scholtz, Professor and Director of the UltRa Lab, USC, polled the UWB community, industry and academia on who would win the standards battle. 56% stated OFDM and 44% stated DS Impulse. This was further supported by Jim Lansford, CTO, Alereon who stated that he is getting requests for his chip sets to support both PHY’s. He expressed regret for this because UWB is to be low cost and when the radios must support both implementations this is not in the right direction.

Sensing the Pulse of UWB

The introductory presentation by Professor Scholtz provided an overview of the technology. Most of this was a review of what is in the literature. The most interesting part of the talk was on an on-going survey of those in UWB about its potential. Key results include:

The scale was:
1 = impossible
3 = breakthrough required
6 = with effort
10 = easy

Will UWB achieve 1Gp/s in a room over a single link?
Average 5.7

Will UWB achieve 1Gp/s in a room with multiple access?
Average 4.3

Will UWB achieve sub-centimeter ranging accuracy?
Average 5.4

For a CMOS/SiGe full band implementation (3.1 – 10.6GHz) what are the levels of difficulty of the following:
5.6 - High-quality Full Band Antenna
5.3 – LNA design
5.6 – Transmitter
3.9 – All – Digital receiver
5.6 – Hybrid receiver - analog correlation
6.1 – 500MHz all digital receiver

Will their be viable UWB indoor applications in the next 3 years
6.9 – position location
6.3 – imaging through materials
5.6 – intrusion alarm
6.7 – PANs
6.0 – RF ID tags

1 = good way to lose money
6 = competitive in the marketplace

ITU will not Touch IEEE Standards Process

In an overview of the ITU process for UWB under TG 1/8 the WAVE asked the question of Salim A Hanna, Chairman ITU-R TF 1/8 – will the ITU make a determination on the current standards issues – No, we are at a higher level.

UWB Coexistence and Cognitive Radios

Jim Lansford, CTO, Alereon gave an overview of the interference issues in UWB. Based on his work in the IEEE in addressing the coexistence problems between Bluetooth and WiFi, UWB coexistence will be a difficult problem. One of the issues is that the world is populated with dumb radios and in seeking to make the transition to smart radios there will always be a mix. It would be useful if the FCC could provide some incentive for cognitive radios to exist. That is, give them relief, such as radiated power, if they are cognitive. Not clear if such incentives will be put in the regulations.

Will Wireless USB Work?

Was there a paper here at Joint UWBST & IWUWBS 2004 on Wireless USB and its performance? No. Recall that this was the “standard” based on MultiBand OFDM that Intel rolled out as an end run on the IEEE standards process. After listening to many papers these last two days we picked up nothing which shows performance close to that of Wireless USB. With that we went asking questions.

What is Wireless USB?

At IDF NEC Electronics demonstrated Wireless USB but one could not get physically close to it. The requirements stated by Intel include:

480Mb/s bandwidth to 3 meters
Up to 1Gb/s
Power management including sleep/listen and wake
Security
Ease of Use which parallels USB
Bridge to wired USB devices
Host to Device wireless connectivity
Cluster on a Host of up to 127 devices
QoS support

The specification from MBOA covering the MAC and PHY layer are due Q2 2004. V 1.0 of the Wireless USB specification is due early 2005. First standards based products are to surface in mid-2005.

Here at the Joint UWBST & IWUWBS 2004 it was stated that the IEEE BER is 1 10**-5 which is cited for 802.11a. For example, the paper which looks at these issues on the IEEE web site “Coexistence of Multi-band OFDM and IEEE 802.11a: Interference Measurements,” only considers interference with 802.11a by UWB but not the opposite. This assessment uses the BER cited above as the reference value.

Joint UWBST & IWUWBS 2004 Perspective

A number of the papers here are raising issues about the performance of UWB in environments with interfering signals. A sample includes.

