Fujitsu Begins Sales of LOOX in Japan

[Jason Dunn]

<a href="http://pr.fujitsu.com/en/news/2002/07/16.html">http://pr.fujitsu.com/en/news/2002/07/16.html</a><br /><br />Hot on the heels of the European release of the Fujitsu-Siemens Loox, Fujitsu has released their uni-branded version of the Loox. Nothing terribly exciting here - it's the same device from what I can tell.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/japanloox.jpg" /><br /><br />"Fujitsu Limited today announced that it has commenced sales of its Pocket LOOX palm-sized personal digital assistant (PDA) in the Japanese market, with general availability from August 2, 2002 (*1). The sleek, 175g Pocket LOOX has built-in BluetoothTM wireless communications capability, enabling on-the-go Internet access via Bluetooth-equipped PDC or PHS mobile phones.Moreover, when linked to personal computers equipped with a Bluetooth USB adaptor (*2), it can be used in the office or at home for wireless data exchange, checking e-mail, surfing the Web and various other business and entertainment purposes."<br /><br />I give them a nod for being honest about how they measure the battery life though (most OEMs don't tell you that):<br /><br />"Approx. 10 hours (standard battery); approx. 20 hours (optional expansion battery). Assumes front light off, display in continuous "Today" mode. Battery life will vary depending on ambient temperature and other conditions."<br /><br />Truth be told, however, that number isn't very impressive. The iPAQ 3870 with the side light off will last 16.2 hours. Perhaps the actual run time of the Loox is better in day to day use? In my tests I've noticed that the Jornada 565, which doesn't last as long as the iPAQ 3870 with the light off, will actually outlast the 3870 on the low backlight setting. Still, I really like what I've seen of the Loox and I'm looking forward to actually seeing one someday...maybe. I emailed the people listed at the bottom of that press release last week, and I received no response. Why can't all the companies be as good as Fossil when it comes to courting the support of enthusiasts? Perhaps someday...

[kurzon]

Loox, will you marry me?

:werenotworthy:

[Jonathon Watkins]

Well I've pre-ordered mine a few days ago :D - Can't wait! Not long to go till the 5th of August. :rainbow1:

[Take1]

Has the transflective screen debate been figured out yet? If it's reflective --- forget it. If it's transflective, then I'm interested.

[JonnoB]

In the specs, SD-IO not supported
that ruined it for me.... why can't one company at least get it right?

[Jason Dunn]

Has the transflective screen debate been figured out yet? If it's reflective --- forget it. If it's transflective, then I'm interested.

Yes - I talked to someone on the Loox product team: it's reflective. The boxes that said "transreflective" were a mistake.

[JonnoB]

The boxes that said "transreflective" were a mistake.

Those darn tech writers! :D

[Duncan]

God - do we have to go through this again?!

No mistake was made! The Loox has a sidelit transflective screen in common with virtually all Pocket PCs since the iPAQ. The Clies and new iPAQs have backlit transflective screens. Most Pocket PCs have been described as 'reflective' for a while because no other form of reflective technology was being used. However - early literature for a number of Pocket PCs has often used both terms interchangeably, as did early literature for the Loox. Now that the final literature is out - and to avoid confusion - the term reflective is being used for the Loox screen.

For some people that is a deal breaker. Fair enough - you can buy an iPAQ 3900 series with all its limitations and past history IF you want a backlit screen. You have NO other choices in terms of Pocket PC screens.

It's not difficult to get the little things right you know....

I'm a little puzzled by the battery quotes. I have two sources that have quoted a battery life of 10 hours plus to me while doing a lot more than the press release claims - plus I got 3 hours from the battery (without battery light) and it had barely used 20% (before I had to hand it over to the courier...) - allowing for shut off at 10% power - that would mean at least 13 -14 hours - either they are being really conservative or are just plucking the figures from the datasheet and covering themselves just in case...

Of course what I really want to know is where Jason got his iPAQ 3870 from - 16 hours with back light off? That's several more than I could get!

[Duncan]

Just thought I'd through in a Babel Fish 'translation' of the Japanese specifications page for the Loox.

"With the adoption of the lithium polymer battery, it actualizes the long time work of approximately 10 hours. If the expansion battery pack of selling separately is installed, approximately 20 hours be able to use, even ahead going out feeling at rest, it is possible to utilize."

