Pocket PC browser battle upcoming? [Archive]

View Full Version : Pocket PC browser battle upcoming?

Andy Sjostrom

08-08-2002, 08:31 AM

Are we seeing a Pocket PC browser war emerging? I didn't think we'd see another after the Internet Explorer's treatment of Netscape Navigator. But give it a second thought. The current version of Pocket Internet Explorer does leave room for other players. I am surprised that we haven't seen any functional enhancements since the release of Pocket PC 2002. Enter two potent players: <a href="http://www.access.co.jp/english/remarkable/nfw.html">NetFront v3.0 Wireless Profile</a> and Bitstream's <a href="http://www.bitstream.com/wireless/index.html">ThunderHawk</a>. ThunderHawk has made a remarkable entrance to this market and is right on track with its landscape fit-to-screen solution. NetFront v3.0 Wireless Profile moves more into the lands of telecom and boasts with supporting the following standards: HTML 4.01, XHTML Basic, eHTML (iHTML), WML 2.0, CSS1, CSS2, HTTP 1.1, WAP 2.0 Stack, animated GIFs, DOM, JavaScript 1.5, SSL v3.0, MMS (optional), J2ME (optional). You can download a free 30-day trial of the <a href="http://www.bitstream.com/wireless/index2.html">ThunderHawk browser</a>, while the NetFront v3.0 Wireless Profile is <a href="http://www.access.co.jp/english/ppc/index.html">available as beta</a>. By looking at the specs of these products, Pocket Internet Explorer fades. Put together your wish list for the next Pocket Internet Explorer! What would it look like (other than a fit-to-screen that actually works!).

Jerome Carney

08-08-2002, 08:57 AM

If, like me, you're the proud new owner of the T-Mobile Pocket PC Phone Edition, you better hang on to your horses just a bit.... I discovered yesterday that the Thunderhawk (shaking my fist angrily at the heavens as I type) does not yet support the XDA/Spaceneedle !!! :x :x :x

Certified Optimist

08-08-2002, 10:21 AM

It would be nice if Opera would develop a Pocket PC version of their browser.

I remember when I first tried to surf the net using my Psion 5MX (back in the days) and using the default browser was just sooooo painful... Then I tried out the Opera browser for EPOC and the difference in speed was quite astonishing. Needless to say the Windows version is speedy as well (nope... this is no market schpiel... just like Opera).

So... pretty please... give us Opera for Pocket PC with a "rotate to landscape" feature (just like the Thunderhawk).

DaleReeck

08-08-2002, 12:42 PM

Of course, PIE has one important advantage over all others - it's free :)

ledowning

08-08-2002, 03:03 PM

Leon

08-08-2002, 03:36 PM

Too bad, indeed, that Fit to Screen doesn't work correctly. This forum is hard to read in portrait PIE, for example.

The best addition to PIE I found, until now, is JS IEXtension from Jimmy Software (http://www.jimmysoftware.com/Software/PowerToys/IEXtension/default.asp). Among other things, it enables me to run several instances of PIE at the same time, something I am used to do on my desktop PC all the time. One wish: I hope Jimmy or Iñaki will, in a next version, implement something like Open in New Window when taping and holding on a PIE hyperlink.

disconnected

08-08-2002, 04:09 PM

I got an email from Bitstream yesterday; they have an update that is supposed to fix issues with the 3970. So far, I still can't get it to work. I had it on my 3835, but seldom used it because it only downloads one screen at a time, so you couldn't scroll up and down the page without it having to download the screen each time. I don't know if that's been changed yet.

Has anyone seen any reviews of the Netfront browser?

Nikhil

08-08-2002, 05:25 PM

I've been using NetFront for two days on my 3970 now, and I highly recommend that you try it out.

My only complaints:
-Wrap To Content setting doesn't stick-I have to reenable it with each new browser window

-It doesn't support direct-to-device downloads

-I have pop-ups again! One thing I liked about PIE was I wasn't hit with pop-ups. Oh well

-Wrap to content often disconnects words (so half a word will appear at the end of one line and end at the beginning of the next line).

