New HP iPAQ 1900 and 2200 Series Live At FCC Site

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="https://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/oet/forms/reports/Search_Form.hts?mode=Edit&form=Exhibits&application_id=147393&fcc_id=NM8HB20">https://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/oet/forms/reports/Search_Form.hts?mode=Edit&form=Exhibits&application_id=147393&fcc_id=NM8HB20</a><br /><br />The FCC has just approved a batch of HP iPAQ 1900 series devices. First up is the 1940 series, which apparently has a Samsung S3C2410 266MHz processor. <a href="http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/3163.html">Infosync has a writeup on this processor</a>. These are based on the ARM920T CPU core which means they are using the ARMv4 instruction set, just like the StrongARM chip, not the newer ARMv5 instruction set found in the X-Scale. <a href="http://www.arm.com/support/56VF7H/$File/ARMv6_Architecture.pdf">See here for more detailed information</a> on the ARMv4-v6 families. The 1930 series uses the same chip running at 203MHz.<br /><br />They all have 64MB of RAM, 56MB of which is usable. The 1940's have a 14MB File Store as well. I didn't see the ROM sizes of these devices. The 1940 series is also bluetooth equipped. Finally, these all have SDIO support. :clap: <br /><br />Next up is the <a href="https://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/oet/forms/reports/Search_Form.hts?mode=Edit&form=Exhibits&application_id=486984&fcc_id=NM8GREATWALLA">iPAQ 2200</a>, possibly the worst kept secret in recent PDA history. It has the Intel Cotulla 200MHz or 400MHz processor, depending on the model. If you Google that, you'll see that it too is based on the ARMv4 instruction set and appears to be a direct successor to the StrongARM. You can read more on the <a href="http://www.idg.net/idgns/2000/08/21/IDFIntelReadiesTwoNew.shtml">Intel Cotulla in this old article</a>. The 2200 also has 64MB of RAM, 32MB ROM, SDIO ready and bluetooth on some models.<br /><br />The most facinating thing about all of this is that it seems the X-Scale has been set aside. I don't know if it is performance related or if this is for lower end models and they are using X-Scale for more expensive devices in the 5400 range.<br /><br /><b>Update</b>: I am now not sure that the Cotulla isn't X-Scale technology. It may have been the original codeword for the X-Scale. I need to do additional research on that tonight. The Samsung is clearly using the ARMv4 code though.

[pschultz]

Is there a link to the iPAQ 1940 on the FCC site? I would like to see what it will look like, or is it the same as the current 1900 series device?

[felixdd]

Funny how the 2200's FCC site has a link to a "confidentiality request"

[entropy1980]

The silly thing maybe wemay see better performance from the 266mhz samsung than a 400mhz XScale.....seeing that the current crop of XScales barely if at all beats out the old 206 strongarm...

[entropy1980]

Is there a link to the iPAQ 1940 on the FCC site? I would like to see what it will look like, or is it the same as the current 1900 series device?
It's the first link in the headline... it looks almost the same however they have made a black top on it, I would assume to differeniate from the 1910 and 1915....

[Kevin C. Tofel]

Is there a link to the iPAQ 1940 on the FCC site? I would like to see what it will look like, or is it the same as the current 1900 series device?

You can see both devices on the FCC site....look through the PDF files and click on the one's titled "External Photos".

Having seen the photos, I'm curious: is it me or does the 2200 model look very similar to the Dell form factor? Looks like the same side grips, same power button (just in a different spot) and the alignment of the 4 "hot key" buttons is upside down.....hmmmm......

:?:

KCT

[sting0r]

Very interesting, been reading through the manual of the IPAQ 1900's and it seems it has PocketPC 2003 Pro on it. The pictures look pretty similar to PocketPC 2002 though......

[kagayaki1]

Is there a link to the iPAQ 1940 on the FCC site? I would like to see what it will look like, or is it the same as the current 1900 series device?

You can see both devices on the FCC site....look through the PDF files and click on the one's titled "External Photos".

Having seen the photos, I'm curious: is it me or does the 2200 model look very similar to the Dell form factor? Looks like the same side grips, same power button (just in a different spot) and the alignment of the 4 "hot key" buttons is upside down.....hmmmm......

:?:

KCT

Yeah, but the dimensions don't match up.

[powder2000]

Check out the users manual for the 2200 to see the "this program is not developed" image viewer :iamwithstupid: . Not two many changes in the OS from looking through the screenshots. That is if in fact these are running the new OS in the Users Manual.

[powder2000]

Also says 320 x 240 screen. :cry:

[kagayaki1]

From the manual (part 3):

Physical Specifications
hp iPAQ h2200 Series
Length 4.50 in 114.3 mm
Width 2.75 - 2.50 in tapering 69.8 - 64.5 mm tapering
Depth 0.63 in 16.0 mm
Weight 5.49 oz 155.6 g

Physical Specifications
hp iPAQ h1930 and h1940 Series
Length 4.46 in 113.3 mm
Width 2.75 in 69.8 mm
Depth 0.50 in 12.8 mm
Weight 4.23 oz 120 g

[sting0r]

I just looked at the 2200 owner's manuals and it looks like it is using the old screen shots. Take a look at the 1900's manual and you will see a few shots that are new, like the one with Pocket IE, it's just a little bit different on the tool bar.........

