Vik


SIM Card Adapters Reviewed

SIM Card Adapters Reviewed

A few weeks ago, I was genuinely questioning what SIM adapter I should buy. After all, while a SIM adapter is generally cheap and also a relatively simple product, the consequences for poor design can be catastrophic. As a product of today’s need to ensure that phones and other mobile devices are made as small as possible, it’s often the case that the SIM slot is soldered to the logic board, which is often one of the most expensive parts of the device. This mean that ruining the SIM slot by using the wrong five dollar adapter can easily cause over a hundred dollars in damage.

So I decided to buy every distinct type of SIM adapter on the market. To my understanding, there are only three main types, all of which are simply variations upon each other. The first is the simple cutout. This is effectively just a piece that would be the same size and shape as the “waste” plastic that is produced when stamping out a larger SIM to a smaller one. This is a very simple design, and requires a piece of scotch tape on the plastic side of the SIM in order to make the SIM and adapter into a single piece that goes into the phone.

The second type of adapter takes the cutout format and adds small notches in the corners to hold the SIM inside without glue. This is one of the most expensive adapters I’ve seen on Amazon.

The final type of adapter is another variation upon the cutout, simply adding a plastic backing to the area that is open on both sides in a cutout. This allows the SIM to be placed inside the adapter without falling out in some orientations, but requires double-sided tape to hold the SIM in place without issue.

So which of the three is best? It’s tough to say, as all have their idiosyncrasies. The second type of adapter is simply impossible to recommend though, it ends up visibly thicker than a standard SIM. This can easily be a problem, as the pins that make contact with the SIM are fragile, and any significant deviation from a standardized thickness can cause the SIM slot to no longer accept non-adapted SIMs. The third type requires double-sided tape to not risk the SIM falling out in some strange manner, and has to be thicker than the SIM that it is adapting as a function of its design, although it can be made much thinner than the second type. The simple cutout is ultimately thicker than the SIM itself, but only by the thickness of the tape used. Personal experience with phones has shown that a single layer of scotch tape is often the difference between frequent SIM disconnect errors and no problems at all, so I suspect that it’s within tolerances as well.

Ultimately, the simple cut-out is likely to be the best choice, and it’s the one that I’m willing to risk my phone with. However, it’s absolutely critical to make sure that strong scotch tape is used to make the adapter/SIM combination, and to never try inserting the adapter by itself. Ultimately, while the other solutions are more novel, with all of their disadvantages it’s tough to recommend them, although the third type of adapter can be used in a pinch. For future reference, I’ve placed a table of all the adapters I’ve bought below to provide more examples.

 

SIM Card Adapters Reviewed

SIM Card Adapters Reviewed

A few weeks ago, I was genuinely questioning what SIM adapter I should buy. After all, while a SIM adapter is generally cheap and also a relatively simple product, the consequences for poor design can be catastrophic. As a product of today’s need to ensure that phones and other mobile devices are made as small as possible, it’s often the case that the SIM slot is soldered to the logic board, which is often one of the most expensive parts of the device. This mean that ruining the SIM slot by using the wrong five dollar adapter can easily cause over a hundred dollars in damage.

So I decided to buy every distinct type of SIM adapter on the market. To my understanding, there are only three main types, all of which are simply variations upon each other. The first is the simple cutout. This is effectively just a piece that would be the same size and shape as the “waste” plastic that is produced when stamping out a larger SIM to a smaller one. This is a very simple design, and requires a piece of scotch tape on the plastic side of the SIM in order to make the SIM and adapter into a single piece that goes into the phone.

The second type of adapter takes the cutout format and adds small notches in the corners to hold the SIM inside without glue. This is one of the most expensive adapters I’ve seen on Amazon.

The final type of adapter is another variation upon the cutout, simply adding a plastic backing to the area that is open on both sides in a cutout. This allows the SIM to be placed inside the adapter without falling out in some orientations, but requires double-sided tape to hold the SIM in place without issue.