Otherwise, it's miles ahead of PIE

Jason Dunn

08-08-2002, 05:34 PM

Where the heck do I download NetFront? Can't find it on their web page...it's not on the page Andy linked to. Or is it? :oops:

gadgetboy

08-08-2002, 05:56 PM

It's there, at:

http://www.access.co.jp/english/ppc/agree.html

You have to agree to the terms and fill out and submit the form to get to the download link.

cparekh

08-08-2002, 06:48 PM

Doug Raeburn

08-08-2002, 06:52 PM

I've recently tried both of these products, and they both have their good and not so good points. However, when my trial subscription to ThunderHawk is ready to expire, I'm going to go the paid subscription route. It's really the only browser available for the Pocket PC that can give you a true desktop-like browsing experience. It displays a complete 640 x 480 view of the browser screen, and it does so legibly through the use of Bitstream fonts.

NetFront is a huge improvement over Pocket IE, but it still works for the most part like a Pocket PC browser... you have to do a lot of zooming in and out and scrolling up and down and from side to side to see what you want. However, I think this should be the standard for Pocket PCs... it does many things well that Pocket IE can only dream of.

But, if you're serious about web browsing on your Pocket PC, ThunderHawk is the best solution, IMO. It's not perfect, but it really makes the Pocket PC a viable platform for web browsing.

[Cruzer]

08-08-2002, 06:54 PM

I like netfront. I can now view and reply to forums ( you need to disable tables to view nicely). This was my biggest thing for me with PIE. And having tables disabled I don't have to worry much anymore about fit to screen.

Just my thoughts.

RC

nz0eBoy

08-08-2002, 08:42 PM

... One wish: I hope Jimmy or Iñaki will, in a next version, implement something like Open in New Window when taping and holding on a PIE hyperlink.

I use MultiIE [http://www.southwaycorp.net] it gives the ability to open multiple windows, save web pages and under tap and hold there are several options including 'Open in New Window'.

gadgetboy

08-08-2002, 09:48 PM

This browser discussion gives me a good opportunity to rant about PIE.

First let me say I'm using an iPaq 3630.

Fit to screen and overall speed are my two biggest issues with PIE. I can't understand why the Fit to screen option wouldn't turn off tables, etc. in order to prevent the side-to-side scrolling *madness*. I certainly want an option to view the page as it was intended to be rendered (full size), but I'm happy to sacrifice 'correct' rendering in order to get a page that I don't have to scoll constantly in order to read! That seems like a critically important issue to me.

On the speed front, PIE seems awfully slow these days both in terms of network access and actual rendering display. I'm using a wireless card now, and it takes a while to pull down pages. Then, when I have to scroll side to side, it takes so long to redraw the display it sometimes feels like you are going to have a seizure from all the flashing!

In comparison, I've been playing with a Sharp Zaurus (similar hardware to iPaq) running Opera/Konqueror. Both load pages much quicker, render to the screen size better, and when side scrolling is necessary, update the screen quickly and smoothly enough that it isn't painful to use.

Sorry for the rant, but I really want a new release of PIE. I guess it's to be expected that it would be behind the curve, since it's been a long time since it has had an update.

I'll try these other alternative browsers and see how they compare.

And FWIW I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I love my Pocket PC! I just want it to be perfect. :D

One other item to mention - I have been using a program called Web2PDA that does a good job of reformatting forums (like PPC Thoughts) for handhelds (no side scrolling!). It is a Java application that can either be run on your desktop to generate compact HTML that you can copy down to the PPC, or it can also run as a JSP application on a web server. It has worked well for me. Only problem is that it doesn't have a polished installer, you need to install JRE/JDK to run it, etc. It is available at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/web2pda

Check it out.

cludwig

08-09-2002, 01:47 AM

I only wish THunderHawk would work with more devices... I'm using a T-Mobile PocketPC Phone Edition device, which, naturally, would benefit greatly from a better browser that also happened to speed up the experience over GPRS, but the installer barfs immediately with a hassle about my not having a compatible device. Urgh. I guess I could install it on my old iPaq and copy over the resultant files and registry settings... but what a pain. I begged BitStream about this in early July, and again this morning, but so far have gotten no response.