[powder2000]

Read the 1900 operators manual, it shows more of the new OS.

[Sslixtis]

Cotulla - Intel® XScale microarchitecture product for hand-held clients.

Cotulla, the codename of the first SOC (System on a Chip) design to use the XScale-core...

From the Intel Site. :lol:

[palmsolo]

powder2000, all Pocket PC devices have a 320x240 display so nothing new there. Sorry, you must have been thinking of 320x480 like the CLIEs.

Did you also see the consumer IR with Nevo? I like this and will be the first to buy the 2200 as soon as I can find it online. 400MHz XScale, BT, SDIO, CF, CIR, bright display, removable battery, rubber side grips!!! How can you go wrong for $399?

[rooks308]

can i get a link ? :D

[kagayaki1]

Read the 1900 operators manual, it shows more of the new OS.

It's official; not a huge overhall. Good thing existing programs will be compatible.

[revolution.cx]

2200: Bluetooth, CF and SD (SDIO), consumer IR.

Nice work.

[TawnerX]

The manual is really old. It even still uses AS 3.5. Last revision is oct '02. Even the media player is the old one.

cotulla = PXA255.

[Gremmie]

Ugh, loading is going slow, can anyone post the pics in the forum? Thanks.

[Will T Smith]

powder2000, all Pocket PC devices have a 320x240 display so nothing new there. Sorry, you must have been thinking of 320x480 like the CLIEs.

Did you also see the consumer IR with Nevo? I like this and will be the first to buy the 2200 as soon as I can find it online. 400MHz XScale, BT, SDIO, CF, CIR, bright display, removable battery, rubber side grips!!! How can you go wrong for $399?

I believe you mean 640x480.

BTW, I saw one feature in the 1940 manual. The Notes program now has a preview window.

[beq]

When can we buy these?

Also will HP release any further iPAQs (5000 series) fitting old sleeves?

[kagayaki1]

When can we buy these?

Also will HP release any further iPAQs (5000 series) fitting old sleeves?

I have no proof to substantiate this claim, but based on past actions, I believe so. The enterprise market jumped on the scalability of the iPAQs, and it's my belief that those who invested in a lot of sleeves, or have a compelling need for PC card access, will continue to seek a compatible form factor.

Also, as pointed out earlier, they make a ton of profit on the higher end devices. Ever wondered why the prices haven't gone down even though the components are clearly cheaper to produce (ala Dell)? Solutions = high margin.

Granted, the 19xx and 22xx may be their attempt to draw current 36xx/37xx users away from their old devices, and thus eliminate the demand from the customer base to keep the old form factor, but how everything will fall into place will be very interesting.

HP's decision to produce or not produce a 54xx shaped device again will be very telling of where the market is going.

[Ed Hansberry]

Also will HP release any further iPAQs (5000 series) fitting old sleeves?
I think it depends. Who would really need a sleeve if the next generation of iPAQ 5400 came with a CF socket as well as SD? Not many. Those in the enterprise looking for barcode scanners and the like would probably be more likely to persue a Symbol device.

[powder2000]

powder2000, all Pocket PC devices have a 320x240 display so nothing new there. Sorry, you must have been thinking of 320x480 like the CLIEs.

Did you also see the consumer IR with Nevo? I like this and will be the first to buy the 2200 as soon as I can find it online. 400MHz XScale, BT, SDIO, CF, CIR, bright display, removable battery, rubber side grips!!! How can you go wrong for $399?


Uh, that's what the sad face after the sentence means :roll: . I was hoping for better resolution in the newer models.

[kidA]

i think ed's right on about the whole sleeve deal. it would be kinda neat if there was a way to let all new ipaq's use them, but the fact of the matter is, to do so, hp would have to stick with the same form factor forever. form factors get tired pretty fast--look at palm's evolution from the Vx to the m515, then they ditched it because they knew it was tired and had been for at least a year. it's time for the old ipaq to go. plus, what are you going to use a sleeve for if you've got built-in BT, an SD slot, and a CF slot? plus perhaps even built-in wi-fi. handhelds need to be smaller than the original ipaq.

so what kind of prices will we see from all these new machines? seems like there's a whole lotta midrange in these devices to me. i guess we know about the 1930 and the 1940, which look like they'll probably be $249 and $299 or $299 and $349. but we don't really know much about the different models from the 2200 series; and they've got such variance between the 2200s we've heard about--200 mhz to 400 mhz, BT and no BT, etc.

[palmsolo]

powder2000, sorry about that. I missed the face. I'm so excited about the device I was just plowing through the posts to see if anyone has any tidbits of info about a release date or more details.

[ppcsurfr]

1. Expect a Cotulla PXA255 instead of the PXA250... Intel should have finished off their stock of PXA250s sometime March and have been urging everyone else to move on to PXA255 immediately.

2. Sleeves for the 54xx are likely to stay for a while longer with 54xx form factor devices... How long? No one knows... but Compaq/HP was urging 3rd party hardware manufacturers to adopt the sleeve idea for various expansion devices a while back... I don't think they'll kill the idea just yet.

3. Of course I'm just guessing... on No. 2... but let's see how things turn out.

ppcsurfr

[powder2000]

powder2000, sorry about that. I missed the face. I'm so excited about the device I was just plowing through the posts to see if anyone has any tidbits of info about a release date or more details.

