The HTC Apache Revealed

[Darius Wey]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://phonearena.com/htmls/HTC-Apache-the-CDMA-version-of-the-Wizard-article-a_643.html' target='_blank'>http://phonearena.com/htmls/HTC-Apa...icle-a_643.html</a><br /><br /></div><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/wey-20050730-HTCWizard.jpg" /><br /><br />phoneArena has the latest information on the HTC Apache - a CDMA version of the <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/index.php?action=expand,41873">HTC Wizard</a> which we revealed earlier in the week. According to the site, it will feature an Intel Bulverde 416MHz (or possibly, 520MHz) processor, 64MB RAM, 128MB ROM, JVM support, CDMA/EV-DO support, a 1.3MP camera with flash, 802.11b Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 1.2, IR, a miniSD card slot, a 240x320 screen, a 1300mAh Li-Ion battery, and of course, Windows Mobile 5.0. phoneArena claims that the source of the information on this 4.5" x 2.5" x 1" device is reliable, though I guess we'll have to wait before we tag these specifications as fact or fiction.

[Jason Lee]

wtf? why does cdma get the nice processor and gsm get the TI thing??
Still that mini sd joke though.. :(

[DaleReeck]

THe TI chips were used because they played nice (supposedly) with the GSM phone chipsets. However, standard Intel processors worked fine in devices like the PDA2K, so it's a bogus argument. CDMA phones didn't seem to have this problem with standard Intel processors. Go figure :)

[Paragon]

No way.....It's all a big fat lie....A CDMA unit with WiFi and Bluetooth?! :idontthinkso: :D

[kcrain]

Does this really make sense? Previous HTC models have had the same specs between GSM and CDMA, like processor, memory, etc, right? Or am I just fooling myself? If the CDMA version has atleast 416Mhz, then why wouldn't the GSM version? Now I'm beginning to suspect the rumors of the 200Mhz TI processor for the Wizard...

[maximum360]

We need to form an anti-antenna union.

Antennas suck, big time! :evil:

[whydidnt]

No way.....It's all a big fat lie....A CDMA unit with WiFi and Bluetooth?! :idontthinkso: :D

Well the i730 has all of this - you just can't take calls while using WiFi. A not-too-small issue in my opinion. 8O

[whydidnt]

Does this really make sense? Previous HTC models have had the same specs between GSM and CDMA, like processor, memory, etc, right? Or am I just fooling myself? If the CDMA version has atleast 416Mhz, then why wouldn't the GSM version? Now I'm beginning to suspect the rumors of the 200Mhz TI processor for the Wizard...

I don't really have a clue about this, but I tend to think the rumors about the GSM model are accurate. However, I do know that CDMA takes quite a bit more power than GSM - maybe they need the faster processor - or the OMAP processor isn't compatible with the CDMA radio. Of course if that's true why go with the 416 Mhz version, not one clocked down to 300 or whatever.....

Seems to me we won't really know for sure until the devices are actually announced with complete specs.

[Kevin Daly]

I saw a photo of one of these with the label "HTC Apache" at a user group meeting recently - it was on a slide of "Things We're Not Allowed To Talk About Yet".

[Majestic]

THe i730 doesn't have a camera right?

No way.....It's all a big fat lie....A CDMA unit with WiFi and Bluetooth?! :idontthinkso: :D

Well the i730 has all of this - you just can't take calls while using WiFi. A not-too-small issue in my opinion. 8O

[whydidnt]

THe i730 doesn't have a camera right?

No way.....It's all a big fat lie....A CDMA unit with WiFi and Bluetooth?! :idontthinkso: :D

Well the i730 has all of this - you just can't take calls while using WiFi. A not-too-small issue in my opinion. 8O

That's correct, but that wasn't the question..... :wink:

However, there's no technical reason it doesn't have a camera - Verizon sees it as a business device and therefore, ordered it without.

[griph]

We need to form an anti-antenna union.
Antennas suck, big time! :evil:
I completely agree - this is a retrograde step, and no place on a PPCPE!! :evil:

[saru83]

this PPC Phone Sucks...

1-Antenna
2-Looks Bad
3-Has a better processor than the GSM version :D

Regards,
Sarwat

[ADBrown]

We need to form an anti-antenna union.

Antennas suck, big time! :evil:

I don't get why people object to antennas. If it gets you better signal strength, why not have it? I guess I must be abnormal, since I want the best signal and the farthest range available, whether it's on WiFi or cellular, regardless of the need for an antenna stub.