It's amazing what the lack of a 'legal waiver' can do for the Loox's staying power! Here it is quite clearly stated that you can work for 10 hours - which is exactly what I've been hearing!

[st63z]

So, any further rumor/info about when the Fujitsu Loox will hit our shores (the good ol' US of A, that is)?

Also, my personal opinion is that a side SD slot almost negates the usefulness of SDIO anyway. I expect most if not all first-gen SDIO devices (for the foreseeable future) will be longer than SD memory cards, so as to stick out of the slot. And that's just plain uncomfortable and sorta ugly when it sticks out of the side of the PDA ;)

[Duncan]

Yes - Margi simply put some workings in an external box to make the SD presenter to go work. How portable is that?

North America is still officially a go shortly after Europe who are officially a go second week in August. I've heard nothing to contradict either. So I would say that North America should be no later than the start of Septmeber - all things being equal. Or there is the Expansys option - they will, I believe, sell in the US at the same time as Europe - i.e. mid-August-ish.

Mind you - I've found Fujitsu-Siemens to be very helpful - but Fujitsu US and Pacific really do have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot publicity-wise... not that they are any worse than HPaq but still... Imean if I were them I'd have shipped a unit to Dale Coffing or Jason or someone in the US - along with details of release plans. How come I'm in a different continent and I get told more than the US branch of Fujitsu is telling? :roll:

[Jason Dunn]

God - do we have to go through this again?! No mistake was made! The Loox has a sidelit transflective screen in common with virtually all Pocket PCs since the iPAQ.

Duncan, I am getting sick and tired of your constant attacks whenever anyone says even the slightest bit negative about the Loox, and I'm getting sick of you subtly accusing me of lying or misleading people. Let me set you straight on this once and for all :x :

I spoke with Jan Moser, a Product Manager on the Fujitsu-Siemens Loox, and received some information from him. I later emailed him and asked specificically about the screen because I was confused after reading your review.

My first email to Jan: "There's some confusion about the screen type of the Loox: http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=16422. Can you confirm that it's the same type of transreflective screen used in the new 3900 series iPAQ, and that it's not a side-lit screen like the Toshiba or other Pocket PCs on the market? A fast response is most appreciated - thank you!"

Jan's first response: "Hi Jason, it is a side - lit screen."

My second email to Jan: "Thanks for the quick response Jan. I'm not sure, but there's a lot of confusion with the people who have seen the box - they're telling me it says "Transreflective" on it."

Jan's second response: "Hi Jason, this was a mistake on the old boxes."

Satisfied? If you'd like me to provide you with Jan's phone number so you can "check up" on me, I will. But stop this behaviour where you challenge everything I say as being wrong! I don't have a Loox, I'm not an expert on the Loox, but I'm not a complete idiot! You can babble on all night about screen terminology, but the REAL question the person was asking was "Does this have the iPAQ 3900 screen, or does it have the screen like all other Pocket PCs?". I wasn't insulting the Loox in any way, I was simply stating a fact. Now it may be a really NICE side-lit screen (it looks nice in the photos), but it's still not what people think of as "transflective".

Of course what I really want to know is where Jason got his iPAQ 3870 from - 16 hours with back light off? That's several more than I could get!

Gee Duncan, you caught me - it's a special iPAQ with a super duper battery in it, and I'm misleading the entire Pocket PC community by falsifying information because....because....gee, why would I do that? Quit insulting me by suggesting that I'm falsifying information. :evil:

[TMAN]

God - do we have to go through this again?!

No mistake was made!......

One question Duncan. What does it say in the FSC web documentation? Their website seems to say REFLECTIVE. 8O

http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/rl/products/handhelds/pocketloox.html#

Click on Technical overview. This page says reflective.
Click on Datasheet. This page says reflective.

[jdhill]

Duncan,

You are out of line.

The screen is side-lit. Therefore it has to be reflective. It can only be trans-reflective if it is backlit.

You may want to privately appologize to Jason and move along.

There are plenty of other features on the Loox to discuss. I suggest you focus on some of them.

[Take1]

Reflective, aye? Hmmm. too bad. I think I'll wait until the 39xx series comes down in price, or the other PPCs get transflective (the one 99.999% of everyone thinks of which is an -- amalgam of transmissive and reflective screens) . Thanks for the info Jason!

