Two things you need to know about the Loox

[Jason Dunn]

I talked to someone from Fujitsu-Siemens this morning, and had a follow-up email with them, and I learned two important things about the Loox:<br /><br />1) The Fujitsu-Siemens Loox will only be available in EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa). It will not be released in North America. However, the Fujitsu Loox WILL be. Basically they divided up the world markets and Fujitsu is releasing the Loox under their own brand name, on their own timeframe. When will that be? No clue - I would guess August or September, but I have zero contacts at Fujitsu to confirm this.<br /><br />2) The Loox has a "side-lit screen" (from the product manager), not a back-lit transreflective display like the 3900 series iPAQ. It would seem that any reference to a transreflective screen are incorrect, or more likely, the result of the confusion that surrounds the incorrect use of the terms.

[entropy1980]

I just recieved an email from Expansys stating they will be recieving a shipment to the US by the end of next week.... I wonder if it the Europe version then?

[Paragon]

Expansys USA just sent me this email.

"Dear sir / madam,

We expect to have stock of the Pocket LOOX in our US warehouse by the end
of next week, the
LOOX is a remarkable machine with built in Bluetooth and a 400Mhz X-Scale
processor all for
just $600!"

Since I had preorderd it they asked if I wanted to continue with the order or not.......Hhhhmmmmm. I'm sure leaning towards no based on this screen info.

Dave

[Jonathon Watkins]

OK, how much better is back-lit transreflective than side lit? I know people were really hoping it would be a transreflective screen, but is does it make a huge difference?

[Foo Fighter]

2) The Loox has a "side-lit screen" (from the product manager), not a back-lit transreflective display like the 3900 series iPAQ.

Well, loox like I can scratch the Loox off my shopping list. :roll:

[Mr. Anonymous]

Bummer..I REALLY like the transflective screen on the 3900, but didn't like the iPAQ form factor. Given the choice, pretty screen wins for me :)

[Jonathon Watkins]

OK - so I take it that this is a major no-no? HOW much better is back-lit transreflective than side lit reflective?

[farnold]

1) The Fujitsu-Siemens Loox will only be available in EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa). It will not be released in North America. However, the Fujitsu Loox WILL be. Basically they divided up the world markets and Fujitsu is releasing the Loox under their own brand name, on their own timeframe. When will that be? No clue - I would guess August or September, but I have zero contacts at Fujitsu to confirm this.

2) The Loox has a "side-lit screen" (from the product manager), not a back-lit transreflective display like the 3900 series iPAQ. It would seem that any reference to a transreflective screen are incorrect, or more likely, the result of the confusion that surrounds the incorrect use of the terms.

I talked to FUJITSU marleting here in Sydney last week. They mentionned that they expect the LOOX around end of July / early August at the latest. No concrete date given though

Screen - I don't know if there is a "IPAQ transfective" and a "LOOX transflective". Handbook, box and brochure of the LOOX say transflective. Duncan mentionned some concern about the screen of his test device as well in his review at www.firstloox.org - but still concludes, that it's way better than the 36xx or 38xx.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I found this article at Brighthand usefull: Inside Display Technology
http://www.brighthand.com/newsite/features/screentech.html

Another key issue related to LCDs is lighting. And there are two distinct methods used in lighting an LCD: transmissive and reflective.

Transmissive screens typically use an artificial light source, called a backlight, that sits in back of the LCD. These work very well in normal and dim lighting, but are difficult to read outdoors, especially on sunny days. Also, they require power to run the backlight.

Reflective screens, on the other hand, use external light. This can be in the form of ambient light or, as in the case of some notebook and handheld computers, a front-lighting system. However, reflective screens cannot be backlit. So, while reflective screens are excellent outdoors and in well-lit rooms, they are not as bright as backlit transmissive screens under normal indoor lighting conditions. Still, their big advantage is that they use much less power than backlit displays.

Yet other devices use hybrid LCDs called transflective, which are both backlit and reflective. They use a translucent reflective backing that reflect some ambient light, but can also allow some backlighting to pass through. Some people consider transflective displays the perfect compromise, while others consider them the jacks of all trades, masters of none.

Would people go with this? Is it all a matter of oppinion? The fact that reflective uses much less power than transflective certainly sounds good to me. I'll have to see one in the flesh I guess.

[Duncan]

Just a couple of things:

1) The plan was always to release the Loox under the Fujitsu brand name in the US. Nothing remarkable in this. Brand recognition and all that.

2) The screen on the Loox is transflective - but is a side lit transflective screen instead of back lit. A screen can be reflective but front lit but a sidelit transflective screen, rather than being front lit actually projects the light down through the screen where it then reflects back up through the screen - a kind of re-inforcement of the natural reflected light in the environment. In both cases light is transmitted through the screen all that differs is the placement of the light source. Until recently back lit transflective screens were very difficult to make work effectively as too much of the transmitted light would end up being reflected back before being transmitted throught the screen - making for a power hungry device. The iPAQ is undoubtedly a backlit screen the Loox uses the side lit version.

Frankly - until the iPAQ 3900 series came out - I assumed the transflective screen on the Loox would be sidelit anyway. Somewhere along the line supposition became treated as fact and the idea came about that the term was fixed in stone as referring to backlit displays only - the iPAQ 3800 series actually uses a sidelit transflective display - just not very well! :) In actual fact any device that combines the principles of the transmissive and reflective displays - whereever the light is transmitted from - can be called transflective.