Hey, no problem. Nice to see someone else from WA in the discussions. 'Course I moved awat from the rain to Wenatchee. I just can't wait to finally see what's been changed, even if it's minor.

[Paragon]

Personally I think the 2200 signals the coming end of the sleevable Ipaqs. Who is going to pay a premium price for a device that lacks dual slots. You don't need a sleeve to add a camera, or a bluetooth card, or a GPRS card, or a wirelees card. Not even a barcode scanner. You don't need a sleeve to handle presentation hardware. You don't need a sleeve to add more battery life. There are bigger SD, and CF memory cards coming out all the time so you don't even need to use PC cards. So why pay more for a bigger device that has less expansion capabilities and is significantly bigger even before you slide on a sleeve.

I think the prognosis for sleeves is terminal, and nearing end stage. As people move away from using present sleeves the need to support them becomes smaller all the time.

I know, I know, there are some of you out there jumping up and down saying you love sleeves. There is nothing wrong in that. There are just fewer, and fewer of you all the time.

Between the 1900, and the 2200 HP is going to have a hard time selling 5400's. I think they will be able to add the few remaining feature to the 2200 in the future, and be done with it.

Dave

[Sslixtis]

Cotulla is NOT StrongARM, it is Xscale. Intel no longer manufactures ANY StrongARM processors. 206Mhz was the end.

The Cotulla is 1) Cotulla - Intel® XScale microarchitecture product for hand-held clients. 2) Cotulla, the codename of the first SOC (System on a Chip) design to use the XScale-core...
Both PXA250 and PXA255 are Cotulla.

:wink:

[huangzhinong]

Cotulla is NOT StrongARM, it is Xscale. Intel no longer manufactures ANY StrongARM processors. 206Mhz was the end.

The Cotulla is 1) Cotulla - Intel® XScale microarchitecture product for hand-held clients. 2) Cotulla, the codename of the first SOC (System on a Chip) design to use the XScale-core...
Both PXA250 and PXA255 are Cotulla.

:wink:

You are correct, Cotulla is XSCALE, I don't know why HP didn't use the street name.

[bargainPDA]

For all of you looking for just pictures and quick specs of these new iPaq devices not huge PDF docs to sift through then I just posted the pictures and specs here: http://www.bargainpda.com/default.asp?newsID=1395&showComments=true

/andrew

[lurch]

Also will HP release any further iPAQs (5000 series) fitting old sleeves?

The magic eight ball says: I haven't known HP to disappoint in the past, I don't see why they would in the future.

[CharlesWilcox]

&lt;--- WA here too.

I also think it's pretty amazing how much the 2200 looks like an AXIM.

[kagayaki1]

Also will HP release any further iPAQs (5000 series) fitting old sleeves?
I think it depends. Who would really need a sleeve if the next generation of iPAQ 5400 came with a CF socket as well as SD? Not many. Those in the enterprise looking for barcode scanners and the like would probably be more likely to persue a Symbol device.

Yeah, that's definitely where Symbol has been all along. They certainly will be looking to pick up the slack if HP veers away from the sleeve scalability. It does seem that the primary original purpose for the PC sleeve was for early Wi-Fi. Now with CF and built in... &lt;shrug> probably just a matter of time.

[Abba Zabba]

I think it is about time that we give up on sleeves. Most complain that the iPaq is big :roll: and that the sleeve just makes it bigger. So I say just get rid of it hp and like one person said in different words, the whole sleeve thing is a hinderance on innovation. Yeah the old users want to stay compatible but at the expense to innovation...it's time to upgrade. :)

just my .02

[Tim Welch]

Symbol PPT2746 = $1299

HP H3950 @ $345 plus Symbol Scanner Expansion Jacket @ $424 = $769

Now times that by 25 units and your corporate customer has just saved themselves $13,000...

This is why there is always going to be Expansion Jackets available for the iPaq. They add additional functionality to a computing device at a price point that corporates love.

[Timothy Rapson]

How can you go wrong for $399?

By not getting a flip cover, scroll wheel, 1400 mAh battery, or the larger screen of the older Ipaqs.

And the #1 thing that could be better is price. I guess the fact that the 2200 offers almost exactly the same features as the Toshiba E750 for a list price of $150-200 less is a GOOD thing. But what does the 2200 offer that is truly new and unique? Toshiba need only drop the price of the E750 to have a 6 month old model match the latest from HP. On the other price hand, the high end Axim frequently available for $250 (edited, should be $265). Add a WiFi and/or bluetooth card and you still won't get to $400. But, I don't have any use for WiFi or Bluetooth. A 2200 with neither that listed for $300 would be the one for me. Though, the other missing features would probably still leave me buying an Axim.

Now, the new 1900 models.....Those are the bomb. It looks like HP fixed everything about them that I objected to, the crippled software package, short RAM, and SDIO. And for those who want it they added Blue Tooth. HP is going to make a LOT of money selling 1900s.

[Paragon]

Symbol PPT2746 = $1299

HP H3950 @ $345 plus Symbol Scanner Expansion Jacket @ $424 = $769

Now times that by 25 units and your corporate customer has just saved themselves $13,000...

This is why there is always going to be Expansion Jackets available for the iPaq. They add additional functionality to a computing device at a price point that corporates love.