NetFront just simply doesn't seem to work on my device. This may be because of the "hidden proxy" that T-Mobile / VoiceStream impose on their GPRS users. The "benefit" to T-Mobile customers is that it recompresses graphics, etc. to try to speed up the connection, but I've noticed that it also seems to kill some compatibility.

I've recently tried both of these products, and they both have their good and not so good points. However, when my trial subscription to ThunderHawk is ready to expire, I'm going to go the paid subscription route. It's really the only browser available for the Pocket PC that can give you a true desktop-like browsing experience. It displays a complete 640 x 480 view of the browser screen, and it does so legibly through the use of Bitstream fonts.

NetFront is a huge improvement over Pocket IE, but it still works for the most part like a Pocket PC browser... you have to do a lot of zooming in and out and scrolling up and down and from side to side to see what you want. However, I think this should be the standard for Pocket PCs... it does many things well that Pocket IE can only dream of.

But, if you're serious about web browsing on your Pocket PC, ThunderHawk is the best solution, IMO. It's not perfect, but it really makes the Pocket PC a viable platform for web browsing.

Doug Raeburn

08-09-2002, 03:33 AM

I've run into a similar problem with ThunderHawk, as I own two different Pocket PCs. It supports my iPAQ 3955 just fine, but it doesn't support my Toshiba e740. Hopefully they'll start to catch up with the newer units soon, because it is a killer product, IMO.

topps

08-09-2002, 06:00 AM

Having alternatives is a good thing, although it makes me wonder why Microsoft has not done any updates to Internet Explorer. I subscribed to the Thunderhawk browser ($63.00 CDN) for the first year and have been very happy with it so far. It even works well with a 14400kbps connection over a Scocket digital phone card.
:wink:

How is it with stuff like Forms? that is, for more than just reading web pages. From what I understand, the Thunderhawk server takes web pages and compresses them into images with hotspots for hyperlinks...but how would this cope with forms, etc.

Same question goes for those who have tried NetFront.

While I am tempted to try a better browser, I do agree that the biggest advantages that PIE has are FREE and already installed. If you throw compatibility questions into the mix, then these browsers may have a short product lifespan.

I believe that MS has not done much with PIE so far because only a small percentage of PPC users use PIE. Most PPC owners I have talked to are amazed that there is a browser - they just haven't looked for one - and then if they are not wirelessly connected, the next step is "hey...neat...but when would I use it?" - so that means an even smaller proportion of PPC owners.

We noted that PIE in PPC2002 is significantly faster at rendering pages and does a better job of keeping place on partly read pages when you return to them (Back Arrow). Easier toggle of images. Small incremental improvements.

If, all of a sudden, enough people were wowed by landscape mode and better fonts, how long do you think it would take M$ to incorporate this into the PIE code. They have enough experience in both areas to make this a near-trivial effort for them.

So, yes, I too would love to see PIE improved at a faster rate - but I don't see this becoming a battle of the browsers.

topps

08-09-2002, 06:06 AM

I am using the trial, and it is nice, but does anyone else think $50 a YEAR is a too much. I happen to think that $50 once is too much. I might pay $25-30 once to use the software, but a subscription is very, very pricey.

I wonder what happens to their biz model, upgrade path, growth plan etc if this suddenly does catch on. If all content has to be routed through their servers first, what happens if a lot more users come on board?

They'll run into the AOL phenomenon - people will like the idea, try it but get frustrated by the slow choked servers and do one of two things. Give up (you only get one chance at this with most users) or complain loudly, (putting off other potential users) and forcing BitStream to spend lots on upgrading their servers. Venture capital kept AOL going through this phase as they desperately tried to keep up with rapid expansion demands.

VC is much tougher to come by now, especially when you are looking at a Netscape scenario - piss on MS's shoes by making a better browser? If they notice you, they'll step on ya like a bug!

topps

08-09-2002, 06:11 AM

Pony99CA

08-09-2002, 11:46 AM

If I recall correctly, Windows CE .Net will include the Internet Explorer 5.5 functionality. I don't know exactly what updates will find their way to Pocket IE, but Microsoft is working on Pocket IE.

