07-23-2003, 12:00 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
How Things Change In Just A Few Years
In 2001, low end Pocket PC devices cost as much or more than high end Palm devices. Sure, the Pocket PCs could do more, a lot more, but if you wanted a basic PDA for $200-$400, you had a basically two choices for your platform. PalmOS or PalmOS. :lol:
Well, today that is not the case at all. In fact, not only have Pocket PCs come down to the Palm price point, they have gone below it in some cases. Look at the announcement today on the Tungsten T2. For $399, you get a 320X320 screen, a whopping 32MB of RAM, a 144MHz TI OMAP processor, integrated bluetooth, a voice recorder and an SDIO slot.
For the same money, you can get an HP iPAQ 2215. The screen has a lower resolution at 240X320, but it has 64MB of RAM, a 3-4MB ROM file store, networking, full screen handwriting recognition, a removable battery, multitasking, full file system and a Compact Flash II slot. Now, I know what you are thinking - the iPAQ must be huge compared to the Tungsten. Palm has had the svelte devices for years. Well, not anymore. The iPAQ is 4.54 x 3.00 x 0.61 in. and weighs in at 5.1oz. The Tungsten T comes in at 4.00 (closed) x 3.00 x 0.60 in. and weighs in at 5.6oz. When you open the TT it grows to 4.80 inches high, larger than the 2215! I am assuming the T2 shares the physical dimensions of the TT.
And if I'm not mistaken, isn't the HP iPAQ 1900 series the smallest color data-centric handheld in production today? It is even smaller in some dimensions than gray-scale devices. My how times have changed.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2003, 12:11 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,468
|
|
Ah - but the Tungsten has that really, really useful slidey up and downy thing going on - surely worth sacrificing 32MB of memory, a CF slot and some weight for (hours of endless amusement - saves $hundreds worth of game purchases)?
Anyway Ed - shame on you! As you full well realise the POS is so efficient it needs very little memory to do anything - 32MB on a POS is of course equivalent to about 1.5GB on a wasteful, inefficient Pocket PC - and on a Tungsten you can play MP3s encoded at just 24k and they will sound better than MP3 encoded at 128k on a Pocket PC - so that saves so much space that 64MB of RAM would simply have no point. Good on Palm for protecting their users from having too much memory!
Don't forget as well - a 144Mhz processor on a hyper-efficient Palm actually enables you to complete a task an astonishing 3 seconds BEFORE you start it - compare with the Pocket PC where you can go an make a cup of tea whilst waiting for a program to open!
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2003, 01:12 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 414
|
|
The size and price similarities of the TT and 2215 clearly astounding. The 2215 is clearly small enough to show that HP had good reason to plan on dropping the 1900 (plans they dropped when they saw what a hit the 1900 was) when the 2215 was ready.
The 1900 may be the smallest available. Sharp makes one that might be a tad smaller. At the time it was released the Sharp (Japan only) linux mini was the smallest color PDA ever.
The prices favor the PPC in many instances. I just ordered a Zayo PPC 2002 model for only $200. Now, this is a special deal, but if you look at the ViewSonic, Dells, and HP 1900s you see a lot of value compared to any Palm OS model.
The Palms are still ahead by a mile on screen resolution and built-in camera models. Because they don't multi-task, they run video and open/scale images quite a bit faster. I don't think it matters much, though. I believe most 400-533 :mrgreen: (can't wait for those Samsungs!) with Mobile 2003 will be able to do video at 30 fps and above that the human eye can't tell the difference anyway. I got a report that a guy was comparing the opening of JPEGs up to 4 meg on a Tungsten comparing it to a 2215 and the T/C opened and scaled them as fast as you could click and move the sizing slider, while the 2215 needed a second or two. I can wait a second or two. It is the 20 second wait to open 100 thumbnails or 1 Meg JPEGs on my 66MZ Clie NR70V that has made me start looking for faster.
The whole file/client mess on Palm OS is a major pain I won't miss if the Zayo works out for what I want. It is maddening!
Software is now a huge advantage for the PPC OS. I expect to get Battery Pack or SPB Plus to replace a dozen hacks needed on the Palm OS. Then TextMaker, Pocket Artist, Laridian Bible, Resco Picture Viewer, Resco File Explorer, SketchArtist, FITALY, Pocket Earth, and Pocket Atlas. All of these are as powerful as desktop programs and have absolutely nothing that can touch them on the Palm platform. I would love to see them on a model with the features of the Sony UX, but I am not paying $600 for that model when I can get a Zayo, Axim, ViewSonic, or 1900 for $250 or less.