So which of the three is best? It’s tough to say, as all have their idiosyncrasies. The second type of adapter is simply impossible to recommend though, it ends up visibly thicker than a standard SIM. This can easily be a problem, as the pins that make contact with the SIM are fragile, and any significant deviation from a standardized thickness can cause the SIM slot to no longer accept non-adapted SIMs. The third type requires double-sided tape to not risk the SIM falling out in some strange manner, and has to be thicker than the SIM that it is adapting as a function of its design, although it can be made much thinner than the second type. The simple cutout is ultimately thicker than the SIM itself, but only by the thickness of the tape used. Personal experience with phones has shown that a single layer of scotch tape is often the difference between frequent SIM disconnect errors and no problems at all, so I suspect that it’s within tolerances as well.

Ultimately, the simple cut-out is likely to be the best choice, and it’s the one that I’m willing to risk my phone with. However, it’s absolutely critical to make sure that strong scotch tape is used to make the adapter/SIM combination, and to never try inserting the adapter by itself. Ultimately, while the other solutions are more novel, with all of their disadvantages it’s tough to recommend them, although the third type of adapter can be used in a pinch. For future reference, I’ve placed a table of all the adapters I’ve bought below to provide more examples.

 

Reducing Bill Of Materials - Windows 8.1 With Bing

Reducing Bill Of Materials – Windows 8.1 With Bing

Traditionally, Microsoft has been a dominant force in the computing landscape, and with that domination it has cultured partnerships with many companies to have them build PCs based on Windows. Practically every computing device sold came pre-installed with the current version of Microsoft’s operating system, with the price of the OS factored into the overall cost of the device being sold. People wanted PCs, and those PCs were running Windows, so the partnership flourished. The only real competition came from Apple, but Apple was not interested in the tight margins created by the stiff competition for the lower cost PC, and Windows was left to monopolize the market.

Several major changes occurred over the course of the last several years which have certainly impacted overall Windows license sales – the meteoric rise of Android being the most powerful one, but another major shift was Microsoft changing its position as a seller of software to that of a hardware maker, directly competing with its long established partners. Microsoft of course had one major advantage over its partners in that it didn’t need to factor the cost of Windows into the Bill of Materials (BOM). This has certainly been a factor in the recent move by every single OEM which traditionally focused on Windows devices to broaden their efforts and begin providing devices based on competing operating systems – namely Android and Chrome OS.

Both Android and Chrome OS are free, which means a lower BOM, and inevitably a lower device MSRP.

Low cost computers
Chrome OS (Base Config) Acer C720 Samsung Chromebook 2 HP Chromebook 11 ASUS Chromebox
Form Factor 11.6″ Laptop 11.6″ Laptop 11.6″ Laptop UCFF Desktop
CPU Celeron 2955U Exynos 5 Octa 5420 Exynos 5250 Dual Celeron 2955U
Memory 2 GB 2 GB 2 GB 2 GB
Storage 16 GB 16 GB 16 GB 16 GB
Price $199 $319 $279 $179
Android (Base Config) Dell Venue 7 Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Lenovo Yoga Google Nexus 10
Form Factor 7″ Tablet 7″ Tablet 10.1″ Tablet 10.1″ Tablet
CPU Atom Z2560 Snapdragon 400 quad-core MediaTek MT8389 Samsung Exynos 5 Dual
Memory 2 GB 1.5 GB 1 GB 2 GB
Storage 16 GB 8 GB 16 GB 16 GB
Price $150 $199 $275 $399
Windows 8.1 Devices Dell Venue 8 Pro ASUS T100 Acer Aspire V5 HP 110-220z
Form Factor 8″ Tablet 10.1″ Tablet/Laptop 11.6″ Laptop Tower Desktop
CPU Atom Z3740 Atom Z3740 A4-1250 Kabini E1-2500
Memory 2 GB 2 GB 4 GB 2 GB
Storage 32 GB 32 GB 500 GB (Hard Disk) 500 GB (Hard Disk)
Price $299 $349 $329 $299

This is certainly not the first time Windows has had to compete against a free operating system. Linux, while powerful, has struggled to gain any traction in the consumer OS space, but briefly with the beginnings of netbooks Linux was installed as the OS. Microsoft quickly countered that with a lower cost version of Windows XP for devices categorized as netbooks, which quickly dominated that market as well.