Matti Hämäläinen, Raffaello Tesi, Jari Iinatti, of the University of Oulu, Finland, presented a paper, UWB Co -Existence with IEEE802.11a and UMTS in Modified Saleh -Valenzuela Channel. The assessment considered both interference from 802.11a and UMTS operating when the UWB channel open. BER of 10**-2 is seen in the results and the paper states: “If the better BER performance is needed the data rate of the UWB system needs to be decreased, pulse energy increased or the error increase of error control coding is need [sic] to be implemented.”

Kohei Ohno, Takanori Ikebe, Tetsushi Ikegami of Meiji University, Japan in their paper: A Proposal for an Interference Mitigation Technique Facilitating the Coexistence of Bi-Phase UWB and Other Wideband Systems, suggest that the BER performance improves when the transmitting pulses are multi-carrier pulses and template waveforms are used. There is an adaptive elimination of the potential interfering sub- carrier, however a BER of 10**-5 in achieved only at Eb/NO of 10 at a UWB bandwidth of 617MHz.

Raffaello Tesi, Matti Hämäläinen, Jari Iinatti, Ian Oppermann, Veikko Hovinen, of the University of Oulu,
Finland, in their paper On the Multi-User Interference Study for Ultra Wideband Communication Systems in AWGN and Modified Saleh-Valenzuela Channel show that the interference in multiple access environments is more difficult to correct. Note that is likely more realistic an environment that UWB will operate in.

Nathaniel J. August, Rajesh Thirugnanam, Dong S. Ha of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, in
their paper examined An Adaptive UWB Modulation Scheme for Optimization of Energy, BER, and Data Rate raised issues discussed during the conference. This focused on using a UWB physical layer which is adaptive in modulation scheme to meet QoS requirements. It uses m-ary PPM modulation and adapts the pulse reputation interval (PRI) and/or number of bits per symbol. These techniques are claimed to improve the BER by 50% and the data rate by 260%. However, data rate for the adaptive system is only 84.1Mb/s. In the case of a video system it is assumed there is a BER of 2X 10**-2 and a data rate of 80Mb/s.

One of the red flags at the conference is the many doubting questions being raised. The WAVE spoke to some that raised these issues. Further, the WAVE also spoke with R. Scholtz, Professor and Director of the UltRa Lab, USC, who gave the keynote yesterday. Here is a summary of the comments:

UWB is very early in its development cycle. To expect the performance being cited is unrealistic at this time.

The interference issues can be substantial. One of the points missed is that many of the assessments of coexistence
are either simulations or in ideal situations. Measurements must be made under real conditions where the products are to be used and the interfering signal sources are not controlled.

A major concern is interference from unintended emitters. Sidebands from cell phones is one example which could impact UWB performance. The important point is that UWB exists as a non-interferer but many uncontrolled sources are potentially capable of making UWB ineffective.

It is frequently stated that processing will allow these interference issues to be overcome, but this requires
processing power. This goes directly against the intent to provide battery powered devices. Further, the goal of single chip low cost implementation may be compromised.

Thus, we were left with cause for pause on the high level of expectations being set of Wireless USB.

Next-RF

Hans Gregory Schantz, of Next-RF gave an excellent invited paper on Dispersion and UWB Antennas. The antenna problem is difficult in UWB. It again illustrates that UWB design is a systems issue and goes beyond what is done in traditional communications design where many of the component functions can be isolated.

Who says UWB is not without controversy? Now we understand why many view the FCC as having taken a leadership position in its stand on UWB. Some described UWB like herding cats but it seems like they are all fighting at the same time.

Seldom does Intel take a frontal assault on its technical position but Motorola, aka ExtremeSpectrum, now known as FreeStyle, went for the jugular in promoting its Direct Sequence Impulse implementation to UWB. Yet, Intel was not here, at least as a speaker, and Motorola had an open mike.

Last month Europe opened its eyes to the potential to UWB and moved forward with gusto. Expect to see regulations for UWB in 12 months. EU is also looking at Interference Temperature, another credit to the FCC.

Japan says that there cannot be a UWB transmitter in all of Tokyo due to interference with a passive satellite. Ridiculous restrictions were piled on one after another and one came away thinking – who are they kidding? As one member of the largely Japanese audience said – it is just a Japanese culture thing.

