09-22-2005, 12:00 AM
|
|
Developer & Designer, News Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,959
|
|
Pocket PC Dubai Reviews the i-mate JASJAR
"The JASJAR is a device that is out to get your heart (not to mention your wallet). If you can afford it and are in the market for a good dependable device then consider your search ended. The device has set a new standard for convergent devices and my only hope is that it is improved on in the coming years. It is a head turner in every way you can think of and it certainly deserves to be."
This is a complete follow-up review to Pocket PC Dubai's first impressions of the JASJAR, which we linked to late last week. It's five pages long and should have you craving for the device even more. 
|
| |
|
|
|
09-22-2005, 05:57 AM
|
|
5000+ Posts? I Should OWN This Site!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,067
|
|
Nice review, except for two things:
Quote:
"The JASJAR�s camera is capable of taking 1.3MP shots which are of much better quality in comparison to its predecessors. The main reason for this would be the fact that instead of using a CMOS sensor, a CCD was used. That�s right, the JASJAR has a single CCD and along with an LED flash, this makes it the first WM device to finally take good quality images. "
1. The CMOS technology is not inherently worse than CCD. Some high-end Canon cameras even use CMOS instead of CCD. Building a CCD in a device instead of a CMOS doesn't necessarily result in much better images.
2. has the reviewer EVER compared the camera "quality" of Jasjar to, say, Pocket Loox 720 (the images taken with Jasjar are as bad as those of the PL720), the Asus a730 or the iPAQ rx3715? Compared to earlier models, the Jasjar indeed may have better image quality, but I hardly think it's better than the iPAQ rx3715...
|
| |
|
|
|
09-22-2005, 08:44 AM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3
|
|
Hi,
Thanks for your comment.
The reason why i did not compare the JASJAR's camera quality to say the PL720 etc is because these are 2 different devices. I was particular about comparing only PPC-Phone devices as in the past, there has always been a controversy regarding the camera output.
In reality, if you do compare JASJAR's camera software and picture quality to say the PDA2k, JAM and the Alpine, it definitely wins hands down.
Secondly, you are right about the CMOS-CCD comment. However, it can go either ways. For instance, if you notice, most of the high-end camera phones are using CCD technology instead of CMOS, an example of which would be SE S700i, K750i, Nokia N90. So, it seems that CCD is better suited for cameraphones to produce good quality images.
Rest assures, the JASJAR's image quality is not the best on the market today in general, but definitely better than all the PPC-Phones.
Docc.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-22-2005, 09:05 AM
|
|
5000+ Posts? I Should OWN This Site!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,067
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by doccppcd
Rest assures, the JASJAR's image quality is not the best on the market today in general, but definitely better than all the PPC-Phones.
|
OK. It could be added to the review, however, that WM only refers to PPE devices in here - the camera in the iPAQ rx3715, in outdoors conditions, is clearly better than that of the Jasjar. (At least based on the test photos I've seen so far. A roundup of these devices with comparable shots under the same circumstances would be very cool to read some day.)
|
| |
|
|
|
09-22-2005, 04:40 PM
|
|
Thoughts Media Review Team
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 599
|
|
There are two things that I spotted in this review that I hadn't seen mentioned before - maybe I hadn't read previous material closely enough ...
One is annoying, the other has got me a bit worried.
The first is 802.11b and not g support. That is a real shame. It is annoying but I can live with it.
The other, though, is troublesome. The review says that WEP is supported. No mention is made of support for WPA - either PSK or RADIUS. If this really is being sold to the corporate market, WPA is going to be a tickbox. I thought that this had been added to WM2003SE?
--Philip
|
| |
|
|
|
09-22-2005, 06:48 PM
|
|
Developer & Designer, News Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,959
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Philip Colmer
The other, though, is troublesome. The review says that WEP is supported. No mention is made of support for WPA - either PSK or RADIUS. If this really is being sold to the corporate market, WPA is going to be a tickbox. I thought that this had been added to WM2003SE?
|
WPA support was added in WM2003SE, and as far as I'm aware, Windows Mobile 5.0 still retains that native support. So there's no reason why the Universal wouldn't support it software-wise. And hardware-wise, I doubt it'd have problems either, since the chances of the Universal being stocked with old wireless hardware is close to zero.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