There is still some big success possible in the Palm OS. The Zire 71, Sonys, and (in the Linux area the Sharps) all put most PPC OEMS to shame in innovation. But, in value the PPCs are finaly in real competitive position.
Q. Is there an install/uninstall program that tracks everything I install that I should get before I even start on the PPC? I can't find one. Is it needed? Or do all PPC programs come with auto uninstallers?
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2003, 01:12 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 602
|
|
I am currently testing the Palm Tungsten W for my site... and I must say that it amazes me how well the mobile-part works with the PDA-part! This device rocks for people wanting two in one without paying a fortune.
Sure I miss my PocketPC (lying at home this week while I borrow the Tungsten W) with all the functionality of Agenda Fusion, multitasking, all my belowed games, PPCT mobile forum, the Today-screen, etc... but it does the elementary very good. Stable like bleeding hell and good batterytime. And it's great just having ONE device to carry around.
And I LOVE the thumboard!!!
Now where are all those PPCPE-devices that we where supposed to see???
__________________
Mobile: Motorola Milestone
Photo: Canon Eos 20D
PC: Several Mac's...
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2003, 01:19 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Timothy Rapson
The Palms are still ahead by a mile on screen resolution and built-in camera models. Because they don't multi-task, they run video and open/scale images quite a bit faster. I don't think it matters much, though.
|
Sigh... 206MHz PocketPC can do 30 fps full screen just fine, with good quality, thank you. I think with complete code optimization mpeg4 video at 320x240 250kbps WITHOUT SOUND is possible to decode at nearly 50fps. It's just as lazy ass coders to blame it doesn't happen... and there's need for someone who'd like to PAY for that, too. 
Anyways, Pocket MVP can do it (I have a special case 3870-optimized version that plays 320-pixels wide video somewhat faster than the normal version. There are some problems, but maybe I submit my code some day...)
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2003, 01:26 PM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 301
|
|
Bluetooth
I too have been with PPC for quite some time now and I have to admit I've enjoyed mocking the puny capabilites of the Palm for the last couple of generations.
However, the thing that is nowstarting to concern me is that no one is really making Microsoft work very hard to innovate. The T2 is clearly not very impressive, nothing in it's form factor that would make me think about giving up my iPaq 1910. (I'm of the opinion that the 1910 is the only "Pocket PC" worthy of the name since it's the only one I've been able to keep in a pocket on my Levi's comfortably.)
I am pleased that Palm increased the screen pixels, but not by much (we really should all have half-VGA by now at least, full VGA even.)
I would add though, that if Palm were to make the T2 support the Bluetooth HID keyboard spec I would switch to Palm today. Microsoft has slacked on this and there's no good reason that Microsoft's PPC2003 doesn't support Microsoft's Bluetooth keyboard.
We PPC enthusiasts shouldn't be crowing too loudly about how lame the Palm products are. If Palm can't put some pressure on, we can expect PPC2004 will be just another "maintenance release" of 2002. The fact that 2003 now supports Bluetooth (uh, but not our own keyboard...) and has a few other refinements is fairly sad progress for the period since I got my HP568 with 2002 (like 18 months ago?) The reality is that since I got that 568, next to nothing has happened at Microsoft - sure the device got smaller and became my 1910, but that was HP's improvement on the hardware, not progress from MS on the OS. Sure, the new iPaqs are faster, but that's because Intel and Samsung are giving us faster ARMs, again not progress from MS on the OS.
Honestly folks, would you really say PPC2003 is more like a "generational upgrade" like Windows 2000 to Windows XP or more of a "service release" like how Windows 95 didn't support USB or FAT32 originally, but Windows 95 Rev. B did?
Face it guys, we need Palm. We need them competitive again. We need them innovative again. Although it hurts to say it...
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2003, 01:38 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 141
|
|
Re: How Things Change In Just A Few Years
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry
And if I'm not mistaken, isn't the HP iPAQ 1900 series the smallest color data-centric handheld in production today? It is even smaller in some dimensions than gray-scale devices. My how times have changed.
|
Not for long.. The treo 600, you know you want it..
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2003, 01:58 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3
|
|
I am a Sony TG50 owner.
The followings are some of my observations and opinions.
1. People browse this forum are usually experienced PocketPC users. They know PocketPC OS well but may not know Palm OS5 very well.
2. People browse this forum are always looking for the best device for the money they can afford to spend. I would think some of you may not care about which OS is better. For me, I would not spend more than $300 for a PDA. If I am looking for a new PDA now, I would get an iPaq 2215 ($293 education price) over Tungsten T2 ($399).