Ipaq= 1 drop, many pieces= $8625.00
Symbol= many drops no effect.=zero

[Ed Hansberry]

Now, the new 1900 models.....Those are the bomb. It looks like HP fixed everything about them that I objected to, the crippled software package, short RAM, and SDIO. And for those who want it they added Blue Tooth. HP is going to make a LOT of money selling 1900s.
Agreed. If there is an external Stowaway available for them and I can find an SDIO WiFi card, the 1940 may be my next pocket PC. If not, it is likely the 2200 with Bluetooth.

[dh]

Sorry, HP. Even with the new Ipaqs you don't make anything that would make me want to dump my Axim.

The 19xx series? Getting there, love the small size but I don't want to do with a single slot device.

2200? Close, but not quite. You see I use my wireless network everyday so 802.11b would be more useful to me than BT. I understand that you had to leave something out, to justify the existance of your more expensive model, for me you just left out the wrong one.

54xx? Nope. Got it covered on the wireless but too expensive for a single slot device. I'm not interested in buying the expansion doohickies and making it even bigger.

So there you go, looks like the Axim is still the best PPC for me, at least for now. Wonder what delights the X7 will bring?

[dcharles18]

Agreed. If there is an external Stowaway available for them and I can find an SDIO WiFi card, the 1940 may be my next pocket PC. If not, it is likely the 2200 with Bluetooth.

I'm with you. Right now I'm leaning 2200 simply because I can use my WiFi card, but if those SD Memory/Wifi Cards become available I would be all over a 1940. Does anyone know anything about those??

[Paragon]

I'm curious why you guys would chose the 1940 over the 2200 when the 2200 has dual slots, when the 1940 doesn't, and the size difference is almost nil? I must be missing something. :)

Dave

[dcharles18]

I'm curious why you guys would chose the 1940 over the 2200 when the 2200 has dual slots, when the 1940 doesn't, and the size difference is almost nil? I must be missing something. :)

Dave

I use my CF slot right now (Silver Slide) for one thing and one thing only, my WiFi card. If I could have one of those SD WiFi/Memory combo cards, I would have no use for CF at all. Why have an extra slot that I wouldn't use. Yes, CF memory is much cheaper, but I am happy with my SD cards. Yes, I know that there are other CF peripherals, but I don't use any of them. I realize that the size difference is negligable, but overall I think that the 1900 series is a far better looking device than the 2200. Aside from that, the only other thing that would make me opt for a 2200 would be a 128MB RAM model.

[lurch]

I don't get why everybody thinks HP has to get rid of the sleeves for the iPaq...
If they do get rid of them, do people think the footprint of the iPaq will change significantly? Why can't there be (in the future) a dual-slot iPaq that is also sleeve-able in case the user wants to use a "legacy" sleeve, or a cardscanner or something?

I don't think it needs to be an "all or nothing" venture, I think the iPaq's can adapt and grow to not REQUIRE sleeves, but still be built to accept them.

[PJE]

Hi,

If the information in the FCC release regarding PocketPC2003 and the new machines is to be believed, it is likely that my next machine will be the new Sony Clie shown on brighthand which has a landscape capable hi-res display, camera and a keyboard...

Hopefully before this machine becomes available Microsoft will pull a rabbit out of a hat (along with a few manufacturers) and provide something which is not an TINY incremental upgrade to the hardware, UI and functionality provided by my Axim. The Windows CE 4.2 used in PocketPC2003 is a good step, but Microsoft has dropped the ball with the applications/UI - I'd like to be proven wrong.

My 2c

PJE

[palmsolo]

The CF slot is the kicker for me because I have a CF GPS, 56k modem (for travel when there is no WiFi available), and a CF digital phone card to connect to my ancient Kyocera cell phone. I have been missing using these items since I have had the 1910 and thus the 2200 is the only real choice since I do not want to deal with sleeves.

I tried the Axim and for some reason only was able to get it to sync 20% of the time and had to soft reset about 3 times a day. I always have had great success with my HP products (Jornada 548, Jornada 568, and iPaq 1910) and trust their quality more than Dell.

[lurch]

The Windows CE 4.2 used in PocketPC2003 is a good step
I've seen this a lot, and I wanted to say that Windows CE 4.2 != PPC2003

[PJE]

I've seen this a lot, and I wanted to say that Windows CE 4.2 != PPC2003

Windows CE 4.2 + UI + Applications = PPC2003

Windows CE 4.2 is the core OS on top of which the PocketPC2003 UI/Applications are built. However it looks like other than a few applications, such as IE which looks to be improved, the other applications are on the whole unchanged.

CE 4.2 is much more capable than CE 3.0 used by PocketPC2002, but as the applications haven't changed a lot of this functionality will be hidden.

So: Windows CE 4.2 + PPC2002 UI + PPC2002 Applications = PPC2003...

I'd love to be proved wrong.

PJE

[lurch]

Windows CE 4.2 + UI + Applications = PPC2003

Windows CE 4.2 is the core OS on top of which the PocketPC2003 UI/Applications are built. However it looks like other than a few applications, such as IE which looks to be improved, the other applications are on the whole unchanged.

CE 4.2 is much more capable than CE 3.0 used by PocketPC2002, but as the applications haven't changed a lot of this functionality will be hidden.

