i.Trek SD GPS for $139.99

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.semsons.com/itsdgpsrecxt.html' target='_blank'>http://www.semsons.com/itsdgpsrecxt.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"The i.Trek SD GPS has SDIO interface and a built-in active antenna. It achieves the compact design while maintaining excellent sensitivity by utilizing the SiRF star II LP chipset with Xtrac V2 firmware. Special Offer: Purchase any GPS unit and automatically receive a free Arkon PDA Vent mount. Now good for both U.S. and International orders and NO SUBSITUTIONS. Optional Arkon Windshield Pedestal can be purchased."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/semsons-inc_1808_5565140" /><br /><br />Bluetooth might be all the rage in GPS right now, but if you want an SD-based GPS, $139.99 USD seems reasonable.

[ADBrown]

((Snap))

I'll stick with my Bluetooth GPS, thank you.

[ricksfiona]

Way cool! But Bluetooth is the way to go :wink:

[John Cody]

uhhh...where would I store my map data if the SD slot is being used by this device (if it's too big to fit in main memory)?

[ignar]

It'd be nice if it works with both Palm and PPC.

[ctmagnus]

uhhh...where would I store my map data if the SD slot is being used by this device (if it's too big to fit in main memory)?

CF card, in one of the multi-slot devices. Or you could get an iPaq 3xxx/5xxx and take advantange of the expansion packs while you can still get them :)

[maximum360]

The other option is having a pda that has a generous amount of RAM & ROM. I was thinking about some SD gps as well since I'm getting (when available) the XDA III that has 128 MB RAM and 64 MB ROM. Even if I use half the RAM for maps I would still have 64 MB ROM and 64 MB RAM. This is not a bad compromise since I'm currently using an i700 that only has 32 ROM and 64 RAM.

I like this because it's much cheaper than Bluetooth but I still have some time to think about it.

[SeanH]

Why would anyone every buy this device? You can buy a Bluetooth GPS for $150. A SD GPS would have the same problems as a CF GPS. The PDA has to be placed on the dash for a good view of the sky. Putting it on the dash make it hard to read. You can always buy an ext antenna but that adds cost, it adds a cable and more bulk. A Bluetooth GPS by far is the way to go. If your PDA does not have Bluetooth serial is the way to go.

Sean

[Sven Johannsen]

Why would anyone every buy this device? You can buy a Bluetooth GPS for $150. A SD GPS would have the same problems as a CF GPS. The PDA has to be placed on the dash for a good view of the sky. Putting it on the dash make it hard to read. You can always buy an ext antenna but that adds cost, it adds a cable and more bulk. A Bluetooth GPS by far is the way to go. If your PDA does not have Bluetooth serial is the way to go.

Sean

I find myself agreeing with Sean on this one. Maybe not as vehemently. With the price of BT GPSs down very close tho this price, this to me would only be useful if you have an SD only device with no BT. Not too many of them left. Then you have to deal with limited map storage. Not insurmountable, but that would seem to severly limit the market for this device. Even if I had a dual slot device, with no BT, I think I would opt for a CF solution if I wanted a a slotted device. Using SD memory in that case and CF peripherals would still widen my peripheral options at this point.

[kzemach]

This is somewhat peripheral, but as far as antennas and antenna extensions go, another option is a GPS ReRadiator (search at GPS City). For $80, it will grab a clear signal from a mounted antenna and reradiate the signal elsehwhere. For instance, you could mount on on the roof of a building and get a signal inside, not that you'd WANT to do that, but it's a demonstrative example. It's nice due to no wires, at least not to your GPS.....

[Christian]

After having used a bluetooth GPS with two bluetooth iPaqs now, I would assume that the SDIO version is much more stable. I have had bluetooth connections drop all the time, and worse yet, there is no voice command to inform you of the dropped connection. The result is that I have to check while driving or else find out ten miles later that I missed my turn. Granted, this may be an issue with my specific GPS or iPaq, but I've tried four combinations (not counting different software) and none have impressed me with their stability.

[mrmagoo]

Bluetooth GPS is the way to go. Have a Toshiba e800, Ambicom BT2000-CF Bluetooth CF card, and a Fortuna Clip-on Bluetooth GPS. After 50+ hours of use, I've lost the Bluetooth connection at most a couple of times. I lose the GPS signal many more times, but, not a Bluetooth connection.

[alizhan]

Why would anyone every buy this device? You can buy a Bluetooth GPS for $150.

Because some of us don't have a BT equipped PDA, and don't see why we should be required to go get one just to meet your expectations of what is "obviously the right choice."

