My Favorite Wireless Input Devices

It's been almost a decade since I last used a desktop computer as my daily driver but I've never been able to acclimate myself to a touch pad. For me, they are awkward to use and since I have the bad habit of 'lazy' wrists resting on either side of the touch pad, I tend to brush against it and send my cursor caroming off in random directions. The solution for me has been to use an external mouse and disable the trackpad. To be clear, I am not going in and cutting wires. All major operating systems—Mac OS, Windows, Linux, Chrome OS—offer a procedure to turn the touch pad off and back on. Windows and Mac OS can do this automatically when an external mouse is connected to or disconnected from a USB port. And when I'm using a laptop as part of a permanent workstation, such as my desk at work, I also like to use an external keyboard, just because it gives me greater flexibility to achieve a more ergonomic setup.

To be sure, there are a lot of great third party input devices—keyboards, mice, trackballs, etc. out there but many of them have a problem in common—cables. Over the years I have come to greatly prefer the experience of a wireless input devices. These basically come in two flavors: Bluetooth and USB. The former offers the advantage of not requiring a USB port but this is often at the expense of a stable connection. For that reason, I much prefer a wireless USB mouse or keyboard.

The thing is, not all wireless USB peripherals are created equal. Most such devices come with a dedicated USB receiver that is paired with the device with which it shipped and only that device, which presents two major disadvantages. First, if you have multiple wireless devices, each one requires its own USB port. Second, if you lose the receiver, which today very tiny, the device itself becomes useless. Fortunately, one manufacturer has solved this problem.

Logitech, with its Unifying Receiver system, allows up to six devices—mice, trackballs, keyboards—to be paired with one receiver. By doing this, the disadvantages named in the above paragraph are effectively negated. A keyboard and mouse, or even multiples of each, only require a single USB port to from which to operate and lost USB receivers can easily be replaced. 

I have acquired several Logitech keyboards and mice second hand for a pittance from thrift shops and as often as not, the receiver is not present. When I see one that looks promising, I look not only for the receiver but for the asterisk logo, indicating compatibility with a Unifying Receiver. If this logo is present, then I know the device can be used, even if it no longer has its own receiver.

To pair a device with a different receiver, one must download the Logitech Unifying Receiver software from Logitech's Web site, launch it and follow a simple set of on-screen prompts to turn the device off if it is already on and then turn it on to be recognized by the receiver. Once paired, the receiver and input device(s) will work with any computer the receiver is plugged into, regardless of whether the Logitech software is present. But because the software is available only for Windows or Mac OS, users of other operating systems such as Chrome OS or Linux, will need to pair their devices and receivers on a Mac or Windows PC and then transfer the receiver to the Chromebook or Linux computer. On dual-boot systems containing Windows or Mac OS in addition to Linux, one can simply reboot into Linux after pairing under one of the aforementioned supported operating systems.

It should also be noted that while multiple devices (up to six) can be paired with one receiver, the opposite is not true. Multiple receivers cannot be paired with a single device. One cannot, for instance, pair a mouse with separate receivers plugged into two different laptops. One must move the receiver from one device to another. This happens because whenever a device is paired with a new receiver, any previous pairing of that device with another receiver is broken. That said, it is not necessary to re-pair existing devices to a receiver when a new one is added, provided the total is no more than six devices.

The way I see it, Logitech's Unifying Receiver system adds great value to compatible input devices and to my knowledge, no other manufacturer offers anything similar. For this reason, Logitech devices bearing the asterisk logo are the only ones I'll consider buying—new or used, with or without their receiver.

Addendum—Since I have accumulated and used several Logitech wireless keyboards, it would seem appropriate to my impressions of each that I have owned. They are listed in descending order by model number. In general, I will say that none of the keyboards below are actually bad, but the user experience differs greatly.

K850—This is my most recently acquired keyboard and my favorite for several reasons. First, it is the only one I own that is both Windows and Mac OS compatible and automatically detects which platform it is connected to. It can also be paired with up to three wireless receivers. Selecting between them is accomplished via three numbered buttons, just to the right of the F-keys, which double as media keys when pressed in conjunction with either the fn keys on the bottom row. The power switch is located inconspicuously along the right side, just below the top right corner. The crowning glory, though is the ergonomic design of the keys, raised in the middle and lower on the outer edges for a more natural wrist position. It also has a padded, non-slip wrist rest for added comfort. 