3. 16MB RAM on a Palm OS5 device can be utilized to be as useful as 64MB RAM on a PocketPC. (However, most Palm OS5 devices only have 11MB free RAM  ) Palm's smaller RAM size is not that a big problem anymore.
4. The screens on Mid-range Palm OS5 devices are smaller than screens on PocketPC devices. However, texts, images and photos on a 320x320 Palm OS5 screen look better than on a 320x240 PocketPC screen. There are pros and cons on screens of both devices. There is no reason to spend time to argue which screen format is better.
5. Most people will buy a case to protect their PDA. iPaq 1900 plus an InnoPocket metal case is about 6.7 oz and 0.83" thick. iPaq 2215 plus an metal case may weigh over 7.6 oz and 1" thick.
I guess what I want to say is OS and memory size, screen size is not the most important factors in my purchasing decison. Price, overall size, and overall weight are major factors in my purchasing decision. (overall size and weight = PDA + a case)
I sold my Maestro a few months ago because of its overall size and poor battery life. I bought a Sony TG50 last month because:
1. Price: I got a good deal. $250 after rebate plus a free leather case.
2. Overall size and weight: (5" x 2.82" x 0.5") TG50 has a built in flip cover. I don't need to add a metal case to protect it. I can carry it on my pocket without a case.
3. Others: TG50 has bluetooth and build-in keyboard. I don't use bluetooth. But I do like its build-in keyboard. I found that I can use my Cross Digital writer (a regular Cross pen with a PDA stylus) to use the keyboard. Again, those features are not that important in my decision.
If HP would provide a flip cover for iPaq 2215 without adding overall size and weight on it, I may change my purchasing decision. For now, I think TG50 is still a better buy for me.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2003, 02:08 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 76
|
|
Quote:
|
I am pleased that Palm increased the screen pixels, but not by much (we really should all have half-VGA by now at least, full VGA even.)
|
Sony Clie's are half-VGA and the new Sharp Zauruses (Zauri?) are full VGA.
Quote:
|
Honestly folks, would you really say PPC2003 is more like a "generational upgrade" like Windows 2000 to Windows XP
|
Its more like an upgrade from Windows ME to Windows 2000 - the GUI remained mostly the same but the entire kernel and underlying system changed - like PPC2003.
Quote:
|
206MHz PocketPC can do 30 fps full screen just fine, with good quality
|
Really? What device running what program? PocketMVP can *barely* play back full screen video and can't play back full screen mpeg1. Windows Media player is even worse. While the Clie's can play 320x480 Quicktime movies at over 30fps with sound and they run 133mhz (granted. i think it has a media co-processor). But still, if you claim they run 30fps video just fine what are you using to do it? I can't get a 320x240 200kbs divx 5.0.5 video with 96kb mpeg audio running well on my 5555. - It does have the potentail - but as you said, no coders.
Quote:
|
HP had good reason to plan on dropping the 1900
|
I hope not. It is sexier and slimmer (and cheaper) than the 2215 for those who do not need all those extra features. Its the low end model that doesn't look at all low-end.
Quote:
|
32MB on a POS is of course equivalent to about 1.5GB on a wasteful, inefficient Pocket PC
|
For programs perhaps - if you are talking about memory - but that also includes storage. A 5mb video file takes 5mb no matter if you store it on a palm or pocket pc. PocketPC is a multitasking environment so of course it uses more memory. But compare the 6 or so mb that winCE uses to 100mb of WinXP.
Amazing how WindowsXP is a monster on disk space while WinCE is soo small. Of coruse there is a feature gap but why does Microsoft still need to include tons of crap in the WinXP files left over from WinNT 3.1!!!? Its a waste of space. Microsoft is not about inovating, just making something good enough to beat the competition.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2003, 02:15 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KayMan2k
Really? What device running what program? PocketMVP can *barely* play back full screen video and can't play back full screen mpeg1. Windows Media player is even worse. While the Clie's can play 320x480 Quicktime movies at over 30fps with sound and they run 133mhz (granted. i think it has a media co-processor). But still, if you claim they run 30fps video just fine what are you using to do it? I can't get a 320x240 200kbs divx 5.0.5 video with 96kb mpeg audio running well on my 5555. - It does have the potentail - but as you said, no coders.
|
There are no coders, because there is no money to be made. Too little money to start a commercial project and optimizing Pocket MVP doesn't pay the bills.
And to add - specialized media co-processors help a lot. Quicktime movies? That doesn't say much, quicktime is just a container. Which CODEC? How many kbps for total video stream?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