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I get very tired of BT promoters implying that I am somehow dim or foolish for not investing whole hog into BT. I don't go around saying "why would anyone ever use BT when WiFi is so great?" Please allow me the same courtesy.

A SD GPS would have the same problems as a CF GPS. The PDA has to be placed on the dash for a good view of the sky. Putting it on the dash make it hard to read. You can always buy an ext antenna but that adds cost, it adds a cable and more bulk.

Agreed. It is an imperfect solution, at best. Wireless would be much nicer.

If your PDA does not have Bluetooth serial is the way to go.

Assuming that your PDA has serial, of course. Not all do. My previous PDA did not, which is why I never got a GPS for it.

What I want to know is why no one seems to be interested in producing a WiFi-compatible GPS or dongle. I can't be the only person who invested in WiFi instead of the (at the time, hideously unreliable) Bluetooth. Doesn't anyone else want this?

[sixsixty]

what's a good sollution for someone with a toshiba e750.

i've been itching to get gps but don't know which way to go. the e750 has a cf slot(which i have a memory card), and sd slot(which i have a memory card as well), and NO bluetooth.

should i get a cf card gps? an sdio gps? a bluetooth card and a bluetooth gps?

also price is a factor, i don't want to spend tooo much. so what's the best sollution with price being a consideration? also what gps is the best and has the best software?

sorry if i'm new with all of this.

thanks.

[SeanH]

Why would anyone every buy this device? You can buy a Bluetooth GPS for $150.

Because some of us don't have a BT equipped PDA, and don't see why we should be required to go get one just to meet your expectations of what is "obviously the right choice."

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I get very tired of BT promoters implying that I am somehow dim or foolish for not investing whole hog into BT. I don't go around saying "why would anyone ever use BT when WiFi is so great?" Please allow me the same courtesy.
This what I posted

Why would anyone every buy this device? You can buy a Bluetooth GPS for $150. A SD GPS would have the same problems as a CF GPS. The PDA has to be placed on the dash for a good view of the sky. Putting it on the dash make it hard to read. You can always buy an ext antenna but that adds cost, it adds a cable and more bulk. A Bluetooth GPS by far is the way to go. If your PDA does not have Bluetooth serial is the way to go.
Read the last line in bold. I clearly address an option for people that do not have Bluetooth.

Assuming that your PDA has serial, of course. Not all do. My previous PDA did not, which is why I never got a GPS for it.
There are very few PDA’s that have shipped with out a serial port. There are more now then in the past but most of those have Bluetooth. Every Intel CPU used in ARM based PDA have three serial ports. Most vendors use all three. Some vendors lately are using one for Bluetooth and not putting it on the connector. What model did you have with out serial and with out Bluetooth?

What I want to know is why no one seems to be interested in producing a WiFi-compatible GPS or dongle.
Because WiFi is based on a networking standard that has been around for over 20 years. It started with thick coax and today uses twisted pair, fiber or RF to transmit the data. Its does not lend it self to be used with peripherals either does the TCP/IP part of the stack that is used on top of Ethernet. On the other hand the standard that you believe is being forced upon you was designed from day one to work with peripherals. Most desktop PC’s have wired Ethernet for networking and USB, serial, or parallel ports for periferials. WiFi was created to make Ethernet wireless and Bluetooth was created to make those peripheral wireless.


Sean

[SeanH]

what's a good sollution for someone with a toshiba e750.
I would recommend a serial GPS. A CF GPS has a lot of short comings. A serial GPS units can be found for less then $90 US. I have tried a lot of software for GPS units over the years and my favorite is Routis. Its fast, its does not make a lot of errors. When I make and error it does not take forever to figure out the new route and best of all the maps are accurate.

Hope this helps,

Sean

[alizhan]

Read the last line in bold. I clearly address an option for people that do not have Bluetooth.
I did read it. I even responded to it, which you well know because you responded in turn. Nevertheless, I apologize if I read more into your post than you intended. As I said, BT has become a bit of a sore subject for me.

Assuming that your PDA has serial, of course. Not all do. My previous PDA did not, which is why I never got a GPS for it.
There are very few PDA’s that have shipped with out a serial port. There are more now then in the past but most of those have Bluetooth. Every Intel CPU used in ARM based PDA have three serial ports. Most vendors use all three. Some vendors lately are using one for Bluetooth and not putting it on the connector. What model did you have with out serial and with out Bluetooth?
Toshiba e740. While the e740 is not available anymore, the e750 is, and I believe that it has the same problem (you need the USB host cable or Presentation Pack, and a USB-to-serial converter--yuck!). And while the e750 comes in a BT model, that model lacks WiFi. My current PDA is an e805, which supposedly does have a serial port, but still has only BT or WiFi. Only with the new e830 (or another brand, but so far I haven't seen any other 4" VGA PPCs with BT, WiFi, SD, and CF) will one finally be able to get both.