[Janak Parekh]

I don't get why people object to antennas.
Because the GSM community gave them up quite some time ago, so they're not used to it. ;)

If it gets you better signal strength, why not have it? I guess I must be abnormal, since I want the best signal and the farthest range available, whether it's on WiFi or cellular, regardless of the need for an antenna stub.
Agreed 100%. The last two CDMA phones I've had have both had antennas, and after a short while you don't notice their presence. Considering how good Verizon's coverage is, too, I don't mind. ;) CDMA has a greater propensity towards antennas because of its power use -- the better the reception, the less power CDMA uses, so the longer the battery life. (GSM does something somewhat similar, but the power savings are less AFAIK.)

All that said, internal antenna design is steadily improving as the years go by. Still, even on the newest internal-antenna phones I notice little instructions to avoid holding a phone by a particular area. &lt;shrug>

--janak

[griph]

I don't get why people object to antennas. If it gets you better signal strength, why not have it? I guess I must be abnormal, since I want the best signal and the farthest range available, whether it's on WiFi or cellular, regardless of the need for an antenna stub.

I can understand the argument for WiFi. Perhaps external aerials are more necessary in the USA because of the cr@p mobile systems/coverage they have there? ;-) I haven't noticed a problem with battery life or signal strength with my MDA Compact on GSM due to having an internal aerial!
Its a matter of personal choice. Personally an external aerial just looks so 90's, adds to the bulk, gets caught in pockets, is a potentially fragile projection, and is UGLY. Look at the XDA1 against the later XDA models.

[Paragon]

I don't get why people object to antennas. If it gets you better signal strength, why not have it? I guess I must be abnormal, since I want the best signal and the farthest range available, whether it's on WiFi or cellular, regardless of the need for an antenna stub.

I can understand the argument for WiFi. Perhaps external aerials are more necessary in the USA because of the cr@p mobile systems/coverage they have there? ;-) I haven't noticed a problem with battery life or signal strength with my MDA Compact on GSM due to having an internal aerial!
Its a matter of personal choice. Personally an external aerial just looks so 90's, adds to the bulk, gets caught in pockets, is a potentially fragile projection, and is UGLY. Look at the XDA1 against the later XDA models.

Agreed. Plus take it on an airplane and you get a totally different reaction from flight crews...."Ah-ha, an antenna. You can't use that onboard." ;)

[whydidnt]

I can understand the argument for WiFi. Perhaps external aerials are more necessary in the USA because of the cr@p mobile systems/coverage they have there? ;-) I haven't noticed a problem with battery life or signal strength with my MDA Compact on GSM due to having an internal aerial!

While I don't personally like exteranl antennas, you have to understand that carriers in the USA have to deal with a a much larger coverage area than the UK, or Europe. US carriers have to try to cover a lot bigger area, in many cases, sparsely populated, with the same type of signal. It's not that the US systems are cr*p, they just have to try to cover about 5 times the area of your carrier with roughly the same number of subscribers.

[saru83]

It's not that the US systems are cr*p, they just have to try to cover about 5 times the area of your carrier with roughly the same number of subscribers.

Agreed :wink: , but the only problem in North America is that its tooo behind europe in the telecommunication technologies :evil:

[Janak Parekh]

Agreed :wink: , but the only problem in North America is that its tooo behind europe in the telecommunication technologies :evil:
Not really. We've got substantial EVDO employment (at least in the US) and Pocket PC phones actually available on the market that can leverage that EVDO. It's not quite the same for UMTS in Europe.

--janak

[brianworkman]

I love the fact that HTC is releasing a CDMA version roughly the same time they are releasing the GSM version. General the HTC devices have not always released in a CDMA version and when they did it was always a good 4 to 6 months later. However, since this has not made it though the FCC website yet, that could be a bad sign as far as a Sept. or Oct. release. Overall I like the device better than the Samsung I730, but the mimisd would be a purchase killer for me.

What I hope this signals is a soon to be released CDMA/EVDO version of the HTC Universal. :lol: Please!

[saru83]

Agreed :wink: , but the only problem in North America is that its tooo behind europe in the telecommunication technologies :evil:
Not really. We've got substantial EVDO employment (at least in the US) and Pocket PC phones actually available on the market that can leverage that EVDO. It's not quite the same for UMTS in Europe.

--janak

But almost nothing in Canada :(