Comparison models

[rosettaZ]

A simple thread compiling comparison data between Z71, T|T, vs. h1910. and probably other PPC models.

--------------------------
Zire 71 vs. h1910

CPU:
OMAP 310 : 144mhz
No user clock scaling.
various benchmark
http://www.kittycentral.net/palms.html

Xscale PXA 250/255 : 200mhz
Stable clock scaling 100mhz, 200mhz, 300mhz, 333mhz.
http://discussion.brighthand.com/showthread.php?threadid=71570

highest known clock with benchmark test: 354mHz
http://discussion.brighthand.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77652

no benchmark data for recently released PXA255 yet.


Memory:
4/16mb : 13mb user accesible.
Masked ROM, non upgrable.

16/64mb : 46mb user accessible.
NAND Flash ROM.


Battery:
-Z71 battery, (?) mAh:
non replaceable
approx 4-6hrs.
no known detail log post.
unknown battery performance under various condition

-h1910 battery, 900mAh with PXA250 :
replaceable
~6 hrs, on optimal PIM condition
~4 hrs, benchmark on mix daily activity
~2.4 hrs, on full load .mpeg with external speaker, max backlight
~6 hrs, on optimal mp3 only. (200 mhz, screen toggle, headphone)
uptime logger: http://ae.inc.ru/

http://discussion.brighthand.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77346

-no benchmark on PXA255 yet.


Screen:
Z71: 2.5 inch transreflective 320x320
h1910: 3.5 inch transreflective QVGA

-Color banding and close up pictures of both compared to TG50
http://home.pchome.com.tw/my/iopiop6/zire_71.htm
http://home.pchome.com.tw/star/iopiop6512/HP1910.htm
-Size and brightness pictures
http://www.hvlien.com/z71/z1.jpg
-See this thread for more picture
http://www.palminfocenter.com/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=2&ARCHIVEVIEW=&TOPIC_ID=13219
http://www.palminfocenter.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13243


Physical size:
Zire 71 = 8.74 (4.5" x 2.9" x 0.67") 5.3 oz $299
h1910 = 6.71 (4.46"x 2.75"x 0.50") 4.23 oz. $299

-picture
http://www.hvlien.com/z71/z3.jpg


multimedia Capability:
Z71 : .mp3, .ogg, .wav(?), kinoma, real(audio?)
h1910: .mp3, .ogg, .wav, .mpeg, .divx, .avi, .wma, .wmp, real, flash

[rosettaZ]

Tungsten T vs. h1910

CPU:
OMAP 1510 : 144mhz
No user clock scaling.
various benchmark
http://www.kittycentral.net/palms.html

Xscale PXA 250/255 : 200mhz
Stable clock scaling 100mhz, 200mhz, 300mhz, 333mhz.
http://discussion.brighthand.com/showthread.php?threadid=71570

highest known clock with benchmark test: 354mHz
http://discussion.brighthand.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77652

no benchmark data for recently released PXA255 yet.


Memory:
4/16mb : 13mb user accesible.
Masked ROM, non upgrable.

16/64mb : 46mb user accessible.
NAND Flash ROM.


Battery:
-T|T battery, 900mAh:
non replaceable
approx 4 hrs.
no known detail log post.
unknown battery performance under various condition
http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/palm/competitive.pdf

-h1910 battery, 900mAh with PXA250 :
replaceable
~6 hrs, on optimal PIM condition
~4 hrs, benchmark on mix daily activity
~2.4 hrs, on full load .mpeg with external speaker, max backlight
~6 hrs, on optimal mp3 only. (200 mhz, screen toggle, headphone)
uptime logger: http://ae.inc.ru/

http://discussion.brighthand.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77346

-no benchmark on PXA255 yet.


Screen:
T|T: 2.5 inch reflective 320x320
h1910: 3.5 inch transreflective QVGA

-Picture of screen comparison
http://www.brighthand.com/images/ipaq1910_tungsten.jpg
-Color banding and close up pictures of h1910 compared to TG50
http://home.pchome.com.tw/star/iopiop6512/HP1910.htm
-See this thread for more picture
http://www.palminfocenter.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13243


Physical size:
T|T = 7.20/8.64 (4.0/4.8"x 3.0"x 0.6") 5.6 oz.
h1910 = 6.71 (4.46"x 2.75"x 0.50") 4.23 oz.

-Size against various machine
http://www.pdafrance.com/img/testproduit_pocketpc/h1910/dscn1849.jpg
http://www.pdafrance.com/img/testproduit_pocketpc/h1910/dscn1852.jpg
http://www.the-gadgeteer.com/images/1910-12.jpg
http://www.pdafrance.com/articles/article.php?
cat=machinesppc&id=242&p=4&PHPSESSID=4709a1430c11b025d236d130b1073937

Multimedia Capability:
T|T : .mp3, .ogg, .wav(?), kinoma, real(audio)
h1910: .mp3, .ogg, .wav, .mpeg, .divx, .avi, .wma, .wmp, real, flash

[rosettaZ]

Screen display capability hi-res vs. QVGA.