If Compaq/HP worked their way round the weaknesses of a backlit display - good for them and they deserve kudos for that. At the same time Fujitsu-Siemens have obviously improved on the weaknesses of the side lit display. The lighting was so even and clear that, were it not for the camera picking it up, I don't think I'd have noticed the side lighting - and I had an iPAQ!

[Duncan]

Just in case anyone thinks I'm blowing smoke here - think back to when the iPAQ was first introduced and everyone marvlled at how the screen coul be seen indoors and out because it used 'transflective' screens that outdid the frontlit reflective and transmissive screens that were then available. Compaq's 'masterstroke' was to createa sidelit version of hat until then had had to be back lit...

Some links to help you remember -

http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1422/byt20011015s0003/
http://www.jeffkirvin.com/writingonyourpalm/column001106.htm
http://www.itreviews.co.uk/hardware/h280b.htm
http://www.the-gadgeteer.com/ubb/Forum125/HTML/000001-2.html

Just a random selection of reminders that we've all heard the tale of a new 'transflective' technology before. What the new iPAQs have is just backlit 'transflective' technology.

Am I the only person on the planet who remembers the term 'transflective' being used to describe the then new iPAQ 3600 series all that time ago? :)

[disconnected]

Even though I'd love to have the CF slot, I think I'm happy I got carried away and bought the iPAQ 3970 the other night.

I'm old and don't have great eyesight; I really like having the larger screen, and the new iPAQ screen really blew me away. I haven't had the time to set it up and install applications yet, but just looking at some themes and pictures, the difference between the 3970 and my 3830 is amazing -- it's not just color, although that's part of it (the solitaire background is now actually green), but more the feeling of clarity, like not looking through clouds between me and the picture.......I can't think how to describe it, but it's really an enormous difference.

I thought I'd bypass this generation, and felt safe enough visiting CompUSA since I didn't think they would have gotten it in yet (I don't think they ever did carry the 38xx with Bluetooth), but there it was, and I couldn't resist it.

They even had a Bluetooth phone (T68, I think). I didn't get the phone because right now I have Sprint service, but if Sprint doesn't announce 2.5G service and bluetooth phones in the next month, I'll have to start looking at Voicestream.

Sorry, I got a little off-topic here. :oops:

[Duncan]

I think we've all been there done that...! :)

[Take1]

first the e550g screen is reflective, then the Loox is refective.....

Looxs like I'll be waiting a for the thin HP iPAQ or the next generation Clie NR-x series. Shame to waste such great hardware on weak screen technology -- transflective is the way to go. Once you've seen a transflective screen, you really won't want to consider a reflective screen again.

[Jonathon Watkins]

first the e550g screen is reflective, then the Loox is refective.....
Nope - it's not - look at the FirstLoox review again, especially at http://www.firstloox.org/review_page_2.htm - I have quoted from it below
Transflective Screen

The Loox IS a side lit transflective screen. A transflective screen uses a combination of reflected natural light and transmitted light to enable a screen to be seen in all lighting conditions. The first transflective screens were backlit. The light was projected from behind the screen - unfortunately a lot of the light was reflected back rather than out of the screen to be seen by the observer.

Compaq, when they brought out the iPAQ 3600 series, introduced a side-lit transflective screen. The light source is at the side instead of behind the screen. A prism focuses the light down onto the reflective coating behind the screen where it is then transmitted out along with natural light that passes through the screen to be reflected out.

Why was this better? With a backlit transflective screen the backlight has to pass through a 'two-way mirror' that lets light through one way but reflects light back out the other way. This 'two-way mirror' is not very efficient - thus a lot of wasted light. By placing the light source at the side, and reflecting it down, a standard reflective surface can be used - so more light is reflected out.

After the iPAQ did it - so did all the Pocket PCs in time. Some PDAs, including the new generation iPAQs and Sony Clies have found ways to improve backlit transflective display technology.

The Loox uses the side-lit variety and does it without any noticeable unevenness which has been a problem with side-lit displays. Two ways of achieving the same effect - it is up to the individual to decide which way they go in choosing their Pocket PC.
So - it sounds better now surely? If it looks like and duck and quacks like a duck......

[Jonathon Watkins]

I found this article at Brighthand usefull: Inside Display Technology
http://www.brighthand.com/newsite/features/screentech.html

Another key issue related to LCDs is lighting. And there are two distinct methods used in lighting an LCD: transmissive and reflective.

Transmissive screens typically use an artificial light source, called a backlight, that sits in back of the LCD. These work very well in normal and dim lighting, but are difficult to read outdoors, especially on sunny days. Also, they require power to run the backlight.

Reflective screens, on the other hand, use external light. This can be in the form of ambient light or, as in the case of some notebook and handheld computers, a front-lighting system. However, reflective screens cannot be backlit. So, while reflective screens are excellent outdoors and in well-lit rooms, they are not as bright as backlit transmissive screens under normal indoor lighting conditions. Still, their big advantage is that they use much less power than backlit displays.

Yet other devices use hybrid LCDs called transflective, which are both backlit and reflective. They use a translucent reflective backing that reflect some ambient light, but can also allow some backlighting to pass through. Some people consider transflective displays the perfect compromise, while others consider them the jacks of all trades, masters of none.

Would people go with this? Is it all a matter of oppinion? The fact that reflective uses much less power than transflective certainly sounds good to me. I'll have to see one in the flesh I guess.