K520—I actually have two of these, not because I like this model so much, but because the first one I found had significant wear and I subsequently found one in pristine condition. This model is roughly the same size as the K850 and has separate multimedia keys, as well as special functions included on the F-keys. The power switch is located at the top right corner. Like the models below, it is Windows only but will work with Mac OS, although the modifier keys are mapped differently, such that the Windows start key takes the function of the Apple Command key and the Alt key is mapped as the Option key; however, these are easily reversed in the Mac OS System Preferences. The keys are comfortably rounded but their action is a little imprecise—not bad but not great, either.

K360—The most compact of the four Logitech keyboards I own,  It has flat, square keys, similar to those of a laptop keyboard. The power switch is located conveniently at the top right corner. It has separate media keys that are small  but well labeled. The F-keys double as special function keys. I like the action of the keys, which have a nice amount of resistance. It is my second favorite of the four keyboards.

 K330—This is perhaps my least favorite of the four Logitech keyboards I own. It is Iinteresting that it is no larger than the K850, but it feels considerably bulkier. It has a separate row of very small media and special function keys that are labeled in a way that makes them difficult to read. My least favorite feature, however, is the power switch, which is located on the bottom of the keyboard, where it is difficult to reach, especially by feel.

A Good Time to be Self-Reliant

 

I am a bargain shopper and I am reasonably handy with tools for both large- and small-scale projects. As a result, I'm seldom deterred from acquiring second-hand items that can be easily repaired, if the price is right. The important thing is to be cognizant of what is—and is not—within the realm of my technical expertise, including my ability to learn new skills or apply existing ones to a new challenge. 

Case in point—I recently won an auction on Shopgoodwill.com for three men’s watches, a Pulsar, a Fossil and a Timex. It turned out they all needed batteries and to have links removed from their bracelets to accommodate my smaller than average wrist. So far, I have the Timex and the Pulsar running. It has also prompted me to acquire some basic watch repair tools so I can adjust bracelets and change my own batteries going forward. After all, any task worth doing is worth acquiring the proper tools.

The Timex, black chrome with an Indiglo dial, was the easiest to work on. I was able to pop the back cover off with a pocket knife and discovered I had the correct battery on hand. I was also able to remove a few links from the expansion bracelet using a jeweler’s screwdriver and needle nose pliers. It had been about 20 years since I’d done particular operation and I had forgotten just how much of a pain it is to work on. I’m not sure if I want to undertake that again in the foreseeable future. The watch shows a bit more wear than the other two and the calendar doesn’t move. Having done everything to this watch necessary to make it minimally serviceable, I feel a good sense of satisfaction. I also recognize my technical limitations and I am thus content to live with the calendar permanently displaying the 27^th.

The Pulsar and the Fossil, both full stainless steel with latching bracelets, also require a case opening tool to access the battery, along with a pin removal tool to allow me to take links out of their bracelets. I found these tools are fairly inexpensive and have ordered them for about what it would cost to have a battery professionally installed. Nonetheless, impatience got the better of me so I took both watches to Batteries Plus, where I was told they were “not allowed” to work on the Fossil but they could install a battery in the Pulsar. They had given me a similar song and dance about an Armitron watch that I own, even though they had replaced its battery in the past. I’m not sure what to make of their reluctance regarding certain brands but I shall be taking that function into my own hands, going forward.

Both of these watches are slightly too large for my wrist, which leads me to believe links have already been removed and the similarity in their respective sizing suggests they may have previously been owned by the same person. I was able to tighten the Pulsar’s bracelet a bit at the clasp but I will also need remove at least one link for proper fitment. The Fossil has no adjustment at the clasp and thus will also need a link or two removed; that is, if I decide to keep it.