UWB Frontier

Much of the first two days was spent listening to carefully crafted research papers which one bores into to find the critical issues. Not on the last day. There were two panel discussions of which the first one was based presentations of broad views of UWB.

This is a like a real estate open market which few can agree on anything. In the US the FCC has said – we will give squatters rights to some land, aka spectrum, so long as the current owners do not know squatters are present. But these owners are concerned they MAY know. All the land owners cry wolf and a melee breaks out. The FCC steps in and says this is the way it will be and the wolves line up and go to the next step. But the issue does not end here as the fighting breaks out in other countries. Further how the land gets used brings another melee and it seems to start all over again.

What a soap opera.

If any company can make a dime from this is the $64 question.

FreeStyle Makes its Case

John McCorkle, Chief Technologists, UWB Operation, Freescale, spoke to the UWB applications in CE. Freescale is the spin out from Motorola that was purchased by Motorola as ExtremeSpectrum. Thus, Motorola bought the company an when it made its semiconductor operations independent so went the assets of ExtremeSpectrum.

A point made over and over in the presentation is that the DS Impulse method used by ExtremeSpectrum is not subject to Raleigh Fading. A propagating signal has the following limitations:

Distance dependent path loss,
Log-Normal Fading (Large Scale fading),
Raleigh Fading (Small-Scale Fading or Multipath fading),
Multipath Delay Spread, and
Interference from other systems.

Of which Raleigh Fading is an important factor. It is claimed that “coherent processing of the large bandwidth eliminates multipath fading.” While it claims this is not the case with the competing Multi-band OFDM. Another result is that Direct Sequence Impulse allows for faster radios and the gain over MB-OFDM improves with higher transmission speeds.

John further stated that as DW-UWB goes up in data rate the complexity of the system goes down. A reason is that there is no need for a FEC and the DS-UWB transmitter becomes a shift register and the receiver is a compartor. While with MB-OFDM is essentially the sum of many receivers and transmitters based on the bandwidth the complexity “mushrooms.”

Freescale will ship in volume in Q3 2004 with a three chip solution. Its next generation chip set is only 2 chips and will go to 220Mb/s and will ship in Q1 2005. Following that in Q1 2006 there will be a 1Gb/s chip set. The range at this rate will be 2m.

Freescale made a strong pitch that there are two main application scenarios in CE. These include in-room A/V distribution and handheld applications. It was claimed that the design of their chips would allow the placement in a cell phone with no interference.

The pitch did not end when John claimed a large market enabled by this technology. It was stated that the US regulations enable a market now, there are real products coming, a complete ecosystem is behind the solution they offer and support the effort are standards, specifications and special interest groups.

To drill in the anti-MB OFDM pitch it was stated that DS UWB is the only “true UWB,” in part due to the lack of multipath fading. Further, due to the power requirements MB-OFDM is unsuitable to battery powered operations. In addition, MB-OFDM will not achieve the high bandwidth of DS-UWB. John also stated that only DS-UWB has FCC regulatory approval. At present NTIA/ITS and the FCC are studying the MB-OFDM issues. According the Freescale their testing indicates that MB-OFDM will have to “substantially reduce the transmit power to get approval”

The usual logo parade included: Samsung, Panasonic, Toshiba, Sharp and Pioneer.

Freescale also touts that it has a 24-month time to market advantage.

MB-OFDM Camp Speaks with Low Voice

Staccato Communications, represented by its President and CEO, Roberto Aiello, gave the MB-OFDM pitch. The essence of the pitch is that there is the need for an ecosystem to make UWB work. Reliance was placed on the role that WiMEDIA plays. The logo parade was based on four camps: Wireless USB, 1394, WiMEDIA and MBOA.

The presentation then shifted to the new 802.15.4a and its efforts, which may or may not include UWB. The IEEE web site states:

The IEEE 802.15 Low Rate Alternative PHY Task Group (TG4a) for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) has defined a project for an amendment to 802.15.4 for an alternative PHY.

