Derailing screen protector reviews

[Inventorb]

I have one of these and applying it was the most frustrating experience I've ever had with a Pocket PC.



The following sites have been approved by the screen protector industry for resale or manufacture use.

Palm Inc.
http://store.palm.com/searchHandler/index.jsp?searchId=5264289309&keywords=screen+protector&y=18&x=10

PalmOne - http://palmone.com/us/

EXpressCentre - http://www.expresscentre.com/

LCDProtector - http://www.expresscentre.com/

Hoodman - http://www.hoodmanusa.com/

PDAzoo.com - http://www.pdazoo.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?

abacus-pda.com - http://www.abacus-pda.com/sony1.html

Jaxum - http://www.jaxumwizard.com/ipaq5555screenbooster.jpg

Gethightech Inc.
http://www.gethightech.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=XX1128&Category_Code=SP

Handspring Inc. -
http://store.palm.com/searchHandler/index.jsp?searchId=5264289309&keywords=screen+protector&y=18&x=10

Bobulrich Inc - http://www.bobulrich.com/rmu252.htm

Strong Engineering Inc. - http://www.strongengineering.com/by_mfg.htm

SF Planet Inc. - http://imagehost.vendio.com/bin/imageserver.x/00000000/yatchai/.mids/innopocketNR70.jpg

Incipio Inc. -
http://www.incipiodirect.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=I&Category_Code=LSP

Symbol Technologies Inc. - http://www.symbol.com/
http://www.vsps.com/SYMBOL.JPG

Telxon Inc - http://www.telxon.com/
http://www.vsps.com/telxonscreenprotectors.jpg

Onlineamigo - http://www.onlineamigo.com/home/default.asp
http://www.vsps.com/ONLINEOMIGA.JPG

BadgerMeter Inc. - http://www.badgermeter.com/
http://www.vsps.com/BadgerMeterscreenprotectors.jpg

V.S. Protective Shield Inc.- http://www.vsps.com/

Screen Protector.com - http://www.ScreenProtector.com/


Martin Fields SHIELDS are NOT LICENSED TO SELL IN THE USA

[marsonist]

Who exactly is the "Screen protector industry" and what exactly do they approve?

That was the most broad negative generalization I have read in a forum in a long time. To me that just sounds like a bunch of negative publicity crap. If you have a good reason for someone not to use a product give it... but don't make stuff up. Regardless of that, I have used the Martin Fields screen protector on my 2210 for the last month, and it is by far the best screen protector that I have used. The fact that it gets shipped from outside the US shouldn't have any impact on how well it works... It's not like we're talking about prescription drugs here.


Why I like and recommend this particular screen protector:

1) It is crystal clear making the display look just as bright as an unprotected one.

2) The protective sheet is stiff enough to allow you to line up the broad edge along the side of the pocket pc screen and just drop it into place... I personaly had no problems installing it.

3) It is slightly tacky, allowing it to stay firmly in place, but it doens't "stick" to the screen, more like cling (If you know what I mean)

4) Should you get dust under the protector during installation (as the review mentioned) just run it under water, or use a touch of dish washing soap.... dusts gone, give it another shot.

5) Main reason for like Martin Fields screen protectors: These things are tough as nails... I have not been able to put the slightest of marks on these things (I ordered a second smaller protector for my cell phone, and even rattling around in my pockets with keys and coins, not a hint of a scratch.) I have no reason to believe that this thing will ever need to be replaced. Perhaps you can get an 12 pack of another brand for the same price, but if they were half as good as the Martin Fields you wouldn't need more than one


I am in no way affiliated with Martin Fields. It just irks me when I see people slamming such an excellent product without rhyme or reason. If you Google for martin fields + review you will see that every other reviewer raves about how great these are. Do the research, don't listen to these knuckleheads spreading FUD

[Steven Cedrone]

The following sites have been approved by the screen protector industry for resale or manufacture use.