The Pulsar was the watch that initially attracted me to bid on this lot and is thus a keeper, while the Timex continues to grow on me, despite the non-functioning calendar, mainly because I like the Indiglo display. Of the three, the Fossil is my least favorite—it’s design leans more toward fashion than function, which just isn’t me. It has no calendar and no numbers or minute markers on the face. While attractive in a minimalist sort of way, it makes timekeeping approximate at best. It might be okay for dressy occasions but definitely not for daily wear. Once I put a battery in it, I’ll wear it for a day or two without adjusting the bracelet before deciding whether to put it up on eBay. The popularity of Fossil watches may make it fairly easy to sell and perhaps for enough to pay for the other two.

While I have grown accustomed over the years to paying to have the batteries replaced in my watches, acquiring the tools to do so myself will result in considerable savings; in fact, the tools will easily pay for themselves on their first or second use, considering that a five-pack of watch batteries typically costs $3-$4, while having a single battery professionally installed costs about $12. That’s a hefty markup. Beyond the monetary savings, self-reliance is an important consideration. I derive pleasure and satisfaction from being able to fix things myself instead of having to pay others to do them for me. For me, the ability to repair things is empowering

Chromebook—Eight Months Later

 So I've been using my HP Chromebook 14a for about eight months now and on some levels I've learned to love it but on others, I'm still not exactly feeling it. While the added availability of Linux, and to a lesser extent Android, apps is a welcome addition, which markedly enhances the machine's capabilities, its browser-in-a-box roots are still hard to ignore. After all, the original Chromebook concept was to leverage Google's various Web-based offerings, such as Gmail and Google Docs, since most users do the vast majority of their computing via a Web browser anyway.

I find that my needs regularly push beyond the limited, albeit improving, scope of the Web-based apps that are still at the core of Google's vision for Chrome OS. Locally installed Android apps at best seem to offer a workaround for some of the platform's shortcomings but few of them are well suited for a laptop with traditional keyboard and mouse inputs, as they're optimized for smaller touch screen devices—smart phones and tablets.

On the other hand, the ability to install and run Debian Linux applications is a huge step forward in productivity for me as I can run desktop applications like LibreOffice and the Thunderbird email client, and even the Firefox Web browser, to more closely match my accustomed workflow on Mac OS or Windows since I use multiple email addresses and Web-based productivity apps like Office365 and those bundled with Google Drive, are too feature limited for my needs. The biggest issue I've run into with Linux apps on Chrome OS is the need to repeatedly enlarge the drive space allotment for them.

While the Chromebook is well suited for certain specific functions like Zoom meetings, I still find its inherent limitations and persistent need for workarounds make it less than well suited for 'daily driver' duties and thus I continue to stick with Mac OS or Windows for most 'production level' work. That said, the few times I've pressed the Chromebook into service for daily work activities, it has performed adequately.

Even though I am nowhere near the point of being a complete Chromebook convert, I do see it as a viable alternative, especially for users whose computing activities are primarily Web-based. There is a lot of as yet unrealized potential here and I will be interested to see how Chrome OS and the hardware on which it runs evolves over the next few years. 

UPDATE--After trying for a couple of years to force the Chromebook to be something it was never fully capable of being, I threw in the proverbial towel and got a business grade laptop with Linux Mint installed, and instantly realized that it was what I had been looking for all along. My Dell Latitude 7490 is now my primary 'daily driver' computer, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I have truly become a Linux convert.

USB-C--Is it a Panacea?

I've read with interest over the past couple of days the European Commission's recommendation that USB-C be adopted as a universal standard for charging ports and cables on all electronic devices in the European Union—to the exclusion of all others. It's a nice thought that seems reasonable on the surface but like most things in life, it's far more complicated than it appears. 

The recommendation is aimed at reducing e-waste by freeing users from the need to replace their chargers and cables every time they acquire a new device. It would also free manufacturers from including chargers and cables with said devices, turning those items into potentially profitable a la carte purchases for consumers. If made law, it would directly affect the European Union nations but would also indirectly affect other nations, including the United States, since it is arguably more cost effective for manufacturers to standardize their offerings worldwide.