Steve

Doug Raeburn

08-09-2002, 01:40 PM

They'll run into the AOL phenomenon - people will like the idea, try it but get frustrated by the slow choked servers and do one of two things. Give up (you only get one chance at this with most users) or complain loudly, (putting off other potential users) and forcing BitStream to spend lots on upgrading their servers. Venture capital kept AOL going through this phase as they desperately tried to keep up with rapid expansion demands.

VC is much tougher to come by now, especially when you are looking at a Netscape scenario - piss on MS's shoes by making a better browser? If they notice you, they'll step on ya like a bug!

While the speed problem is a possibility if the thing really takes off (and with their pricing model and the notoriously frugal nature of Pocket PC owners when it comes to software and services, I find this highly unlikely), right now it blows the socks off of Pocket IE speedwise. Not even close.

Also, the potential market for these services is WAY smaller than anything that AOL had to face, since it only works with Pocket PCs. That's potentially good from the aspect of their hardware not getting overwhelmed, but potentially bad from the aspect of having enough business to sustain the service.

And I don't think MS will give a rat's hindquarters about this, unless it becomes a phenomenon. Again, unless Bitstream's pricing model changes, this will probably not happen.

So I'll pony up for the one year of service, and see where things stand when that year is up.

Doug Raeburn

08-09-2002, 01:50 PM

How is it with stuff like Forms? that is, for more than just reading web pages. From what I understand, the Thunderhawk server takes web pages and compresses them into images with hotspots for hyperlinks...but how would this cope with forms, etc.

I haven't tried any "full blown" forms, but it works just fine with the controls on pages like this one. It supports dropdowns and all that as well.

While I am tempted to try a better browser, I do agree that the biggest advantages that PIE has are FREE and already installed. If you throw compatibility questions into the mix, then these browsers may have a short product lifespan.

So far, I haven't run into anything that ThunderHawk can't handle. Maybe in time, but things look very good so far.

I believe that MS has not done much with PIE so far because only a small percentage of PPC users use PIE. Most PPC owners I have talked to are amazed that there is a browser - they just haven't looked for one - and then if they are not wirelessly connected, the next step is "hey...neat...but when would I use it?" - so that means an even smaller proportion of PPC owners.

Yes, wireless is the hot ticket here, so that might be a problem in the short term. But I do suspect that wireless will move fairly rapidly from novelty to near necessity.

We noted that PIE in PPC2002 is significantly faster at rendering pages and does a better job of keeping place on partly read pages when you return to them (Back Arrow). Easier toggle of images. Small incremental improvements.

And these are areas in which ThunderHawk tramples Pocket IE.

If, all of a sudden, enough people were wowed by landscape mode and better fonts, how long do you think it would take M$ to incorporate this into the PIE code. They have enough experience in both areas to make this a near-trivial effort for them.

This may be more of an issue for NetFront, because browser software is the extent of the product. ThunderHawk's service-based business model would be a bigger commitment from MS. Although with MSN they probably already have the necessary infrastructure.

topps

08-10-2002, 02:07 PM

So far, I haven't run into anything that ThunderHawk can't handle. Maybe in time, but things look very good so far.
...
And these are areas in which ThunderHawk tramples Pocket IE.

Well that sounds like it is worth investigating again. Hopefully I can get it work this time.
thanks very much for the feedback.

dt

topps

08-10-2002, 08:20 PM

Repeated attempts to get the ThunderHawk client running on an iPAQ 3670 have failed.

Have others had to do anything unusual to get it working. Client will not launch at all, let alone connect to net.

Tried latest version 1.03 but no better.

topps

08-13-2002, 03:28 AM

Sorry about the subject line...

I have had lousy luck with ThunderHawk. Downloaded it back in May on first release. Could not get it to run on any of several devices. Gave up.

Now, since there have been several notes from elsewhere on how good it is, I tried again to get it running. Same problem.

Sorta got it running on a freshly hard reset iPAQ3650 but does not go beyond its splash screen. On the other devices, I suspect that it is having problems with the Fitaly SIP (since it looks like THawk has its own SIIP).

Would love to try this out but am stuck. Nothing other than mindless automated responses from BitStream Tech Support so far.

Anybody got any other suggestions?