Martin Fields SHIELDS are NOT LICENSED TO SELL IN THE USA

Is this a joke? :roll:

Steve

[jim s]

I think inventorb is referring to the information on this page.

http://www.vsps.com/inventor1.html

[Inventorb]

Who exactly is the "Screen protector industry" and what exactly do they approve?

The screen protector industry was formed by the original inventor of the screen protectors. They own, the exclusive right to releaseably adhere a
thin, flexibly, transparent, screenprotector to the face plate of an electronic instrument during use.

The "screen protector industry" monitors the different screen protectors on the market.

They test the screen protector’s adhesives.

They test the screen protector’s clarity.

They test the screen protectors for impact protection. Etc....

The following manufactures are licensed in the Screen Protector Industry. Anyone that is not on this list is a recommended Screen Protector Seller, or Manufacture.

Palm Inc.
http://store.palm.com/searchHandler/index.jsp?searchId=5264289309&keywords=screen+protector&y=18&x=10

PalmOne - http://palmone.com/us/

Hoodman - http://www.hoodmanusa.com/

EXpressCentre - http://www.expresscentre.com/

LCDProtector - http://www.expresscentre.com/

Hoodman - http://www.hoodmanusa.com/

PDAzoo.com - http://www.pdazoo.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?

abacus-pda.com - http://www.abacus-pda.com/sony1.html

Jaxum - http://www.jaxumwizard.com/ipaq5555screenbooster.jpg

Gethightech Inc.
http://www.gethightech.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=XX1128&Category_Code=SP

Handspring Inc. -
http://store.palm.com/searchHandler/index.jsp?searchId=5264289309&keywords=screen+protector&y=18&x=10

Bobulrich Inc - http://www.bobulrich.com/rmu252.htm

EXpressCentre - http://www.expresscentre.com/

LCDProtector - http://www.expresscentre.com/

SF Planet Inc. - http://imagehost.vendio.com/bin/imageserver.x/00000000/yatchai/.mids/innopocketNR70.jpg

Incipio Inc. -
http://www.incipiodirect.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=I&Category_Code=LSP

Symbol Technologies Inc. - http://www.symbol.com/
http://www.vsps.com/SYMBOL.JPG

Telxon Inc - http://www.telxon.com/
http://www.vsps.com/telxonscreenprotectors.jpg

Onlineamigo - http://www.onlineamigo.com/home/default.asp
http://www.vsps.com/ONLINEOMIGA.JPG

BadgerMeter Inc. - http://www.badgermeter.com/
http://www.vsps.com/BadgerMeterscreenprotectors.jpg

V.S. Protective Shield Inc.- http://www.vsps.com/

Screen Protector.com - http://www.ScreenProtector.com/

Would you like to put permanent adhesive on you $350.00 screen. Then have to pay (Palm, Sony..) $99.00 to have a new screen installed?

[marsonist]

Ok... so we are talking about a U.S. patent holder... not an industry association... glad we got that out of the way (Thanks for the link Jim S :-)). So how exactly does the fact that they haven't licensed they're product from a U.S. patent holder effect the quality of the product? Products like "DVD to Pocket PC" aren't even legal in the U.S. but that doesn't keep them from being a good product in their own right.

PocketPCThoughts is a website catering to a world of pocket pc users, not just those in the U.S. I, for example, am a current resident of Germany.

Would you like to put permanent adhesive on you $350.00 screen. Then have to pay (Palm, Sony..) $99.00 to have a new screen installed?.

So, again, I'll ask people to refrain from throwing around meaningless FUD (crap making it sound like this thing gets super glued to your screen makes you sound ignorent at best) and make valid points about the product or it's competition. [/quote]

[Steven Cedrone]

I think inventorb is referring to the information on this page.

http://www.vsps.com/inventor1.html

Yes, anyone who has been around Pocket PC's/Palms must remember Mr. Warman and his "claim" to fame: inventing screen protectors for fish finders. This is a patent he now tries to enforce for anything that even resembles a plastic protective sheet/film regardless of application. :roll:

Steve

[jlp]

Who exactly is the "Screen protector industry" and what exactly do they approve?