In theory, such a requirement could eventually bring order to the cable chaos most people experience in their homes and from which I am no exception. Looking at my own devices and connectors, two of my three laptops have proprietary connectors. Only one, a Chromebook, uses USB-C. The same is true of my tablets: my iPad Air uses an Apple Lightning connector, as does my iPhone, while my older Amazon Fire HD8 tablet uses micro USB and my newer Fire HD10 tablet uses USB-C. A host of other devices, including Roku boxes, charging cases for wireless earbuds and portable battery pack chargers. And that's not to mention a couple of old iPods with their obsolete 30-pin connectors that simply refuse to die.

For many of these devices, there is no choice but to use their dedicated power bricks, although I often have duplicates for use at home and on the go. In other cases, I have employed USB outlet expanders to create charging stations where I commonly use certain devices. These outlet expanders combine multiple 110-volt outlets with USB plugs to power and/or charge devices, which largely eliminates the need for individual USB power bricks; for instance, I have USB cords for each of my tablets plugged directly into a USB outlet expander in my bedroom with the Lightning cable serving both my iPad and iPhone. But that doesn't mean I don't need the charging bricks. I carry one with me when I travel so I can charge the devices I carry along on the trip. The caveat here is I don't necessarily carry the original brick along with me.

While moving to a single connector—ostensibly USB-C—may be a laudable goal, it would not be possible for me to do so without replacing the majority of my devices. At present, I only use two devices that are equipped with USB-C ports, two with Lightning ports, and about eight with micro-USB. Suffice it to say, I will continue a multi-port existence for the foreseeable future.

What USB-C Gets Right
To be sure, USB-C, in many ways, fulfills and expands upon what the USB standard has promised since it first appeared in the late '90s. It supports rapid battery charging, high-speed data transfer and even audio and video, making it really the only port one needs. The symmetrical plug itself is a vast improvement over the asymmetrical mini-USB plug it is replacing in that you don't have to pay attention to its orientation when you plug it in. The same is true of the Apple Lightning connector and it is one of the reasons I will not miss micro-USB when it is finally dead and gone.

What USB-C Gets Wrong
The heading above may be a bit of an over-simplification but USB-C does have its shortcomings, not the least of which is that it hides multiple standards behind a common plug. If you don't believe me, try plugging a USB-C laptop into a phone or tablet charger. It simply doesn't provide enough power to charge the battery. Likewise, other USB-C devices may well promise charging or data transfer performance that can only be achieved with USB-C accessories specifically engineered for that device. This will inevitably lead to a degree of confusion and disappointment that will leave some consumers feeling intentionally or unintentionally deceived or that manufacturers could be over-promising and under-delivering.

Industry Response
The degree to which manufacturers would be affected by such a law would vary significantly. Some, like Samsung, are pretty much there already. Others, like Apple, would need to redesign entire product lines and are understandably protesting the recommendation. What Apple and others have already done is to omit the cable and charger from the box. In Apple's case, it would seem to me that a Lightning to USB-C adapter/dongle, either included with the device or as a separate purchase, should be an acceptable solution. Perhaps simply including a certificate or redemption code in the box for customers who need an adapter to order one would be even better in terms of satisfying both the needs of consumers and the goals of the European Commission. 

The other side of this coin would be to establish realistic expectations and this may require expanding the USB-C standard to include various levels or classes. These could include designations for whether a device or cable supports multimedia or data transfer as well as charging classes based on wattage. While it would necessarily add a layer or two of complexity, it would also potentially enhance understanding and thus foster more realistic expectations.

Whether or not the EU adopts the USB-C recommendations and how far they push them if they do remains to be seen but USB-C is here to stay. The big question remaining is how effectively to we adopt and implement it.

UPDATE (January 2025)--Apple is presently phasing out the last of its Lightning-equipped products, the iPhone 14 series, to make room for newer models with USB-C. These are no longer available in Europe, and are slated for discontinuation in the North American market later this year, to make room for the iPhone 17 series, which like the iPhone 15 and 16, will use USB-C.