[Duncan]

I just want to make it clear that I in no way intended to call into question the truth of any of the statements that Jason made - directly or otherwise. My response on the iPAQ battery life was intended to be one of genuine surprise. My resonse on the issue of the screen type of the iPAQ was one of exasperation that the question still comes up when it has been dealt with and argued in many threads on many boards and the answer is by no means clear cut. Possibly not as diplomatically put as it could be - but my thrust would have been the same no matter what.

In that my words and intent were, understandably, mistaken - I offer Jason a very public apology and a statement to the effect that I do not believe, and have not believed at any point, that Jason has sought to lie or mislead anyone on these issues.

TMAN,

Yes the Loox has a reflective screen - so does the iPAQ 3900 series, so did the 3630, so do all the Pocket PCs. All can also lay claim to the title transflective if they want to as several of them have.

However - one only has a backlit screen. That is the difference, the only difference that matters. That this one single difference has led one Pocket PC to lay claim to the term transflective in exclusivity doesn't make FSC wrong or innaccate to have used the term. If I am mistaken in wanting to make it clear that FSC were not trying to mislead anyone by accident or design then I will continue to be mistaken. But if someone asks me what the difference in screens is - transflective, a made up buzzword rendered shorn of its common meaning by overuse, is not the difference I would highlight. Backlit or side-lit - they make the difference.

Fair enough?

[Steven Cedrone]

My response on the issue of the screen type of the iPAQ was one of exasperation that the question still comes up when it has been dealt with and argued in many threads on many boards and the answer is by no means clear cut.

I thought it was clear cut - reflective: period...........

In that my words and intent were, understandably, mistaken - I offer Jason a very public apology and a statement to the effect that I do not believe, and have not believed at any point, that Jason has sought to lie or mislead anyone on these issues.

Spoken like a true gentleman.....

[Take1]

Brighthand has an article about screens (which I remember first reading back in the fall of 2000, if my memory is correct). This is where I first heard about transflective screens and why a lot of people refer to transflective as back-lit/reflective.

"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."


Highlights and Lowlights

[JonnoB]

I always understood "transflective" to mean both reflective and translucent... thus the back-light that illuminates through the LCD. Use of the phrase transflective when there was no translucence was just a technical mistake that many made which compounded the confusion when they knew no better... still, even though many made the mistake, it still does not change the meaning of the conjugated words.

[Duncan]

Well - I CAN explain why I said the issue isn't clear cut - but I do so on the understanding that the term transflective isn't nearly as useful as straightforward terms like 'backlit' and 'sidelit' - and frankly, once I go over this, I'm just going to refuse to use the 't' word... :( ( and I should stress - this is explanation - not argument!)

Transflective was the term used to describe the backlit screens. The problem with them was the need to have a kind of two way mirror behind the screen letting light shine out from the backlight but still reflecting light that came in - a two way mirror makes for both a poormirror and a poor window. The altenative was reflective screens that had 'full mirror'and reflected most of the light that came in - with a front light to help when there wasn't sufficient ambient light (not terribly effective) or transmissive screens - great indoors but unusable outside.

With the iPAQ 3630 (and for all their faults Compaq have done all the innovating with Pocket PCs) came a transflective screen that did things differently. Insead of a back light a sidelight was used. Instead of a 'two-way mirror' a single reflective surface was used behind the screen. A prism arrangement took the sidelight and reflected it across and downonto the mirrored surface which promptly bounced it out throught screen - still a transmitted light - only the source of the light was changed from back to side. At the same time ambient light was reflected out as in a standard reflective screen. In that exactly the same principles were used as in the backlit variety Compaq called the screen transflective - though in a sense they cheated to make it work.

After the 3630 all Pocket PC screens used the same type of screen (this kind of post-dates Steve's article - though I thought he'd updated it at some point). In time, as these were the only type of reflective technology being used by Pocket PCs the standard shorthand of reflective was used (though the older term could still be seen in some Pocket PC promotional literature - I found a reference to the 3870 as being transflective in some info from Compaq).

Of course then Sony went and (obviously) figured out a way to improve on the backlit transflective screen and went and used the term (as they had a right to). It is arguable that the backlit screen is the purer form of the technology - and it is certainly the case that the term transflective had been dropped by other Pocket PCs - and now, to avoid confusion, by FSC. The only problem is that there are still front-lit reflective screens that are not in any way transflective - which is why the issue is not clear cut.