The principle interest is in providing communications and high precision ranging / location capability (1 meter
accuracy and better), high aggregate throughput, and ultra low power; as well as adding scalability to data rates,
longer range, and lower power consumption and cost. These additional capabilities over the existing 802.15.4 standard are expected to enable significant new applications and market opportunities.

802.15.4a became an official Task Group in March 2004; with its committee work tracing back to November 2002. The committee will produce an alternate PHY specification for the applications identified in accordance with the project timeline.

Roberto stated that the charter is to avoid the decision problems which happened in 802.15.3a. When asked, the number of ballots without an agreement is limited to 6.

This all seems like standards politics.

Overall the presentation did not respond to the issues raised by John McCorkle. Score one for Freescale.

Europe Jumps on the Bandwagon

Europe is also moving aggressively into UWB. In addition to ETSI developing regulations, the EU, under IST projects, is studying:

Ultra Waves
UCAN
PULSERS

Philippe Rouzet, STMicroelectronics, carries many roles. He is head of UWB R&D at STM, director of 2 Eu funded programs, UCAN and PULSERS, is the technical editor of the IEEE 802.15.4a future standard.

The news is that ETSI and CEPT were stuck on UWB. In March 2004 the EC RSC (Radio Spectrum Committee) for UWB Short Range Device Systems issued a directive that the regulatory process will be simplified under one task group- TG3. There are three Working Groups on:

WG1 – UWB characteristics and measurement techniques
WG2 – UWB compatibility
WG3 – Frequency management and regulatory issues

WG2 and WG2 are open to industry participation.

A key to this announcement is that the process is only to last one year. This is seen as finally speeding up the process. Further, TG2 will participate or evaluate actual field testing.

There is a group in the EU called UWB CULSTER. This is to promote UWB in Europe and has EU support with UWB projects. One is PULSERS. The public announcement of the role and rules of UWB CLUSTER will be made at the end of May.

PULSERS is an EU funded project to the level of € 16.5m and it runs through December 2005. There are 30 organizations participating. The scope covers: applications, system solutions, antennas, novel PHY, MAC concepts, advanced UWB technologies and contribution to regulation and standards. Companies participating include 23 in EU, 5 in related countries include Switzerland, Israel and Russia, and 2 in Singapore. Impressive.

Korea Struggles with Regulation

Sangsung Choi of ETRI, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, gave an overview of the status of UWB in Korea. There is an activity to look at the Digital Home Network based on UWB. ETRI has built a MB-OFDM modem board and antenna.

The larger issue is that the regulatory environment in Korea parallels that in Japan. The key factor is the EIRP. The FCC spectrum mask from 1Ghz to 10GHz has the maximum power at -41.28dBm/MHz while Korea has the level at -66.58dBm/MHz. This places onerous restrictions on what can be done with UWB. When asked Sangsung stated that he expects the situation to improve but not to the level present in the FCC requirements.

Singapore – UWB Free Zone

Tan Geok Leng, UWB Programme Director, IDA Singapore gave the Singapore view of UWB. IDA, Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore, has the combined role of regulator and supporter of research in Singapore. It is also the CIO for the Singapore government. What Singapore has done is to create a UWB Free Zone in Science Park 2. This radiation level is 6dB above the FCC level. The rationale in Singapore is that the FCC called their position as conservative and Singapore want to see what the impact is of going beyond this. They are also seeking to have Singapore a magnet for testing and innovation. However, Tan stated that they have not been able to attract as many companies as they would like.

He made an interesting comment that one of the values of UWB is that it will be low cost. However, when outfitting the lab they found that current equipment is far from low cost.

Japan Vets a Poor Technical Assessment

Tetushi Ikegami, of the Meiji University, and part of the NICT UWB Institute, gave a presentation: The Obstacles and Their Solutions for Realizing UWB in Japan – Overview of the Interim Report of the MPHPT. On February 2004 the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications released its Interim Report of UWB Radio Regulation. Ikegami-sans presentation was mostly a summary of the restrictions on UWB as a potential interferer. The key result was an assessment of the distance restrictions for UWB transmitters based on the existing radio services or passive services.