They own, the exclusive right to releaseably adhere a thin, flexibly, transparent, screenprotector to the face plate of an electronic instrument during use. Emphasis added.

I'm not an expert in English, especially since it's my 2nd language, but does it really mean something?? Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary answers for releasably "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary." Even with a wide opened mind like mine, I could understand what the word would mean but I don't understand what it would in this context.


Anyone that is not on this list is a recommended Screen Protector Seller, or Manufacture.

Does it mean those on the list are not licenced?

What's the difference between an "approved" and "recommended" reseller/manufacturer?

.

[Inventorb]

This is my valid point. Trust in junk you will get burned.
Trust in technology and you will be intrigued.
Trust in my words and We will protector your device.

The Martin Fields Overlay Plus Screen Protector has not been tested.
These are facts that you may not want to hear, but we will tell your readers.

"Ignorance can get your screen protector glued to your screen."
"Ignorance cannot save your thoughts."
Only compliance can protector your views.
Remember the extra nickel can protect your innocence.

Just a thought Good Luck
Good Day

P.S. One nickel is more than no nickels, and a Billion nickels is a lot of money!

[Jacob]

The fact is there was just a review posted that tested the Martin Fields Overlay screen protector. I think it has been tested.

Or is it that it just hasn't been tested by you?

[marsonist]

Trust in my words and We will protector your device.

It sounds like you are just trying to discourage the use of a product that you didn't license... like it or lump it, just because you didn't get cash from them doesn't mean they make a poor or harmful product. Get over yourself

"Ignorance can get your screen protector glued to your screen."

So can glue ;-)

"Ignorance cannot save your thoughts."

If your screen protector can save them... then we may be on to something worthwhile

Only compliance can protector your views.

... need I actually say anything here.... weirdo 8O

Remember the extra nickel can protect your innocence.

and the $12.99 for one of these screen protectors can protect my Pocket PC screen... We were talking about protecting Pocket PC screens weren't we. (talk about drifting off topic :mrgreen: ) YooHoo... snap out of it

[JonnoB]

It didn't appear that any of the 'approved' licensees were suppliers to the Pocket PC market.

[Steven Cedrone]

Thread split from here... (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=24239&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)

Steve

[Inventorb]

$12.99 for one of these screen protectors can protect my Pocket PC screen...

The licensed screen protectors cost only pennies not $12.99
If you are paying 12,99 you are getting ripped.

SEE
http://search-desc.ebay.com/search/search.dll?query=screen+protectors+warman&socurrencydisplay=1&sotimedisplay=2&ht=1&sosortproperty=3&from=R10&basicsearch=++&sosortorder=1&sotextsearched=2&BasicSearch=

The midrange price is $4.00 for ten screen protectors.

12,99 WOW it is a little high I believe

TYpe O Dah

[marsonist]

Still trying to sell your wares are you....

Why don't you link to a 3rd party independent review like the one PocketPCThoughts did about the Martin Fields screen protectors, for the ones you are trying to sell. $4.00 is a rippoff if they suck (i.e. Fellows writerights)

Your products have been reviewed, haven't they?

[Inventorb]

Still trying to sell your wares are you....

We are not selling anything. We are making your readers aware of many safe products.

We did not link to just one manufacture.

We linked to all screen protector manufactures that have passed a rigorous testing procedure.

We do not take the word of one. But we rely on many.

We hope your readers understand that they have several options for screen protectors.
We are very happy to bring the information to your readers.

Your thread might not be going the way you intended. But your readers might enjoy the variety of screen protector that has been brought before them.

[JonnoB]

Mr Inventor...

Can you tell me all of the manufacturers that are 'licensed' to sell screen protectors for all of the various models of Pocket PC devices? I could not find one for example that made a hard non-gooey anti-glare screen protector for the HP 221x.