At least with the terms backlit, sidelit and frontlit (in descending order of desirability) we have terms that actually tell us something useful about the screen (and are the facts that people really want to know about the screen).

So in terms of the question that was asked - all Pocket PCs are now transflective in design but only the iPAQ 3900 series uses the (superior) backlit screen with other Pocket PCs using the sidelit variety whose chief flaw is to have some spillage of light onto the front of the screen and an unevenness (more noticeable in some devices than others) of light caused by the source of light coming from one side of the screen.

Frankly the 't' word (a made up word to begin with) seems to have been rendered meaningless. 'Backlit' screens now offer the best form of Pocket PC screen picture - though whether it's worth the price is another matter... Sidelit screens continue to offer a good compromise... frontlit screens - well I'm not sure if anyone is still doing those - Palm might be...

[Take1]

Very informative Duncan. The reason I refuse to deal with reflectives is what most people gripe about 1. Dust 2. Milky Screens. I like the 3835 screen especially since it's dust free, but my NR-70 screen has me spoiled and I simply can't go back to side lit reflective!

[Jonathon Watkins]

Point is – everyone seems to be correct to an extent with their arguments. This is confusing. :? Well either way, the question must be ‘What looks better”. I am not paying for a particular technology – I am paying for results. If the LOOX’s sidelit screen is as looks as good as the backlit IPAQ, then fair enough. I understand from Brighthand that sidelit gives better battery performance. We’ll see.

Why are people so focused on backlit devices? I guess I must have a good look at one of the new backlit IPAQs compared to the sidelit version.

[mfischer]

Hello,

I like the Loox very much, especially the supported Bluetooth profile list is very impressive (found on http://qualweb.bluetooth.org ):

- Headset-AG
- Headset-HS
- OPP-Client
- OPP-Server
- DUN-DT
- LAN-DT
- FT-Server
- FT-Client
- GAP
- SDAP
- SDP
- Serial-DevA
- Serial-DevB
- OBEX
- PAN-Group
- PAN-User
- BNEP

What I did not like: The battery is build in and not user changeable! On average use the battery is charged 2-3 times per week. After 1-2 years the battery is dead and must be replaced by the service. This is not free and the Loox is away for several days, perhaps weeks. This is IMHO not acceptable!

The Toshiba e740 with build in Bluetooth is a much more interesting device. It has CF-2+ and SD/IO slots to, build in WLAN or Bluetooth and a user changeable battery. If the battery is dead it can be replaced by yourself. Even a bigger battery with ~3 times the normal capacity is available. The only problem I found with the e740 with build in Bluetooth is the supported Bluetooth profile list:

- Generic Access
- Serial-DevA
- DUN-DT
- Serial-DevB

This list is a little bit short. I think there can be more profiles supported in the future if Toshiba provides a software-upgrade, but I did not know for sure if this is possible with software-updates or hardware-updates...

Another possibility is to by a e740 with build in WLAN and get a Bluetooth-CF- or SD-card. The list of supported Bluetooth-profiles with the Toshiba SD-Card is a little bit longer:

- OPP-Client
- OPP-Server
- DUN-DT
- GAP
- SDP
- Serial-DevA
- Serial-DevB

Regards,
Manuel

[orinoco]

Hello:

Not to harp on the issue, but I got my 3950 recently. Yesterday, I went to my local Circuit City to check out the other PPC that were there. I puylled out my 3950 with backlight at medium brightness, and compared to the following (all at the maximum screen brightness): Toshiba e740, ipaq 3835, Jornada 568 and Sharp SL5500.

The difference is amazing !!!! No matter what the politically/technically correct term is for the screen, the 3950 is breathtaking (OK, I am pushing it a little, but you get my point). This is a breakthrough screen, no matter who did it. And I sincerely hope that the rest of the pack follow suit in their next designs.

Fernando

[mfischer]

Hello:

Not to harp on the issue, but I got my 3950 recently. Yesterday, I went to my local Circuit City to check out the other PPC that were there. I puylled out my 3950 with backlight at medium brightness, and compared to the following (all at the maximum screen brightness): Toshiba e740, ipaq 3835, Jornada 568 and Sharp SL5500.