The format of the results was presented as follows. We will provide only a few to illustrate.

Fixed Microwave
4GHz, 5GHz, 6GHz, 6.5GHz, 7.5,GHz, 11GHz, 12GHz, 15GHz and 18GHz
Allowable interference – KTBF = - 20dB
Minimum Separation Distance – 60m to 2.4km

Broadcasting
3.5GHz, 5.9GHz, 6.5GHz, 7GHz, 10.5,GHz, 12GHz and 13GHz
Allowable interference – KTBF = - 20dB
Minimum Separation Distance – 31m to 610km

Weather Radar
5.3GHz, 5.7GHz
Allowable interference – KTBF = - 20dB
Minimum Separation Distance – 12km to 38km

Earth Observation Satellite - Passive
1.4GHz, 2.7GHz, 4.3GHz, 7GHz, 10.7GHz
Allowable interference – based on ITU-R SQ 1029-2
Number of outdoor UWB devices – 0 to 4642
Number of indoor devices – 98 to 73,578

At one point Ikegami-san stated that these measures would mean that no UWB devices could be placed in the area of Tokyo.

The overall response to this from the audience and panel members was incredulity. John McCorkle of Freescale stated that they are doing compliance measurements now and that the major issue is measuring the power it is so low. How can UWB be such an offensive radiator under these conditions? Other points made are that sensibility has to be put into this – the role of scenarios for interference is essential.

Philippe Rouzet, stated it is good this is not in English now. But Tan Geok Leng responded that he has a copy in English.

Overall the Japanese participants including Professor Ryuji Kohno, Yokohama National University who is closely involved with the regulatory process, stated that this will not be the basis for regulation. Another audience member stated that one has to look at this in a Japanese context. As one looked at these results one only could surmise this is part of the Japanese vetting process to come to a conclusion. But to present this to an audience such as this only made the process look silly.

Return to the Menu

0423.3 Displays

***LCD PC Monitors Are a Flat-Out Success, Outshipping Traditional CRTs by 2004, IDC Says

FRAMINGHAM, Mass.
February 19, 2004

– The battle has officially begun: sleek, flat-panel liquid crystal display (LCD) PC monitors are flooding the market and forcing the continued erosion of traditional cathode-ray tube (CRT) shipments. According to new research from IDC, this market is being fueled by a surplus of LCD monitors from a number of suppliers in Asia, and these space-saving displays will surpass worldwide CRT shipments in 2004, approaching 119 million units by 2007.

On a regional basis, the monitor market will closely mirror that of PCs, with the U.S. dominating through 2006. But, all that will change in 2007, as a rapidly growing Asia/Pacific region will squeak past the U.S. to become the largest market for PC monitors with 28.9% of global shipments.

Key Findings

17-inch LCDs will become the dominant category in 2005

LCD monitor average selling prices (ASPs) will consistently decline over next few years

Monitor market share is dominated by large Korean monitor makers and major U.S. PC vendors

Sub-$400 (and, in some cases, sub-$300) 17-inch LCD monitors have driven many mainstream PC owners into LCD displays

This study, Worldwide PC Monitor Forecast and Analysis, 2003-2007: It's a Flat-Out Success, (IDC #30629) presents an overview of the worldwide market for standalone monitors that attach to PCs. It covers traditional cathode-ray tubes (CRTs), flat CRTs, and LCD flat panels. In addition to the market size for each monitor subtype, major technological and market trends that affect the PC monitor market are included. Other areas covered include a comprehensive outlook for each geographic region by monitor type and size, unit growth, average selling price, and the associated total revenue value of the display market for the years 2002–2007. In addition, this analysis includes market splits by monitor resolution and connection type (analog versus digital), and within the CRT category by flat versus curved monitors for the same six-year period. The study concludes with a close look at the market shares of the top CRT and LCD monitor vendors in the United States and worldwide.