What I want to know is why no one seems to be interested in producing a WiFi-compatible GPS or dongle.
Because WiFi is based on a networking standard that has been around for over 20 years. It started with thick coax and today uses twisted pair, fiber or RF to transmit the data.
Loosely. They do still call it "ethernet", though it is something of a distant cousin to the original 802.3.

The mere fact that it is 20 years old does not make it undesirable. Consider the Internet itself. It's shown some problems, yet without it this little exchange would not be possible. Saying that WiFi is like thicknet because they share some protocols is like saying that cars haven't improved in the past 20 years because they still use a steering wheel.

Its does not lend it self to be used with peripherals either does the TCP/IP part of the stack that is used on top of Ethernet.
Why not? Reliability? TCP guarantees delivery. Latency? Ethernet has had priority routing for over a decade. Real-time constraints? QoS has also been available with ethernet for years. Signal absorbtion? Almost all WiFi radios today are variable output, and adjust to high output only when needed.

The only things missing were autodiscovery, and software drivers to make the network layer act like legacy hardware (e.g., a serial port). But neither of these is hard--in fact, ethernet even allows for completely new protocols to be added, specifically so it can be extended to new uses. You don't have to use TCP/IP just because they are the most recognizable protocols. In fact, not using them would have solved a few of the "insurmountable problems with ethernet" that the BT designers were going on about back in the day.

On the other hand the standard that you believe is being forced upon you was designed from day one to work with peripherals. Most desktop PC’s have wired Ethernet for networking and USB, serial, or parallel ports for periferials. WiFi was created to make Ethernet wireless and Bluetooth was created to make those peripheral wireless.
That was the argument the BT designers used back when they were approached about folding what they wanted into WiFi. It was dodgy then, and it is still dodgy now. The only distinction that really bore close inspection was the range: BT was meant to work at low speed, over only a few feet; WiFi was meant to work at high speed, over a few hundred feet. The rest was a grab for licensing rights.

The fact that these two technologies solve the same set of problems is evident by looking at the current BT offerings. BT wasn't supposed to be a "network" technology, so why are there so many networking-over-BT products out there? Because the market is fragmented, and people who have already forked over the money for BT don't want to do it all again for wireless networking. Hence, BT gets applied to the very application it initially distanced itself from: high speed, long distance networking. Hello, redudant infrastructure...

The original (dubious) distinction between "network" and "peripheral" has turned into a (even more dubious) distinction between "business" and "home." WiFi is marketed for business use; BT for home use. This is a silly distinction, and hurts those of us who try to use devices in both settings.

Maybe wireless USB is the answer. :roll:

-- Mark

[SeanH]

I haven't seen any other 4" VGA PPCs with BT, WiFi, SD, and CF
I have been looking for a PDA like that for a long time. Everything except CF.
Loosely. They do still call it "ethernet", though it is something of a distant cousin to the original 802.3.
Yes they still call it Ethernet. It still uses a MAC (Media Access Controller) and a PHY (physical interface (RF in the case of WiFi). It still uses the original 48 bit address scheme with the same set of licensed address from the IEEE. It still uses the same 22 byte header, 450-1500 payload and 4 byte checksum. Nothing has really changed except the RF section and the added security levels like WEP.
Saying that WiFi is like thicknet because they share some protocols is like saying that cars haven't improved in the past 20 years because they still use a steering wheel.
Ethernet has changed very little in the last 20 years. Gigabit Ethernet added a few things like jumbo packets and 10/100 added a auto negation scheme. Very little has changed.
The only things missing were autodiscovery, and software drivers to make the network layer act like legacy hardware (e.g., a serial port). But neither of these is hard--in fact, ethernet even allows for completely new protocols to be added, specifically so it can be extended to new uses. You don't have to use TCP/IP just because they are the most recognizable protocols. In fact, not using them would have solved a few of the "insurmountable problems with ethernet" that the BT designers were going on about back in the day.
Everything you posted is true but the fact is nobody is working on a standard to perform any of these functions. I doubt they ever will.
The only distinction that really bore close inspection was the range: BT was meant to work at low speed, over only a few feet; WiFi was meant to work at high speed, over a few hundred feet. The rest was a grab for licensing rights.
You missed one extremely important variable. POWER!!! Bluetooth consumes up to 1/16 th the power of WiFi. There are trade offs with cost, speed, distance and power. Bluetooth was created to provide a low cost, med speed, short distance and very low power to devices like laptops, PDA’s and cell phones.
so why are there so many networking-over-BT products out there?
Because Bluetooth is replacing peripherals from the past. We used to use serial 56K ext modems, now the link from the hand held to the modem does not need a wire. We used to use a serial link from your PDA or laptop to your cell phone for GPRS internet access, with Bluetooth you no longer need the wires. There are also access points for bridging Bluetooth to wired Ethernet but WiFi is far better at that.
The original (dubious) distinction between "network" and "peripheral" has turned into a (even more dubious) distinction between "business" and "home." WiFi is marketed for business use; BT for home use. This is a silly distinction, and hurts those of us who try to use devices in both settings.
I have never run into anyone that does not understand this concept that Ethernet is for networking and USB is for peripherals. You will never see a Ethernet mouse or keyboard. WiFi is wireless Ethernet and Bluetooth is wireless USB. It’s very clear to most.
Maybe wireless USB is the answer.
That sounds like a great solution. The problem is it took Bluetooth over four years to get were it is today. There are over 20 million phones that have shipped today with Bluetooth. There are zero that shipped with wireless USB. There is very little effort to create a standard for wireless USB. Intel has announced they are putting together a committee to define the need. That means we will not see anything for many years.