The difference is amazing !!!! No matter what the politically/technically correct term is for the screen, the 3950 is breathtaking (OK, I am pushing it a little, but you get my point). This is a breakthrough screen, no matter who did it. And I sincerely hope that the rest of the pack follow suit in their next designs.

Fernando

It is undisputable that the screen brightness of the newer 39xx iPaqs is much brighter than other PDAs. What I did not understand: When do I need this brightness?

I have a Casio E-200G. The brightness level is 0 (lights off) to 3 (brightest). Normally the level is set to 1. This is enough for 80% of my work with the PDA (in house, normal room lightning or in the darkness). Under really rare situations (5%) I use level 2 (if the room lightning is enough but not bright enough for the reflective screen or with to many shadows). The rest (15%) I use level 0 (lights completely off, every time I am outside with the PDA).

Never, absolutely never I used level 3 (the brightest setting). In house it is not needed (mostly the darkest setting is enough) and outside the is no need for any lightning because the reflective screen uses the sunshine.

I think the high brightness of the iPaqs is nice, but mostly overvalued. Much nicer is the ability to set the darker settings in much smaller steps. Even the darkest setting of the Casio E-200G is a little to much for reading in the darkness...

Regards,
Manuel

[denivan]

I think you all need to excuse Duncan a bit, after all, his computer sometimes writes things of its own, so you can't blame him for the stuff he posts here :roll:


She If She

:evilbat:


Greetz ;)

Ivan

P.S. Duncan, I'm not attacking you, just joking around ;) For those who aren't with me , search on brighthand ;)

[Jason Dunn]

It is undisputable that the screen brightness of the newer 39xx iPaqs is much brighter than other PDAs. What I did not understand: When do I need this brightness?

It's not simply a matter of brightness - the colours look much richer, less washed out. It's a step towards the awesome LCD of the Casio E-500. It just looks...better. :-) You have to see one to understand this.

[Jonathon Watkins]

It just looks...better. :-) You have to see one to understand this.
Fair enough - I think I will need to get myself down to somehwere that sell both types of IPAQ and compare them myself. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.... :)

[mfischer]

It is undisputable that the screen brightness of the newer 39xx iPaqs is much brighter than other PDAs. What I did not understand: When do I need this brightness?

It's not simply a matter of brightness - the colours look much richer, less washed out. It's a step towards the awesome LCD of the Casio E-500. It just looks...better. :-) You have to see one to understand this.

I did not have seen the new iPaq 39xx display, but I did not think it is really that much better than the Casio E-200G screen at low brightness level. It might be much better than the iPaq 38xx screen, where the ClearType implementation was not so good, but not that much better (except brightness level) than the Casio E-200G screen.

But if the new iPaq 39xx screen brightness is really that much brighter than the Casio E-200G or other PDAs, practically this is not really an asset because the battery is _much_ faster empty on high brightness level than on low brightness level. And the battery in the iPaq 39xx is build in and not user replaceable. This is IMHO the biggest problem of all iPaqs...

Regards,
Manuel

[Duncan]

Brightness isn't the issue - I would go so far as to say that I strongly doubt that the new iPAQ screens could be as bright as the older screens. deepness, richness and accuracy of colour are what a backlit screen can bring. Arguably that means less brightness is needed to seewhat is happening on the screen.

Currently, though,I'm in the camp that says: maybe next time, when all Pocket PCs have followed the iPAQ and the price is better... :)

[Jason Dunn]

I did not have seen the new iPaq 39xx display, but I did not think it is really that much better than the Casio E-200G screen at low brightness level

If you haven't seen it, why are you making statements like this? :wink:

[mfischer]

I did not have seen the new iPaq 39xx display, but I did not think it is really that much better than the Casio E-200G screen at low brightness level

If you haven't seen it, why are you making statements like this? :wink:

Because I have heard exactly the same 'arguments' when the 38xx iPaqs arrives: '...the screen is much bigger than all other PDAs screens...' and so on. Yes, it *is* bigger, but this makes absolutely no difference in real life.

Today I can read the screen of my Casio under _every_ light condition without *any* problems, it is clear, sharp and bright enough for easy reading. The iPaq 39xx can not be *that* much better that it would change my hole life :-)

IMHO it makes much more sense to support changeable batteries than a screen which is a little brighter or bigger than others but the hole PDA did not work anymore because the battery is empty...

