The Register Reviews the hp6515: Must Try Harder

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/15/review_ipaq_hw6515/' target='_blank'>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/0...ew_ipaq_hw6515/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Just as the great unwashed now think that all MP3 players are called an iPod, so there was a time when all handheld devices were simply known as iPaqs. . . . The HP iPaq hw6515 Mobile Messenger may not be the best looking device on the market and as with all connected PDAs, there's a trade-off between the usability and the size of the unit. That said, it works well and the quality of the device isn't in question. We're just concerned that HP has taken the easy route and not really released a device to try and push the market forward, which results in a 'me too' kind of product. From an innovator of HP's league, 'me too' doesn't really fit the bill."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/hw6515.jpg" /> <br /><br />"Oh how the mighty are fallen" might well be the subtext for this review. The hp6515 really does not stack up too well against the plethora of great devices being released and announced at the moment. It's excellent that HP offer a camera free version of this device, but the final score of 70% seems sadly appropriate. This GPS enabled Treo wanabe is a missed opportunity. The Register review needs a bit of work itself as well. Any guesses what's wrong with this sentence (and the device itself)? ;-)<br /><br /><i>"The screen is 3in in size and supports the standard 320 x 240 resolution."</i>

[Jon Westfall]

HP - a year behind at all times. I'm using my 6315, it works nicely, but man am I annoyed it doesn't even have WM 2003 SE... Methinks HP has a 12 month hold-up between R&amp;D and distribution somewhere.

[DaleReeck]

Ah yes, took me a second. A square screen and 320 x 240 don't compute :) It should be 240 x 240 :)

[Jonathon Watkins]

Ah yes, took me a second. A square screen and 320 x 240 don't compute :) It should be 240 x 240 :)

Bingo. :) The square resolution is fine, it's just that this should really have been 480x480. 240x240 is a step backward from 320x240. Bah! :?

Anyway, we'll see how the 6515 stacks up against the new WM5 devices. :devilboy:

[dorelse]

Yeah, its 80 pixels short of a real screen! (Or as I like to say, its 80 pixels short of HP getting my $.)

[ctmagnus]

"Just as the great unwashed now think that all MP3 players are called an iPod, so there was a time when all handheld devices were simply known as iPaqs. . . .."

I saw on the Calgary news a few nights ago a guy who had had a stroke and used an iPaq (5550, I believe) to communicate. Of course, the reporter referred to it as an iPod. :roll:

[DaleReeck]

Actually, the reviewer had it wrong. The "great unwashed" didn't think of all handhelds as iPaqs, they thought (and still do think) that all handhelds are PALMS :D

[Down8]

Actually, the reviewer had it wrong. The "great unwashed" didn't think of all handhelds as iPaqs, they thought (and still do think) that all handhelds are PALMS :DPalmPilots to be exact.

I was rebuilding one for one of my merchandisers in a Lowe's, and soemone asked if I was "playing with my PalmPilot?"

-bZj

[MitchellO]

Ah yes, took me a second. A square screen and 320 x 240 don't compute :) It should be 240 x 240 :)

Bingo. :) The square resolution is fine, it's just that this should really have been 480x480. 240x240 is a step backward from 320x240. Bah! :?

Anyway, we'll see how the 6515 stacks up against the new WM5 devices. :devilboy:

Yep, 480x480 or even 320x320 would have made this handheld HEAPS better.