Sean

[SeanH]

FYI

http://deviceforge.com/articles/AT9015145687.html

Wireless USB Promoter Group

At the Spring 2004 Intel Developer Forum, formation of the Wireless USB Promoter Group was announced. The group is comprised of seven industry leaders: Agere Systems, HP, Intel, Microsoft Corporation, NEC, Philips Semiconductors and Samsung Electronics.

The Wireless USB Promoter Group is chartered with defining the wireless USB (WUSB) specification.

[alizhan]

The only things missing were autodiscovery, and software drivers to make the network layer act like legacy hardware (e.g., a serial port). [...]
Everything you posted is true but the fact is nobody is working on a standard to perform any of these functions. I doubt they ever will.
That was my point. It could have been done, but wasn't. Now BT is "the way this is done," so it probably never will be, either.
You missed one extremely important variable. POWER!!! Bluetooth consumes up to 1/16 th the power of WiFi. There are trade offs with cost, speed, distance and power. Bluetooth was created to provide a low cost, med speed, short distance and very low power to devices like laptops, PDA’s and cell phones.
I mentioned this when I was talking about signal absorbtion (i.e., radiation concerns): slow + close == low power. But, as I also mentioned, it seems that this ideal is slowly being corrupted. They keep cranking the power up to cover longer hauls and higher data rates. Once this happens, how is this any different from variable power as used by WiFi? More and more of the overhead they originally castigated WiFi for having seems to be making it's way into BT.
Because Bluetooth is replacing peripherals from the past. We used to use serial 56K ext modems, now the link from the hand held to the modem does not need a wire. We used to use a serial link from your PDA or laptop to your cell phone for GPRS internet access, with Bluetooth you no longer need the wires.
All of this would have been just as true using WiFi, or some other wireless interconnnect.
I have never run into anyone that does not understand this concept that Ethernet is for networking and USB is for peripherals. You will never see a Ethernet mouse or keyboard. WiFi is wireless Ethernet and Bluetooth is wireless USB. It’s very clear to most.
I would contend that it is very clear to most because that is the way it is presented to them. The average user would nod just as sagely if they were informed that ethernet is for making the computer go "bing!", and Bluetooth is for shining their harddrives. They want results; so long as it allows them to do what they want to do, they don't care what it's called. Only dweebs like us do.

I've often wondered if compartmentalized thinking like this wasn't one of the real reasons for not wanting to use ethernet as a more general interconnect. "Ethernet? You mean, like, for networks? But this is just a mouse..." So what? It's still one electronic device connecting to another.
Maybe wireless USB is the answer.
That sounds like a great solution. The problem is it took Bluetooth over four years to get were it is today.
Er...I was being laconic, actually. Arguable technical advantages aside, wireless USB will just further fragment the marketplace. Four years ago wireless USB might have been a contender. Now its just an attempt to leverage the USB name to create yet another wireless "standard" we don't really need. IMHO, two is already one too many.

-- Mark

[disconnected]

Now that I'm planning to buy something with both SD and CF (iPAQ or Toshiba), I'm thinking I'd like to get a CF GPS with a bluetooth slipper for use in the car. My current bluetooth GPS receiver is great in the car, but CF might be handy while I'm being a pedestrian.