Regards,
Manuel

[TMAN]

The iPaq 39xx can not be *that* much better that it would change my hole life :-)
Manuel

To each his own. But the fact of the matter is the screen of the 3900 is the best screen that has been implemented on a Pocket PC to date. It is as beautiful as my Casio E-125 was inside and as functional as my 3870 outside.

[b3trio]

Brightness isn't the issue - I would go so far as to say that I strongly doubt that the new iPAQ screens could be as bright as the older screens. deepness, richness and accuracy of colour are what a backlit screen can bring. Arguably that means less brightness is needed to seewhat is happening on the screen.

Duncan, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I own and love my Cassiopeia EM-500. But at full brightness, placed side by side with the new iPAQ at 75% brightness, the iPAQ comes out on top in both brightness and richness of colour.

What makes the iPAQ even better than my EM-500 is that the iPAQ does not take 10 seconds to warm up like my Casio does.

[Duncan]

I don't think you quite understood my point. You yourself point out that the screen comes out better than your EM-500 with a lower brightness setting. A sidelit screen needs to be and is brighter than a backlit screen for good visibility. The backlit screen - unless Sony performed a miracle - could not be brighter, and would not need to be brighter to be , than a sidelit screen . But clearer, richer and deeper aren't the same thing as brightness - which is why I said brightness isn't the issue. I was paying the backlit screen a compliment in case you didn't notice...

[JonnoB]

This thread is getting comical... My PPC is better... No, mine is.

[Jason Dunn]

This thread is getting comical... My PPC is better... No, mine is.

My Pocket PC can beat up your Pocket PC!! :agrue:

:lol:

[jdhill]

Even though I've never seen an iPaq 39xx, or a Loox, I'm sure that the Casio E-115 (that I no longer have and couldn't compare with the iPaq 39xx or Loox screen even if I wanted to) has the better screen !!! :wink:

Maybe we should discuss some other aspect of the Loox than the screen. I think we've about beat the screen issue to death :!: :!: :!:

[farnold]

Somehow that seems to become a sort of religous war, doesn't it? From my point of view, most of you are missing the point. I don't care what pretty buzz words marketing people invented to make us believe this or that is new or better or whatever. I never desired a screen that is transflective or reflective or super-dooper-god-damn-wonderful. What I want is a good screen, however it's called.
For my requirements I found the one I'm going to get, but - since everybody has different priorities - you might come to a different conclusion. Are we about to initiate a religious war about that?

Besides - my decision is based on the whole concept of a PocketPC, not just on a screen. Ability to expand, included slots, Bluetooth capabilities, software package, battery life, design and much more. I will get the LOOX. I know, that there are some devices out there that have better solutions for single aspects - like a 4'' screen (e550g) or a built-in WiFi (e740) or a bigger ROM and a maybe-better screen (39xx). So what? Since no device can offer everything at this time, all of us have to life with a compromise.

[Take1]

So what? Since no device can offer everything at this time, all of us have to life with a compromise.

Infidiel! :wink:

[farnold]

So what? Since no device can offer everything at this time, all of us have to life with a compromise.

Infidiel! :wink:

Problem of my life, Take1 :wink:

[b3trio]

Duncan
I don't think you quite understood my point. You yourself point out that the screen comes out better than your EM-500 with a lower brightness setting.

What exactly was your point then when you said the following?

Brightness isn't the issue - I would go so far as to say that I strongly doubt that the new iPAQ screens could be as bright as the older screens.

My EM-5oo is one of the older backlit screens and, as I said, the iPAQ is brighter:

But at full brightness, placed side by side with the new iPAQ at 75% brightness, the iPAQ comes out on top in both brightness and richness of colour.


For me the screen is the most important aspect of the PPC because I use the device primarily for reading. Which is why I have no intention to upgrade to the iPAQ. I'll never buy a device without a scroll wheel and I don't really have need for bluetooth (yet) or a 400 mhz processor.

[TMAN]

I'll never buy a device without a scroll wheel and I don't really have need for bluetooth (yet) or a 400 mhz processor.