But this time is not like the rise of netbooks. Android is a powerful platform, with a multitude of apps available, meaning people actively seek it out, rather than settle on what came with the netbook. Chrome OS too, while certainly more limited in scope than Windows, is a polished OS which is being constantly updated. Many people who simply require a device to go online, and maybe perform some basic tasks, don’t need or want the complexity of Windows. Also, the low system requirements for both Android and Chome OS, as well as the free nature of the operating systems has allowed OEMs to manufacture devices for less, and therefore sell them for less than a comparable PC. Lower prices obviously drive sales, and it’s worked.

At Microsoft’s developer conference BUILD, a new update to Windows 8.1 was announced. One of the goals was to lower the BOM for Windows devices by reducing the required memory to 1 GB, and reducing the required storage to 16 GB. Also, it was announced that Windows (including Windows Phone) would be free for all devices with a screen size of less than 9”. Clearly the goal was to compete directly with the low cost Android devices that were becoming ubiquitous in the market. Today it was discussed on the Windows Experience Blog that a new OEM only Stock-Keeping Unit (SKU) of Windows would be available called Windows 8.1 with Bing.

Now, before you get concerned with the name, it won’t be marketed to end users as Windows 8.1 with Bing – it’s just the name of the SKU. The only change between this SKU and the standard Core SKU of Windows 8.1 is that Bing must be the default search engine in Internet Explorer. End users can of course still change the default search engine to whatever they like, so really the only change here is a requirement on OEMs for initial setup.

But how were the system requirements lowered?

To get to 1 GB of memory space as a minimum, the app store frameworks were refined, and the process lifetime manager is more aggressively suspending apps, as opposed to killing them. This is tweaking existing processes to make them more efficient, but the bigger story is how the storage requirement was dropped from 32 GB to 16 GB. The answer here is an entirely new way to run Windows directly off of a compressed WIM file, in a system known as WIMBoot.

Previous to Windows 8.1 Update, an installation of Windows actually included two copies of Windows – one compressed version for recovery, and once again in the uncompressed form which is the files Windows runs on. Clearly this isn’t the most efficient way to run a system with a limited amount of storage, and one of the first tips for anyone with a 32 GB Windows device is to move the recovery image from the internal storage to an external USB drive. A standard Windows partition layout would have looked like this:

With new devices based on 8.1 Update, Microsoft has taken the opposite approach with WIMBoot – rather than remove the recovery partition, remove the uncompressed files and run directly off of the image file. In the place of the uncompressed files are a set of pointer files which point back to the compressed install file called install.wim. Also included are the Windows RE recovery tools, stored as winre.wim, and an OEM specific custom.wim file. This leaves a partition layout of this:

The custom.wim file allows an OEM to quickly update images, by just replacing the custom.wim file. This file is for final customizations such as Windows updates, build-to order apps and drivers, and other requirements of the OEM.

If an end user does a refresh on their device, the pointer files for the install.wim and custom.wim file are reset, making this a much faster operation than before.

The end result is a significant reduction in the amount of space Windows requires.

WIMBoot is available for all versions of Windows – x86, x64, and ARM, but it does require UEFI as well as solid state drives or eMMC. Traditional hard drives, or hybrid drives, are not supported likely due to performance.

It’s unclear if there is any performance loss or gain from running on the WIM file rather than uncompressed files, but it’s certainly something I’d like to test. If the performance hit is small, it would be surprising if WIMBoot doesn’t expand past the low cost devices to cover the entire range.

With these changes, Microsoft is hoping to kickstart a resurgence of Windows devices at the low end of the market. With the lower BOM, OEMs should be able to be price competitive with Android and Chrome OS now, but with a Windows experience.