LibreOffice: The Upgrade Odyssey

 Okay, the title sounds a little science fiction but LibreOffice just released version 7.2 today so I felt obligated to upgrade all three of my laptops--Windows, MacBook Pro, and Chromebook, each one with its own procedure. The first two were relatively easy. I've upgraded those so many times I practically can do it in my sleep. That said, the Windows version takes an inordinate number of mouse clicks when compared to the Mac version and then requires a second download and installation for the offline help pack. But of course, everything's more complicated on Windows than on a Mac, which is a breeze by comparison. Just download the file, let the disk image mount automatically, drag the icon to the Applications folder and launch when the file finishes copying over.

And then there's the Chromebook. LibreOffice on Chrome OS is a Debian Linux application, running in a 'walled garden' called Crostini. While this admittedly sounds cryptic to the uninitiated, Crostini is basically a protected environment that does not interact with the rest of the system. 

While I have a Linux application installed called Gnome Software Center, which serves up Linux apps in point-n-click fashion, I couldn't use it for this purpose because the version of LibreOffice contained in its repository is even older than the one already installed on my Chromebook, so my best option was to download LibreOffice directly from its Web site and install it manually. This usually involves entering a bunch of text commands in the Terminal app but after more than an hour of frustration, I found a much better way that involves only a single terminal command. The rest is point-n-click:

1. Remove existing LibreOffice (if there is one) by right-clicking its icon in the application launcher and selecting 'Uninstall'. This step is not completely necessary but it is advisable if you're running short of disk space.
2. Download the latest LibreOffice (Debian version) from www.libreoffice.org
3. Open the Files app and drag the archive you downloaded from the 'Downloads' folder to the 'Linux Files' folder, then double-click to open and navigate to the DEBS folder.
4. Right-click the DEBS folder and select 'Open with Terminal' from the pop-up menu. The Terminal app will automatically open with the DEBS folder selected.
5. In the Terminal window, type the command 'sudo dpkg -i *deb' and press 'Enter'. The installation process will take a couple of minutes and you will know it's complete when the screen stops updating.

When I set up the Linux environment on my Chromebook last spring, LibreOffice was the most challenging part of the installation, enough so that I decided to ignore the myriad prompts to accept lesser updates and wait for 7.2 before undertaking it. Now that I know an easier way, I might be more inclined to take the incremental updates on my Chromebook as well. 

One feature that has never been implemented in LibreOffice that I would love to see is the "Install" button on the "Check for Updates" dialog box. The 'Download' button next to it just takes one to the download page on the LibreOffice Web site but it would be very convenient to have a one-click install for updates, especially on my Chromebook. One can wish, I suppose.

When Windows Leaves Your Laptop Behind

 I've always been amused by the scene in Rob Reiner's film This is Spinal Tap where the lead guitarist of the titular fictional rock band explains that his amplifier's volume control goes up to "eleven" for when you need that little bit extra. In some ways, I'm a little surprised Microsoft hasn't capitalized on that clip for their Windows 11 advertising campaign. I can just see the ads now: "Turn your PC up to Eleven!"

Be that as it may, I was one of the myriad users who was disappointed to discover that that my Windows 10 laptop would be left out in the cold when the new version, rolls out later this year. And like a patient receiving word of a terminal illness, the question uppermost in my mind regarding that computer is 'how long have I got'? 

That said, I wasn't terribly surprised about my laptop's prognosis as it's a four-year-old,  low end model that shipped with Windows 10 but these days struggles to run the latest iteration of the OS. It's little wonder that when the warranty expired a couple of years ago, HP put a notice up on its screen suggesting I make immediate plans to replace the device. Nonetheless, I'm still using it, although not as my go-to machine. That honor goes to an even older MacBook Pro. Yeah, they're way more expensive up front but in the long run, the total cost of ownership is similar, if not lower. 

As a consummate technological cheapskate, I do feel like I need to make a long-term plan for this little HP laptop. Microsoft announced this week that support for Windows 10 is presently projected to end in October 2025. That means at least another four years of security patches but not feature upgrades. Of course, the flip side of the coin is that as I'm riding out Windows 10 support, I could end up stuck running older software versions as vendors stop supporting Windows 10 with their latest versions ahead of that cutoff date. And of course, that date could end up being extended as it was with Windows XP and Windows 7.