I am using Software Action Control from Tillanosoft. http://www.tillanosoft.com/ce/sac.html

It turns the iPAQ record button into a jog dial. I have used this on every iPAQ I have owned because I missed the jog dial from te E-125. Works great.

[Paragon]

You know if all you guys had of just bought HP560s this arguement wouldn't even be happening, because you would all be so happy with your present device you wouldn't be looking elsewhere. :D

Dave

[farnold]

You know if all you guys had of just bought HP560s this arguement wouldn't even be happening, because you would all be so happy with your present device you wouldn't be looking elsewhere. :D

Dave

Dave I do own a HP620LX for more than 4 years now and it was always a very good device - with all its disadvantages. Now it's time for something new.. Won't be another HP though... 8)

[Paragon]

You know if all you guys had of just bought HP560s this arguement wouldn't even be happening, because you would all be so happy with your present device you wouldn't be looking elsewhere. :D

Dave

Dave I do own a HP620LX for more than 4 years now and it was always a very good device - with all its disadvantages. Now it's time for something new.. Won't be another HP though... 8)

Are you going to go for the Loox?

Dave

[farnold]

You know if all you guys had of just bought HP560s this arguement wouldn't even be happening, because you would all be so happy with your present device you wouldn't be looking elsewhere. :D

Dave

Dave I do own a HP620LX for more than 4 years now and it was always a very good device - with all its disadvantages. Now it's time for something new.. Won't be another HP though... 8)

Are you going to go for the Loox?

Dave

Yep, I will. Only real alternative for my would have been the Jornada 928, even it had no BT, no SD slot, just a CF I and no module concept. I liked the idea of a reall all-in-one. But since the disadvantages are too big right now and we won't see it here in down under anyway... the LOOX is the best device to suit my requirements.

What are you going to do?

[farnold]

You know if all you guys had of just bought HP560s this arguement wouldn't even be happening, because you would all be so happy with your present device you wouldn't be looking elsewhere. :D

Dave

Dave I do own a HP620LX for more than 4 years now and it was always a very good device - with all its disadvantages. Now it's time for something new.. Won't be another HP though... 8)

Are you going to go for the Loox?

Dave

Yep, I will. Only real alternative for my would have been the Jornada 928, even it had no BT, no SD slot, just a CF I and no module concept. I liked the idea of a reall all-in-one. But since the disadvantages are too big right now and we won't see it here in down under anyway... the LOOX is the best device to suit my requirements.

What are you going to do?

[farnold]

Are you going to go for the Loox?
Dave

Yep, I will. Only real alternative for my would have been the Jornada 928, even it had no BT, no SD slot, just a CF I and no module concept. I liked the idea of a reall all-in-one. But since the disadvantages are too big right now and we won't see it here in down under anyway... the LOOX is the best device to suit my requirements.

What are you going to do?

[farnold]

Are you going to go for the Loox?
Dave

Yep, I will. Only real alternative for my would have been the Jornada 928, even it had no BT, no SD slot, just a CF I and no module concept. I liked the idea of a reall all-in-one. But since the disadvantages are too big right now and we won't see it here in down under anyway... the LOOX is the best device to suit my requirements.

What are you going to do?

[Paragon]

farnold

I'm not deaf. You don't have to tell me twice. :)

Dave

[farnold]

Sorry Dave, I always get an error message, when I try to post today...
:oops:

Besides - I'm a pretty old man, you know... and in my age people start to repeat themselves all the time 8)

[Paragon]

Sorry Dave, I always get an error message, when I try to post today...
:oops:

Besides - I'm a pretty old man, you know... and in my age people start to repeat themselves all the time 8)

You are not the only one. At the bottom of this page it says I'm reading page 4 of 3.

computers are so much more dependable. Aren't they? :D

Dave

[Jonathon Watkins]

Yup - I am seeing page 4 of 3 too. Do you know that you can get the HP 928 in the UK just now with Vodaphone? Just go to their website - www.vodaphone.co.uk, look at "What's New" and look at "HP 928".

I have ordered my LOOX though through Dabs (who have begin adding a 'handling fee' :( to their orders) and I am waiting for it to arrive in the next few weeks. :)

[Jonathon Watkins]

Blast! Every time I tired to post I got the following error message

"Couldn't find template file: ./language/lang_french/email/topic_notify.tpl"

Sorry for the repeated posts. - I can't delete them :(