[marsonist]

I agree that Pocket PC users should know that there are a wide variety of screen protectors available. As always good research will help you weed out the good from the bad. Searching google for "screen protector review" http://www.google.de/search?q=screen+protector+review&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=de&meta= will provide you with a good starting point.

And I must say, Inventorb, you've peeked my curiosity. How exactly do you test the screen protectors? What are the thresholds that they must adhere to? Where are the results published so that we can compare them?

[Dave Potter]

I just gotta throw my 2 cents in here...

Inventorb - Do you know what FUD stands for? Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. It is the oldest and potentially dirtiest trick in the sales book. Instead of selling products based on their own merits, you are trying to sell products by creating a perception of risk/danger with competitive offerings. How stupid do you think we are?

Also - your suggestion that non-members products are a risk because they haven't been tested is bunk. One question... How much money does it cost to get tested and 'join' the group? This is the real issue - MONEY. Non-members haven't responded to the extortion and paid the testing and membership fees, so they're blacklisted. And of course we're all supposed to blindly accept that (blacklisted) non-members products are automatically dangerous (NOT!).

If you're gonna use this FUD tactic, I suggest that you research your audience a bit better next time. The folks at Pocket PC Thoughts (both staff and members) are way too on-the-ball when it comes to PPC accessories to fall for this lame approach.


Oh, and what is with this: :roll:
Only compliance can protector your views.

Compliance??? You may as well say (Borg Style)

:robot: "Compliance is compulsory. Non- compliance is futile" :robot:

Gimme a break. :roll:

[cftarnas]

I looked up the patent, 5,132,588 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=5132588.WKU.&OS=PN/5132588&RS=PN/5132588), and it looks like we only have about what, 5 more years of it?



I am not a lawyer, but the patent seems a bit off from the current screen protectors on a PDA. No convex screen or edges, I have not seen a tab on any of the ones I looked at, and none of them use adhesive strips at all.
Now the end of the patent tried to make it broader so that variations to the theme are still covered, but I have a feeling some of the similar patents he referenced himself would get in the way.



The other option I saw is NuShield, which do not seem to use adhesive. I have some on the way and I'll see how they work.



cheers,
-chris

[Inventorb]

you are trying to sell products by creating a perception of risk :roll:

We are not selling any one product. We are talking about the Martin Fields Overlay Plus Screen Protector Review

We did not link to just one manufacture.

We linked to all screen protector manufactures that have passed a rigorous testing procedure.

We are very happy to bring the information to your readers.

[Dave Potter]

We linked to all screen protector manufactures that have passed a rigorous testing procedure.

Forgive my pesimism, but I notice that you didn't address the cost issues associated with this "rigorous testing procedure". Does this "rigorous procedure" consist of cashing the check and waiting to see if it bounces?

You also didn't mention if there was an additional membership fee or what that fee is. And what does it matter if you are linking to one site or twenty? You obviously represent all of their collective interests in addition to your own.

I'm sorry, but your answers seem far too canned and really don't address any of the questions that we have asked.

[Pat Logsdon]

you are trying to sell products by creating a perception of risk :roll:
We are not selling any one product. We are talking about the Martin Fields Overlay Plus Screen Protector Review

We did not link to just one manufacture.

We linked to all screen protector manufactures that have passed a rigorous testing procedure.

We are very happy to bring the information to your readers.
Are you a robot? Beep? Whir? Buzz? We seem to be having communication difficulties here.

Instead of saying what you've already said, why don't you answer some of the questions you've been asked? You have a captive audience here - why not use it to your advantage?

I think the most important question is:

What EXACTLY are the "rigorous testing procedures" that you are referring to?

If you can answer that very simple question, I'm sure you'd get a better response from everyone here.

[JonnoB]

We did not link to just one manufacture.

Thank you for the link to so many manufacturers... please point out to me which manufacturer makes a protector available for specific Pocket PC models. From your website, they seem to be very Palm focused and I see none from the market leading HP IPaq line.


We linked to all screen protector manufactures that have passed a rigorous testing procedure.