Return to the Menu

0423.4 Wireless

*****Wi-Fi Alliance Designates TerraWave Solutions as an Official Test Bed Fulfillment Source for Wireless Networking Products

SAN ANTONIO
June 10, 2004

Growth of the 802.11 market creates need for standardized test bed fulfillment program to verify product interoperability

TerraWave Solutions, a value-added distributor of Wi-Fi Solutions, announced that it has been selected by the Wi-Fi Alliance as an official Alliance test bed fulfillment source. As demand for authorized testing of 802.11 products increases, TerraWave will assemble, configure and ship test beds as a service to Wi-Fi Alliance members that want to certify Wi-Fi products for interoperability.

More than 200 of the Wi-Fi industry's leading companies have certified over 1,250 products. Moving forward, TerraWave will provide pre-packaged test beds required for certification throughout the world. The test beds will be available exclusively to members of the Wi-Fi Alliance and to authorized Wi-Fi laboratories.

Formal Wi-Fi certification testing remains the responsibility of authorized Wi-Fi laboratories. TerraWave's provision of test beds to Wi-Fi Alliance companies will now facilitate their internal pre-testing prior to submission for formal certification, thereby further promoting interoperability within the industry.

The beds consist of a number of access points and station cards which are bundled into a single kit, loaded with specific versions of firmware and drivers. TerraWave will ensure that each test bed is in full compliance with the Alliance's specifications. Each kit package will undergo a quality and control review prior to shipping to guarantee test bed consistency required to obtain the Wi-Fi Alliance Certification.

A single source to provide standardized test bed fulfillment and a clearly defined process for ordering and obtaining professionally kitted test beds supports the Wi-Fi Alliance's efforts to promote the interoperability of IEEE 802.11 family of standards. In the past, test beds were assembled by individually contacting each product vendor. As the number of different test beds and test benches increases, it has become necessary to formalize the test bed process.

http://www.terrawave.com.

Return to the Menu

0423.5 Software

***Savvysoft Announces Patent-Pending Software To Run Excel 300 Times Faster; Migrate Excel To Other Systems 500 Times Faster; While Eliminating Operational Spreadsheet Risk

NEW YORK
June 9, 2004

Overnight eight hour runs can now be done in a minute and a half. Spreadsheets which take several minutes to run can now calculate in the blink of an eye

Savvysoft announced the release of TurboExcel. TurboExcel uses a patent-pending technology which:

-- Radically reduces the time it takes to recalculate Excel spreadsheets. Spreadsheets which formerly ran eight hours now run in a minute and a half, and spreadsheets which took 15 minutes now run in 6 seconds, fully 300 times faster.

-- Allows spreadsheet models to immediately migrate to other systems and other platforms, such as Unix/Linux. Spreadsheet migrations taking a few weeks can now happen in a few minutes. This is fully 500 times faster. Excel users now have the freedom to use their spreadsheet inside any office system.

-- Encapsulates an entire model into a single function, which means other users cannot inadvertently break a
spreadsheet by changing it without fully understanding the logic, locking up proprietary algorithms from prying eyes.

How does TurboExcel technology work?

TurboExcel completely takes advantage of the fact that programming code runs much faster than spreadsheet code. TurboExcel's patent-pending software technology actually converts the Excel spreadsheet formulas into C++ programming code, and then compiles it into binary code (0's and 1's).

As a spreadsheet, Excel needs to trade off between speed and flexibility. Every time Excel recalculates, it needs to convert every cell in the spreadsheet into the binary 0's and 1's that the computer understands, as well as determine the right order to calculate the cells, and how best to format them. TurboExcel isn't hampered by any of that. TurboExcel directly generates binary code, so when calculations are performed there's no overhead. Savvysoft tests show this makes Excel run up to 300 times faster.
Essentially, TurboExcel is a programmer, but far better because TurboExcel can code much faster, much cheaper, and with no errors or bugs. The implications of this are far-reaching: TurboExcel technology empowers spreadsheet users who have no programming skills with the ability to program in C++. Excel is their interface for programming in C++.

http://www.RunExcel300TimesFaster.com

Return to the Menu