So: Windows CE 4.2 + PPC2002 UI + PPC2002 Applications = PPC2003...

I'd love to be proved wrong.

PJE
Well I might've spoken too soon... I had conflicting sources and now I'm not sure... I'll need to check into it some more.

[dh]

I don't get why everybody thinks HP has to get rid of the sleeves for the iPaq...
If they do get rid of them, do people think the footprint of the iPaq will change significantly? Why can't there be (in the future) a dual-slot iPaq that is also sleeve-able in case the user wants to use a "legacy" sleeve, or a cardscanner or something?

I don't think it needs to be an "all or nothing" venture, I think the iPaq's can adapt and grow to not REQUIRE sleeves, but still be built to accept them.

If I was an HP product manager that's just what I'd do. Keep the current form factor and add a CF slot. There must be room to do it with a bit of re-arranging.

This way, the existing customers would be happy and potential new Ipaq users (ie me!) would see the PPC with the best specification on the market.

Now that might well tempt me away from Dell.

[EvilOne]

Windows CE 4.2 + UI + Applications = PPC2003

Windows CE 4.2 is the core OS on top of which the PocketPC2003 UI/Applications are built. However it looks like other than a few applications, such as IE which looks to be improved, the other applications are on the whole unchanged.

CE 4.2 is much more capable than CE 3.0 used by PocketPC2002, but as the applications haven't changed a lot of this functionality will be hidden.

So: Windows CE 4.2 + PPC2002 UI + PPC2002 Applications = PPC2003...

I'd love to be proved wrong.

PJE
Well I might've spoken too soon... I had conflicting sources and now I'm not sure... I'll need to check into it some more.

Well what PJE says is correct, PocketPC2003 has at its core CE .Net 4.2.

[lurch]

Well what PJE says is correct, PocketPC2003 has at its core CE .Net 4.2.
The only reason I'm skeptical is because I've got two excellent sources, and I need to make sure which one either I misunderstood, or they misunderstood the situation.

[mac]

have to agree with PJE and the EvilOne.

I've played with PPC2003... it has CE .NET 4.2 for its guts...
UI is a newer version that's based on PPC2002... there are some things that have changed... PIE... connection manager...

[Jonathan1]

*sighs* To many PDA's coming out
First there is these new 19xx series that I've been drooling over. Then you have the 2xxx series that is a good device but a tad on the large side. (More in line with my Jornada 568) Then there is the likelihood that Dell is going to be releasing something soon. (You don't drop prices on your line of products without a good reason. And I don't believe for a second its because parts prices have dropped. They are cleaning out their stock of X5's.) I'm interested in the X3 but there is little to no info on this device yet.
Finally you have this:
http://www.pdaavenue.com/news/Images/newclie199.jpg

This new Clie looks sweet esp considering it has a built in camera and wireless in such a small package.

Then there is the new Zaurus
http://www.zdnet.co.jp/mobile/0305/16/l_zau21.jpg

*sighs* Too many choices.

[Ed Hansberry]

Well what PJE says is correct, PocketPC2003 has at its core CE .Net 4.2.
The only reason I'm skeptical is because I've got two excellent sources, and I need to make sure which one either I misunderstood, or they misunderstood the situation.
I can assure you, CE 4.2 or CE whatever is the core of Pocket PC and is not synonymous with it, just like Pocket PC 2000 and 2002 had CE 3.0 at the core. Windows CE will continue to be sold as its own embedded operating system for a myriad of uses. The Pocket PC and Smartphone are but two subsets of that market.

Any "source" that is telling you that PPC 200x=Windows CE any version is mistaken.

[PJE]

Finally you have this:
http://www.pdaavenue.com/news/Images/newclie199.jpg

This new Clie looks sweet esp considering it has a built in camera and wireless in such a small package.

That was the Clie I was referring to... If the original NX70 Clie had this units landscape design I'd probably be using it rather than my Axim right now. I much prefer the multitasking of the PocketPC OS but this Clie's hardware is so much more functional than my Axim (at a higher price).

If PocketPC manufacturers don't get off the fence with their hardware design they're going to be in trouble when PalmOS reaches a PocketPC2002/3 level with OS6.

My 2c

[Jason Dunn]

Windows CE 4.2 + UI + Applications = PPC2003

Windows CE 4.2 is the core OS on top of which the PocketPC2003 UI/Applications are built. However it looks like other than a few applications, such as IE which looks to be improved, the other applications are on the whole unchanged.

CE 4.2 is much more capable than CE 3.0 used by PocketPC2002, but as the applications haven't changed a lot of this functionality will be hidden.

So: Windows CE 4.2 + PPC2002 UI + PPC2002 Applications = PPC2003...

I'd love to be proved wrong.

PJE
Well I might've spoken too soon... I had conflicting sources and now I'm not sure... I'll need to check into it some more.

You're both technically correct, but PJE is assuming that the applications in 2003 are excatly the same as 2002, which is a mighty big assumption.

[lurch]

I can assure you, CE 4.2 or CE whatever is the core of Pocket PC and is not synonymous with it, just like Pocket PC 2000 and 2002 had CE 3.0 at the core. Windows CE will continue to be sold as its own embedded operating system for a myriad of uses. The Pocket PC and Smartphone are but two subsets of that market.