As a consumer, I might be appreciative of having someone review and certify tests - please tell me what those tests were... especially how these products tested on the Pocket PC devices that most readers in these forums use.


We are very happy to bring the information to your readers.

Waiting for the information.........

[Inventorb]

Thank you for the link to so many manufacturers... please point out to me which manufacturer makes a protector available for specific Pocket PC models. [/quote]

SEE
http://www.screenguardz.com/pocketpc/

[PPCMD]

I'm a little late to the party but one thing is as clear to me, if the patent be used to enforce a claim against the companies who sell screen protectors then do so. Get your legal eagles on over there and get after them.

I buy what is proven to work and has been reported on sites I know, like this one and pdaphonehome, pocketpcpassion etc. I don't go by sites that harp their claim to ownership.

This also reminds me of the company trying to sue Palm, MS, Sony, HP/Compaq etc for making a device that can store data, get real

I also have insurance on my $800 I700 so if it gets screwed up then its covered. But from my quick read (will give it more attention later) of the Martin Fields Overlay Plus Screen Protector Review they work, don't damage and don't cost a fortune.

One last note, will Inventerob answer the other questions since he/she opened the can of whoopask as it is.

[Inventorb]

I'm a little late to the party but one thing is as clear to me, if the patent be used to enforce a claim against the companies who sell screen protectors then do so.

You have opened the claim of the Patent issue. We before never mentioned a patent.

Just to make you aware “35 U.S.C. 282 Presumption of validity; defenses. A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim.

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a claim to a composition of matter is held invalid and that claim was the basis of a determination of nonobviousness under , the process shall no longer be considered nonobvious solely on the basis of . The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.

SEE 35 U.S.C. 282 Presumption of validity; defenses.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl.htm#usc35s112”

We want to highlight an issue in this paragraph.

A patent shall be presumed valid.

The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.

Inventorb

[Jacob]

What's your argument then Inventorb??

As far as I can see, noone is trying to claim that you don't have a patent.

What people are saying is that your patent does not guarrantee that other non-licensed screen protectors are not necessarily poor quality just because they aren't licensed.

You haven't provided any real reason to believe that they are inferior in any way.

[Inventorb]

"The screen protector industry was formed by the original inventor of the screen protectors. They own, the exclusive right to releaseably adhere a
thin, flexibly, transparent, screenprotector to the face plate of an electronic instrument during use.

The "screen protector industry" monitors the different screen protectors on the market.

They test the screen protector’s adhesives.

They test the screen protector’s clarity.

They test the screen protectors for impact protection. Etc....

The following manufactures are licensed in the Screen Protector Industry. Anyone that is not on this list is a recommended Screen Protector Seller, or Manufacture."

This is the statement we are4 making. All else has been added beyond our control.

Martin Shields Screen Overlay has not been tested. The simple testing of a subordinate (posted review) is not a qualified test.

Inventorb

[Jacob]

Well, to many, that review is enough. You have every right to ask appropriate questions about testing though.

I'm sure information on the tests that are done(i.e. more specifics as to what is done to test them) would be welcome so that consumers can see what tests you do vs. what you claim the others lack.

I would be interested in what a "qualified" test is specifically.

Consumers here do want to buy the best screen protector they can get for the money. If you give some specific reasons to back up your claim that these are of inferior quality than the manufacturers of these licensed products will get more business from customers who visit this site.

[PetiteFlower]

Ok, this has gone on way too long.

"Inventorb", the people here are too smart, educated, and informed for your lame-a$$ posturing and scare tactics to have any effect. Tell it to someone who cares. If you have a problem with "unlicensed" screen protectors, then sue them; if your patent is valid you'll win. Either way, it's not our problem and we don't care. We care about whether it works, whether it clouds the screen or has lots of bubbles or is hard to install, how durable it is. Important things. And our lovely reviewers here and on other sites are perfectly capable of answering these questions in their reviews. You say you can't vouch for their quality because you haven't tested them. So what? No one asked you to! Just because you proclaim yourself to be the grand high poobah of screen protectors doesn't mean any of us have to agree.