Looking ahead to the fall of 2025, if I still own this laptop, it is still functional and I want to wring some additional life out of it, I'll be faced with another choice. Do I continue using what by then will be an orphaned operating system or do I start looking for an alternative? If you've read some of my earlier posts, you may know that by "alternative" I mean Linux.

Even today, a lot of people's eyes  tend to glaze over when they hear that 'L' word mentioned, thinking surely one must need some programming skills or at least some serious geek street cred to even consider jumping into it but the reality is you're probably using it already. If you have a Chromebook or Android device, it's running a variant of Linux. That's why you can install and run Android and Linux applications on newer Chromebooks. And don't get me started on the number of major e-commerce sites that run their servers on Linux. 

I've been playing with desktop Linux off and on for a little over twelve years now and it's amazing how easy to use it has become. In some ways, it's actually easier than Windows. For most Linux distributions, or 'distros' for short, it's just a matter of downloading a disk image, copying it to a bootable flash drive or optical media, which increasingly means a DVD, and rebooting your computer with that as the startup disk to take the OS for a test drive. This should be done with the understanding that things will run a bit slower from external media than when the OS is actually running from your internal hard drive. The best part is most distros are free so it doesn't cost you anything except a little bit of time and maybe a blank disc or two. Once you've found one you like, back up your files, reformat your hard drive to replace your OS or partition it for a dual-boot system and install. More detailed instructions can be found elsewhere on the Web.

The biggest question many prospective Linux users must answer for themselves is which distro to install. There is no right or wrong answer to this question. Just use what feels most comfortable. Over the years, I have experimented with OpenSUSE, Fedora, and various iterations of Ubuntu. The most recent one I've settled on is Linux Mint, which is based on Ubuntu and its 'Cinnamon' interface will provide a comforting familiarity to new users coming from Windows that they will want to explore and get to know it better. 

The other thing that some users might find somewhat off-putting going into the Linux experience is they may not be able to run all of the Windows software they are accustomed to. The good news is there are alternatives. Most desktop Linux distributions include LibreOffice, which includes direct replacements for most Microsoft apps (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.). Of course, one can also access Microsoft Office Web apps from any browser. Other frequently bundled software includes Web browsers, usually Firefox or Chromium (the open source basis for Chrome, Edge and other browsers) as well as email clients like Thunderbird. Other needed software is readily available, usually for free, from a built-in app store.  

The bottom line to all this is that, as I have been saying for years, desktop Linux offers tools that are more than adequate for most basic functionality including Web browsing, emailing, office productivity, and even editing and curating photos and other media files. It's also a great way to extend the life of your hardware, helping you avoid contributing to the growing e-waste problem and perhaps saving you a few bucks while potentially polishing your geek street cred. 

So if you're in the same boat I'm in with Windows 11, go ahead and enjoy Windows 10 while you can but begin considering whether Linux might be in your future.

 

Smokin' on the Gas Grill

 Like most American males, I like to grill when the weather's nice--and sometimes even when the weather's not so nice. I've actually been known to fire up the grill with snow on the ground but that's a different story altogether. For the past 30-odd years, I have primarily used gas grills out of convenience. It's nice to be able to come home for lunch, turn it on, grill a couple of hot dogs and still make it back to work on time but there's one thing typically missing with a gas grill--that lovely smoky flavor.

Now at this point, there are some who would simply say this is why one should use charcoal instead of a gas grill and while I acknowledge the validity of that argument, I shall not wade into this quasi-religious divide between gas and charcoal, other than to say I'm just not willing to give up the convenience and control of gas. I also do not have space for a dedicated smoker and I've known a lot of people who have bought one, used it a time or two and let it sit idle for a few years before giving it away or selling them at a steep loss at a yard sale. 

That said, I've had a supply of mesquite chips in my cabinet for several years and finally decided a month or so ago that I either needed to either use them of get rid of them. Being a bird-in-the-hand kind of guy, I opted for the former and went to that great fountain of online knowledge—YouTube—to find out if they could actually be used with a gas grill and if so, how.  