Any "source" that is telling you that PPC 200x=Windows CE any version is mistaken.
I know, that's not what I meant...

I'll just drop it because I need to make sure I don't break an NDA by going into details... suffice it to say that I used a Win CE 4.2 based PDA, and was told by one person that it was PPC2003, and by another that it was PPC2002 with an "upgraded core", so to speak. I wasn't totally sure how to tell the difference. Since the one who said PPC2002 was more technical as opposed to managerial, I went with their opinion.

[PJE]

You're both technically correct, but PJE is assuming that the applications in 2003 are excatly the same as 2002, which is a mighty big assumption.

I'm hoping... but all the information I've read reports some useful changes to connection manager and IE, but not to the core applications. If however they have been modified to allow screen rotation (I hate to sound like a broken record) but have the same basic features then I'd be happy.

I guess we'll just have to wait until PPC2003 is released. But they'll have trouble with the Palm based competition if they don't push the boundries SOMEWHERE and only release PPC2002 with a new core.

Regards,

PJE

[Ivan]

I own an h1910 and I just have one question... did HP also cripple the connection port in the 1930 and 1940 to disable serial support? (i.e. no external keyboard, no possibility of connecting it to a cell phone, etc.)

Does anybody know or is it still too early to tell?

[PacMan]

did HP also cripple the connection port in the 1930 and 1940 to disable serial support? (i.e. no external keyboard, no possibility of connecting it to a cell phone, etc.)

I looked through the manual specifically to find any hint that they had fixed this and found none. The most likely place it would have appeared is under connectivity, and there was nothing there.

I do think it's too early to tell for sure, but the early signs aren't promising. I'll keep my fingers crossed though. The external keyboard is a big factor for me (and yes, I know it's possible to use IR, but I don't like it...).

[mja8105]

i think it's interesting that hp is using samsung processors on the new low end models. i wonder what the performance is like, are there any benchmarks out there against the xscale processors?

[MacBirdie]

Cotulla - Intel® XScale microarchitecture product for hand-held clients.

Cotulla, the codename of the first SOC (System on a Chip) design to use the XScale-core...

From the Intel Site. :lol:

Yep and another one

What you see here is the Intel XScale microarchitecture-based Cotulla PXA 250. What happens when you take a Cotulla PXA 250 and integrate it with two Intel StrataFlash® dies? What is the resulting dimension? This is the result. This is the PXA262 - integrated three dies into a smaller space in the same profile, 1.4 millimeter high profile.
from this url (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/speeches/idfspr_2003_day2.htm) . :D

[KH]

Weighing in on the IPAQ sleeve question, PC cards still offer the highest capacity and best price/MB. I love to use the media capabilities of my Pocket PC - video and audio. I also usually use my SD slot for added memory for large applications and reference books, and things that I don't swap out frequently - not a real fit for media. I don't think I'll be past the point of needing my sleeves for another few turns of technology.

[beq]

Thanks for the answers to sleeving, I was just curious (personally I don't have that huge an investment in iPAQ sleeves, but I still have the first two 3600 models that ever came out).

I do love the smaller form factors though (and with bare non-sleeving backs, so much the better to embed a high-res CMOS camera) :)

But with current miniaturization processes, can you image what they can stuff into the 5000 form factor today? I know (I just KNOW!) they can embed a 1.8" HDD and still pack a big batt, 4" VGA, all that sweet goodness...

[Will T Smith]

I don't get why everybody thinks HP has to get rid of the sleeves for the iPaq...
If they do get rid of them, do people think the footprint of the iPaq will change significantly? Why can't there be (in the future) a dual-slot iPaq that is also sleeve-able in case the user wants to use a "legacy" sleeve, or a cardscanner or something?



Yes, the size difference is VERY appreciable. Yes, when you measure with rulers the size difference doesn't seem all that significant.

However, you forget that these are mobile devices. It's like comparing the size of the once ubiquitous motorola Star-Tac to it's modern equivalents. The original Star-Tac is HUGE compared to todays mobile phone.

Have you ever held an HP1910 or a Palm V in your hand???? The difference between that and an iPaq is ENOURMOUS. It's especially evident when you compare the thickness of the devices.

A casing makes the device more "pocketable", more discreet, easier to handle.

Banishment of the "sleeve" concept also allows you to put some very useful ergonomic features on the side of the device like:

* shuttle/jog controls
* buttons that don't activate every time you pick up the device.
* side facing SD or IR.
* Inclusion of a STANDARD flip ***UP*** lid (Cpt Kirk style).
* rubber "bumpers" that increase the grip/feel on the device to something above teflon (remeber to avoid binding on the sleeves the side of the device must be "slippery").


I think that HP finally listened to the numerous complaints against the sleeve concept. If you look at the back of the 2200, you'll see two holes where you've never seen holes before.

My guess is that these are anchor points for a "backpack" style expansion system. Basically, it would work very similar to JORNADA's backpack style expansion system. It hooks into the CF slot. Except in this case, you'd still have an SD slot for memory or a second I/O device. And of course, the backpack wouldn't back the device 3/4 as big like the sleeves do.

Finally a "backpack" doesn't hamstring the formfactor of the device. The sleeves FORCE the iPaq to be the SAME size irregardless of how technology allows you to slim down. A backpack doesn't "enclose the device" it mearly hangs on the back. As long as the connector and the "attachment" points stay standard, new devices can change their other dimensions/shape and still accept the "backpack" expansion.