P.S. Jason I want to be a Pocket PC Poobah!

[Inventorb]

If you give some specific reasons to back up your claim that these are of inferior quality



We never ever said the Martin Shields Screen Overlay was "inferior". We are simply telling your readers that these screen protectors have not been tested.

Inventorb

[Jacob]

We never ever said the Martin Shields Screen Overlay was "inferior". We are simply telling your readers that these screen protectors have not been tested.

Okay, whatever.. just not tested by you :lol:

I'll leave it at that. PetiteFlower is right - this has gone on too long.

[GoldKey]

We never ever said the Martin Shields Screen Overlay was "inferior". We are simply telling your readers that these screen protectors have not been tested.

Inventorb

As many have said before, if you define your testing methodology, then consumers can judge if it is worthwhile to purchase one of your endorsed protectors. If you have all these great tests you perform and can document, that would go a long way to convince someone to look at those specific products over non-tested ones. But your continued avoidance of that subject leads me to believe that your only test is whether the check clears.

So how about it, please define your testing methodology.

[rugerx]

We are not selling anything. We are making your readers aware of many safe products.

We did not link to just one manufacture.

We linked to all screen protector manufactures that have passed a rigorous testing procedure.

We do not take the word of one. But we rely on many.

We hope your readers understand that they have several options for screen protectors.
We are very happy to bring the information to your readers.
We will assimilate you (ok I put this one in there)


Forget testing and practice, cant you people see????

OMG this guy is a borg!!! 0X

They are coming!

[GoldKey]

Forget testing and practice, cant you people see????

OMG this guy is a borg!!! 0X

They are coming!

As a borg, I am insulted. :wink: :robot:

[Dave Potter]

Inventorb - your efforts to redirect potential buyers to 'licensed' products have failed miserably.

Your nickname 'Inventorb' makes me wonder if you are the patent holder (inventor) trying desperately to stretch the wording of the patent to cover everthing under the sun. If you are not and are are merely an employee - you should be fired. Your licensees paid good money and expect to receive something in return - business. You have not delivered that in this discussion thread. Instead of delivering clients to your licensees - you have alienated countless potential clients.

Give it up before you do more damage. To continue trying to defend your position by repeating the same meaningless and mindless statements is pure idoacy.

:bangin:

[edxavier]

They test the screen protectors for impact protection. Etc....
Inventorb

Since you mentioned impact protection, does this mean that if I'm to use one of your licensed screen protectors I'm protected against screen cracks? Will you compensate me with $$$ for a screen replacement if my screen cracks upon impact of something?

[Hyperluminal]

*Sigh*
I remember this guy. Every so often he comes along and drives us nuts over his screen protector "patent." He likes to babble incoherent nonsense, in case you haven't noticed, and have threads that get very long. Anyone remember his Brighthand one a few years back? It was crazy, like 30 pages long or something... 8O

[Ed Hansberry]

You quys are all nuts. Personally, I am pretty sure the new stylus I just purchased isn't licensed and nw I'm concerned it may do damage the the stylus silo. 8O

Anyone got a link to the Stylus Manufacturers Association? I must have the truth!

[Hyperluminal]

I must have the truth!
The truth is out there! 8O

[Fishie]

You quys are all nuts. Personally, I am pretty sure the new stylus I just purchased isn't licensed and nw I'm concerned it may do damage the the stylus silo. 8O

Anyone got a link to the Stylus Manufacturers Association? I must have the truth!

Hahaha good one Ed

[JonnoB]

Personally, I am pretty sure the new stylus I just purchased isn't licensed and nw I'm concerned it may do damage the the stylus silo.

I am concerned that my Vaja case that I got for my 221x was not sanctioned by HP. Perhaps I should still be using the case it came with? Did HP license the use of their Pocket PC devices for use in non-HP compliant cases? Is their a patent holder on cases? Let the patent wars begin.