My first experiment, while not exactly a failure, could have gone better. I had a whole chicken taking up space in my freezer and decided to quarter it, marinate it, and grill it over wood chips, which I soaked in water and wrapped in a packet of heavy duty foil, with several holes poked into it to vent the smoke. I actually made two of these packets (called "smoke bombs" in at least one video I watched) and placed one at each end of the grill, directly over the burners. 

I cooked the chicken 'low and slow' to maximize the smoke absorption and it was very tasty—thanks to the Badia Mojo Marinade I used—but the smoke flavor I was really after was almost nonexistent. When I checked my 'smoke bombs' afterward, I found out why. They were just a little blackened at the edges but for the most part, they hadn't ignited. Too wet? Bad placement? Both? This warranted further investigation.

A few days later, I grilled a hamburger, re-using one of the smoke packets, this time dry, placed against the back of the grill. While I achieved a greater amount of smoke, the burger cooked fairly quickly so little of the flavor was absorbed. When everything cooled down, I opened the packet and found that the chips had not been completely consumed but had instead been transformed into what appeared to be charcoal. 

For my third test some time later, I grilled a seasoned pork tenderloin with the other smoke packet from the original attempt, this time with a small amount of water, and instead of a foil packet, I placed the chips into a 'smoke box', a lidded stainless steel box with holes in the top and sides to vent the smoke. The closed bottom allows the chips to be wet or dry. Again, the slightly dampened chips did not fully ignite or produce a large amount of smoke and like the chicken, the meat was very tasty but the result was indeterminate because it had been heavily pre-seasoned before packaging.

My most recent test came yesterday when I grilled two thick pork ribeye chops using all of the previously used chips dry in the smoke box, which was placed right in the middle. I think I might have gotten some good mileage out of those chips. The smoke box also covered a troublesome hot spot on my grill and I got the best smoke yet. The chops had a wonderful smoky flavor without any sauce. I think I'm finally getting the hang of this!

UPDATE: In the weeks since this initial writing, I have landed on a good technique the produces consistently good results and have also begun branching out (no pun intended) to use other types of wood chips, including hickory, apple, cherry and combinations. So what have I learned from my initial experiments? 

• On my grill at least, the smoke box works best with dry chips and should be placed right in the middle, underneath the cooking surface. Your mileage may vary.
• It is best to cook 'low and slow' (slowly over low heat) for maximum smoke absorption. This is a departure from my traditional method of grilling fast on medium to high heat. 
• Pre-heat the grill on high with the wood chips in place to get the smoke going, then turn it down to low and put the meat on for cooking. 
  
• A pan of water on the grill's upper rack can help create a more humid cooking environment and jucier meat.
• No peeking—Keep the grill's lid closed to keep in the smoke and maintain a constant temperature. Just open the lid to quickly flip the meat.
• Thicker cuts of meat, preferably with a little fat on them, work best since they cook a little slower and the fat will absorb flavors with which it comes into contact, such as smoke.
• Dry rubs and light marinades work well with smoke; thick sauces tend to hide the flavor.
  
• Don't be afraid to experiment. Just because some bozo on YouTube says his way is the only way to do it doesn't mean it's the best way for you and your grill. Figure out what works best for you and your equipment.
• A smoke box is a worthwhile investment. It works better than foil and will eventually pay for itself with what you save from not having to buy so much foil.

So, how does this gas grill hybrid method of smoking meats compare with doing it in a smoker? Based on my experiments so far, I'd say reasonably favorably, considering the inherent differences between a grill and a smoker. Even at the lowest setting, a gas grill is going to cook hotter than a smoker so it's going to cook more quickly. Leaving meat on the grill for eleven hours just isn't practical. Likewise, the smoke isn't going to last as long, maybe half an hour, and because of the placement of the smoke box or packet, it isn't feasible to replenish it while cooking. For this reason, the smoke flavor will be lighter and more delicate on the grill than from a smoker, where the meat is bathed in smoke for hours on end and don't expect to see that pink 'smoke ring' on the outside of the meat that a smoker produces.

While smoking on the gas grill doesn't make a whole lot of sense for burgers and dogs or thin steaks and chops, it can bring a world of new flavor to chicken and thicker cuts of meat—no sauces required.