[Will T Smith]

Symbol PPT2746 = $1299

HP H3950 @ $345 plus Symbol Scanner Expansion Jacket @ $424 = $769

Now times that by 25 units and your corporate customer has just saved themselves $13,000...

This is why there is always going to be Expansion Jackets available for the iPaq. They add additional functionality to a computing device at a price point that corporates love.

If you have that BIG of a warehouse or inventory, you really don't want to be using iPaqs anyway. After a few invevitable drops, you'll understand why!!!!!!!

[Will T Smith]

Hi,

If the information in the FCC release regarding PocketPC2003 and the new machines is to be believed, it is likely that my next machine will be the new Sony Clie shown on brighthand which has a landscape capable hi-res display, camera and a keyboard...

Hopefully before this machine becomes available Microsoft will pull a rabbit out of a hat (along with a few manufacturers) and provide something which is not an TINY incremental upgrade to the hardware, UI and functionality provided by my Axim. The Windows CE 4.2 used in PocketPC2003 is a good step, but Microsoft has dropped the ball with the applications/UI - I'd like to be proven wrong.

My 2c

PJE

Well said, Microsoft needs to get 640x480 screens into PocketPC along with some software/hardware that can scale legacy apps appropriately!!!!!

[Stephen Beesley]

If however they have been modified to allow screen rotation (I hate to sound like a broken record) but have the same basic features then I'd be happy.

I am with you on that - I really cannot understand why this has not always been a feature of the PPC OS.

As an upgrade from my 568 the 2200 is looking pretty good. I have invested in a CF wifi card, modem and memory so I would like to be able to keep using them. Looks wise I really cannot see what is so appealing about the 19XX series - but then I still think that my Jornada is about the best looking PPC around!

Goldtee

[Deslock]

I'm curious why you guys would chose the 1940 over the 2200 when the 2200 has dual slots, when the 1940 doesn't, and the size difference is almost nil?
Is the difference really "almost nil"?

At 5.49 oz vs 4.23 oz, the 22xx is 30% heavier than the 19xx. Assuming their overall densities are not too much different, that means a decent increase in volume. And since the 22xx has the extra empty space for its CF slot, its density many be less (if so, its volume difference is even larger).

For purposes of comparison the Axim (6.9 oz) is 25% heavier than the 22xx. So the percentage weight difference between the 19xx and 22xx is greater than the 22xx and Axim. Note the Axim is definitely less dense than the 1910 (and presumably the 2200) so its size is much larger than the weight difference implies, but you get the point.

Having written all that, you can't go by the dimensions or by weight... you've got to hold it in your hand to be able to tell.

[Deslock]

What I want to know is:

1) How will the Samsung 266 MHz CPU compare to the 1910's overclocked to 300 MHz?
2) Will the Samsung be overclockable? (without messing up video brightness)

I can barely play 320x240x15fps DIVX on my 1910 at 300 MHz as is... it'd be nice to be able to go up to 30fps. The 2200's CF slot means little to me, but the 2200's faster processor and extra RAM sounds tasty. Probably not worth sacrificing the 1900 formfactor for, but we won't know that until the new models actually come out.

[lurch]

As an upgrade from my 568 the 2200 is looking pretty good.
Ditto.
I have invested in a CF wifi card, modem and memory so I would like to be able to keep using them.
Ditto.
Looks wise I really cannot see what is so appealing about the 19XX series - but then I still think that my Jornada is about the best looking PPC around!
Ditto!!!!

:mrgreen:

[EvilOne]

Did I miss something in the 2200's manual? Is it going to be released with a 128MB version too? I just noticed that Deslock mentioned extra ram... If this is the case, I think I will be getting rid of my 568 too! :lol:

[Paragon]

I'm curious why you guys would chose the 1940 over the 2200 when the 2200 has dual slots, when the 1940 doesn't, and the size difference is almost nil?
Is the difference really "almost nil"?

Yes it is. The weight comparison does not reflect much in reality. Throwing a percentage number out to compare things sometimes is very misleading, and I think this is one of those times. Pick something up and tell me if it weighs 4oz. or 5oz. In size it is only a 1/10" thicker and has two slots. It is almost identical in width, and length. By far the smallest most compact, lightest dual slot device ever........that in comparision to the weight difference IS significant. :)

Dave

[Jacob]

Did I miss something in the 2200's manual? Is it going to be released with a 128MB version too? I just noticed that Deslock mentioned extra ram... If this is the case, I think I will be getting rid of my 568 too! :lol:

I've heard that there will be a 128Mb version -but I don't have anything hard to back that up right now.

I like the idea of having a CF slot just for the expansion possibilities, but not sure if the rise in size is worth it.

[delfuhd]

If by rise in size you mean extra memory, I think it's a great idea to keep expanding memory in pocket pc's. SOme people can't afford large amounts of flash storage cards, and from what the rumors are the h2200 is suspected to have a model with 128 meg and its rumored to be under 400, which is a very good deal in of itself. I could definitely use a good 100 more megs of internal RAM on my 3850, it would leave my storage cards open for a lot more stuff.

[Deslock]

Is the difference really "almost nil"?