[PDA-NOW]

So "tested/licensed screen protectors" like companion link will leave sticky residue on the lcd after when taking off. I wonder what qualifies for the a licensed screen protector.

I read over the inventor's site and found that the so-called license/patent is just about money (U.S. Patent only). They charge for an amount of initial cost and certain percentage of sales revenue, and then the product is tested and licensed. O one more thing, you need to print the patent number on. well...

[Jason Dunn]

Gosh...I'm glad I missed this entire thread. :roll:

[Billiam]

Does anyone know where I can get screen protectors for a hp 1935?

Licensed or unlicensed would be fine, or is it approved or not?

Nevertheless, I am new to PDA's and honestly looking for "something" to protect my screen, I am currently using the "fellowes WriteRight" and I am not sure if I am going to screw something up here or not since I saw I think a negative remark on these.

So if someone could point me in the right direction with or without a patent that would be great.

Thanks...

Billiam

[Jason Dunn]

Does anyone know where I can get screen protectors for a hp 1935?

I'm fond of WriteShields myself:

http://www.pocketpctechs.com/ws.asp

[Dave Potter]

BoxWave screen protectors rule!!!

http://www.boxwave.com/products/cleartouch/ct_ipaq_1935.htm

[Ed Hansberry]

Does anyone know where I can get screen protectors for a hp 1935?

I'm fond of WriteShields myself:

http://www.pocketpctechs.com/ws.asp
I'd have to agree. I have been a huge proponent of these since Dale Coffing turned me on to them 2 years ago. I never use a PDA for more than a few days before ordering WriteShields for it.

[Steven Cedrone]

I'd have to agree. I have been a huge proponent of these since Dale Coffing turned me on to them 2 years ago. I never use a PDA for more than a few days before ordering WriteShields for it.

When I got my 2215 I refused to take it out of the box until my WriteShields arrived. Talk about willpower, that was a tough time for me! :wink:

Steve

[JonnoB]

I didn't care for screen protectors at first... because the ones I had tried (Fellowes, etc) were just flimsy plastic adhesives. When I had my 221x repaired and upgraded by PPCTechs, I opted to try again with the WriteShield. Wow, what a difference! Now I know why others have raved about the WriteShield.

[danesh]

I was undecided on whether to buy Boxwave's ClearTouch or PPCTech's WriteShield since they both cost quite a bit. I was wondering how long does one protector last?

[ctmagnus]

I recently changed my
WriteShield. I applied it July 30 and removed it March 19, for a total of 33.5 weeks/234 days. I didn't need to change it either, I just felt it had been on a really long time and I should use another one.

[Steven Cedrone]

I applied my WriteShield about 8 or 9 months ago, haven't replaced it yet...

Steve

[ctmagnus]

I applied my WriteShield about 8 or 9 months ago, haven't replaced it yet...

Steve

I'm guessing you didn't get the crud under it that I did. ;) I'm happy to say that I have a mostly-crud-free screen protector now, and the crud is only visible if I look at the screen straight-on with the backlight off. :)

[danesh]

6 - 9 months is a real long period. I think I'll buy the WriteShield then. Thanks ctmagnus and Steven Cedrone for your inputs.

[Dave Potter]

Hold-up - the BoxWave ones last about the same. Mine has been on for 6 months and looks as good as the day I first installed it.

[danesh]

Okay, I will wait for some more time as I still have the WriteWrong err WriteRight protectors with me. These are really pathetic though.

[ignar]

6 - 9 months is a real long period. I think I'll buy the WriteShield then. Thanks ctmagnus and Steven Cedrone for your inputs.

6 to 9 months? Then Writeshield is a waste of money. I change my PDA every two months! :twisted:

[Steven Cedrone]

6 to 9 months? Then Writeshield is a waste of money. I change my PDA every two months! :twisted:

I'll PM you with my address, feel free to send me your "old" devices... :wink:

Steve