-viewability in relative physical size.

http://www.natara.com/Bonsai/Graphics/SingleHeir.gifhttp://www.fannsoftware.com/images/TreNotes.gif
http://www.natara.com/Bonsai/index.cfm
http://www.fannsoftware.com/TreNotes.html

-Text density

http://www.the-gadgeteer.com/images/zire-71-21.jpghttp://www.cewindows.net/wce/30/ppc2002/inbox1.gif

[rosettaZ]

-Screen comparison

Size usability in context of actual physical size.
Handwriting space uptake

http://www.the-gadgeteer.com/images/tungsten-c41.jpghttp://www.cewindows.net/wce/30/ppc2002/notes3.gif


Button space uptake

http://chrischan.onestop.net/jpg/Zane/ArcSkinBlue-LF.jpghttp://homepage.mac.com/plainsong/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/Juniwmpss/SnartCardwmp.jpg

[rosettaZ]

-Screen comparison

-overall performance.

http://www.pocketgoddess.com/images/facertoday.gifhttp://65.113.117.18/themes/preview/4/6904.gif

-picture view
http://www.bargainpda.com/assets/1181.jpg

-browser viewability hi-res vs. QVGA (In relative physical size)
http://www.villagephotos.com/viewpubimage.asp?id_=2487495

-browser viewability screenshots in 1:1 pixel size.
http://hostmysig.com/data/bosco/Browser%20battle3.JPG

[rosettaZ]

-Screen performance

-comparing same application.

http://www.the-gadgeteer.com/images/tungsten-c31.jpghttp://www.foxpop.ndirect.co.uk/PocketPC/images/wmate/wm-003.gif

[spursdude]

rosettaZ - these comparisons are pretty cool.... your first posts here on PPCT are a whole lot more useful than mine were. :D


Button space uptake

http://chrischan.onestop.net/jpg/Zane/ArcSkinBlue-LF.jpghttp://homepage.mac.com/plainsong/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/Juniwmpss/SnartCardwmp.jpg
Just to be fair, the skin used on Windows Media Player here has especially small buttons. In fact, I deleted this skin b/c the buttons are so small. The default skin for WMP 8.5 has fine-sized buttons.

Also, it seems like Palm OS 5 really doesn't take advantage of the higher-resolution displays. The fonts are still really big, and the "Today" page seems surprisingly inefficient. My PPC can show oh-so-much more on the Today screen than that.

[Scott R]

I don't think that this sort of thing follows the intended purpose of this forum, but I love it. Great stuff here. Yeah, what you see here is how Palm's 320x320 resolution makes use of pixel-doubling. Some apps will make use of the full resolution to offer smaller fonts, etc., but many will just smooth out the fonts but keep the same amount of data visible as compared to the old 160x160 resolution. There are pros and cons to this, depending on the application (e.g. - sometimes you want to have the fonts be big, more easily readable, and more pronounced, other times - like in a spreadsheet app - you want to see more data). While the PPC's 240x320 resolution may be lower, all apps are built around it which gives it, most of the time, more data visible (though, surprisingly enough, the standard Contacts app truncates the data on each line more than even a 160x160 Palm).

While I'd love to see MS build in support for pixel-doubling (and thus a 480x640 resolution), it doesn't sound like that's coming any time soon. For most apps, the standard 240x320 (especially when combined with ClearType) provides more data visible than on an equivalent 320x320 Palm app while doing it just about as smoothly (font-wise), but with apps that take advantage of the full resolution and utilize small fonts, you'll get more data (though harder to read) on the Palm app. As I said, I don't have too much problem with MS' standard resolution, though I would like to see built-in landscape support. Another place where the PPC "wastes" space compared to the Palm, as evidenced by these pictures, is through the forced menu bar on the bottom of the screen. On the Palm, this is hidden behind the title bar (you tap the app title and the menu shows up). Some Palm apps even hide the title bar altogether, at least for certain view modes, which pulls out a bit more real estate, though that isn't done too often.

Scott

[rosettaZ]

majority of palm apps has "bottom row" buttons and icons, and they take up more space then PPC. (see the screen alighment)

only in very rare case of certain "display only" apps such as today screen or that worldmate Palm has more screen space in term of vertical pixels. For the rest PPC uses full screen mode. (most ebooks and games use that)

so, most of the time when Palm apps has bottom control icon row, the advantage is lost.

[Scott R]

majority of palm apps has "bottom row" buttons and icons, and they take up more space then PPC. (see the screen alighment)

only in very rare case of certain "display only" apps such as today screen or that worldmate Palm has more screen space in term of vertical pixels. For the rest PPC uses full screen mode. (most ebooks and games use that)

so, most of the time when Palm apps has bottom control icon row, the advantage is lost.I'm not sure I'd agree that the majority of Palm apps have this, but a lot do.

Scott

[Janak Parekh]

Yeah, what you see here is how Palm's 320x320 resolution makes use of pixel-doubling. Some apps will make use of the full resolution to offer smaller fonts, etc., but many will just smooth out the fonts but keep the same amount of data visible as compared to the old 160x160 resolution.
Which is even more important when you have a small Palm-sized screen. For larger screens, like the Sony NR/X/Z series, it would be nice to leverage the extra real-estate more aggressively.

While I'd love to see MS build in support for pixel-doubling (and thus a 480x640 resolution), it doesn't sound like that's coming any time soon.
Agreed on the first, no idea on the second. ;) I'd love to see it too.

--janak