Yes it is. The weight comparison does not reflect much in reality. Throwing a percentage number out to compare things sometimes is very misleading, and I think this is one of those times. Pick something up and tell me if it weighs 4oz. or 5oz. In size it is only a 1/10" thicker and has two slots. It is almost identical in width, and length. By far the smallest most compact, lightest dual slot device ever........that in comparision to the weight difference IS significant. :)

Dave
How much of a difference weight makes depends on density and other factors. Sure 1.3 multiplied by "really light" may still be "really light". And 1.26 multiplied by "really thin" may still be "really thin".

But the additional size/weight *could* affect ergonomics and/or pocketability significantly, which was my point: the differences might end up being "almost nil" but on the other hand might be significant and shouldn't be dismissed because:

you can't go by the dimensions or by weight... you've got to hold it in your hand to be able to tell.

[mac]

I own an h1910 and I just have one question... did HP also cripple the connection port in the 1930 and 1940 to disable serial support? (i.e. no external keyboard, no possibility of connecting it to a cell phone, etc.)

Does anybody know or is it still too early to tell?

don't seem to have serial...
but there're SDIO and Bluetooth... u have a Bluetooth phone?

[the_rapture]

I own an h1910 and I just have one question... did HP also cripple the connection port in the 1930 and 1940 to disable serial support? (i.e. no external keyboard, no possibility of connecting it to a cell phone, etc.)

Does anybody know or is it still too early to tell?

don't seem to have serial...
but there're SDIO and Bluetooth... u have a Bluetooth phone?

Bluetooth Phone? What's that in the U.S.? $300 more? I've almost given up on Bluetooth devices here in the States. I really wish this "Cheap cipset" would mean a cheaper product but the phones are expensive so the only route for most of us in the States is to use a cable. I know I went through this with the e740 and ended up using the Expansion Pack and a USB cable to connect to my T720c...

[Ed Hansberry]

Bluetooth Phone? What's that in the U.S.? $300 more? I've almost given up on Bluetooth devices here in the States.
Very cheap at T-Mobile with a contract. I think Cingular and AT&T have them too - all three of those are GSM. I don't think there are any BT phones with the CDMA carriers yet. :(

[dcharles18]

Bluetooth Phone? What's that in the U.S.? $300 more? I've almost given up on Bluetooth devices here in the States. I really wish this "Cheap cipset" would mean a cheaper product but the phones are expensive so the only route for most of us in the States is to use a cable. I know I went through this with the e740 and ended up using the Expansion Pack and a USB cable to connect to my T720c...


Don't know where you've been looking. I paid $25 for my T68i with ATT. You can get them for free with T-mobile.

[the_rapture]

Did you have to change carriers to get that price or extend? I'm with Verizon and they never have anything good... Last I saw was at CompUSA just for the phone and it could have been cheaper than the $300 but it was more than I was willing to pay.. And the add-ons that I've found were over $150.... Thanks for the info sounds like pricing is coming down to where I'd be willing to spend the money...

Here's the T68i and it's $269 Upgrade Price? http://shopwireless.sonyericsson.com/store/handset_T68i.asp

I'll admit I haven't searched real hard for a better price, but still to go out and buy a phone or get a company to upgrade your current phone is more of a hassle that it should be....

[dcharles18]

It was a new contract, and I get 45% off phones with a corporate discount. For anyone else the phone would have been a little more, but not much.

Like I said, you can get one free via tmobile right now with a new contract.

[wirelessgeek]

Did you have to change carriers to get that price or extend? I'm with Verizon and they never have anything good... Last I saw was at CompUSA just for the phone and it could have been cheaper than the $300 but it was more than I was willing to pay.. And the add-ons that I've found were over $150.... Thanks for the info sounds like pricing is coming down to where I'd be willing to spend the money...

Here's the T68i and it's $269 Upgrade Price? http://shopwireless.sonyericsson.com/store/handset_T68i.asp

I'll admit I haven't searched real hard for a better price, but still to go out and buy a phone or get a company to upgrade your current phone is more of a hassle that it should be....

Verizon is hyping WiFi and they aren't supporting a fully mobile technology like Bluetooth as a Carrier. If you get it? I DON'T!!!!!!

But hey.....am from (silly) Europe of course.

[wirelessgeek]

More hype (they would be here early 2003), but they are coming......but patience is required.

Wi-Fi SD Cards Delayed Until Mid-Year
By the Brighthand News Team
March 25th, 2003
"Earlier this year, two companies announced plans to release in coming months Wi-Fi wireless networking cards that will plug into the SD slot on both Palm oS and Pocket PC handhelds. Unfortunately, people who have been eagerly awaiting these are in for some bad news: the first of these aren't expected until June at the earliest."
http://www.brighthand.com/article/Wi-Fi_SD_Cards_Delayed_Until_Mid-Year

SanDisk SD Wi-Fi Cards Delayed Again
By the Brighthand News Team
May 30th, 2003
"Some of the most anticipated peripherals coming this year are the SD cards with Wi-Fi wireless networking capabilities. Though two companies announced in January that they would have these on the market earlier this year, both have run into unexpected delays. Now it appears that at least one of these will hit the market even later than expected."
http://www.brighthand.com/article/SanDisk_SD_Wi-Fi_Cards_Delayed_Again

To integrate WiFi into SDIO cards doesn't seem that easy.....wonder why is that!?