Pathetic!

[Janak Parekh]

Last night, I had to set up a Palm T|X for my mom. (She was a happy Pocket PC user, but the hospital she's working at has deployed some Palm-based solution to manage patients, so she doesn't have much of a choice, and would prefer to carry one PDA instead of two.) While I was setting up the Palm, I rapidly saw all the pathetic aspects of PalmOS I forgot having to deal with: 15 categories, proprietary file system, no omnipresent Start menu (or multitasking), primitive SIP, and so on.<br /><br />However, the Palm blows the Pocket PC away in one <b>very</b> simple scenario: when I finished, my mom pointed out she didn't have an extra sync cable, and would prefer not to carry the cable back and forth. There were two solutions: either buy a new cable, or set up wireless sync. I told her the latter should work, and proceeded to set up WiFi sync, on the latest Palm, in about 30 seconds. It <i>just worked</i>, and was just as fast as the USB sync. I couldn't help but think that the i-mate JasJar or the Palm 700w I own, two of the most advanced handheld computers on the market, can't accomplish this simple task. Meanwhile, a rapidly-outdating device with a <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=411266">rapidly-outdating and possibly-dead operating system</a> has consistently supported network sync for the last 10 or so years <i>and still does</i> perfectly, whereas Microsoft developed a halfhearted implementation that was a pain to set up <i>and then proceeded to ditch it</i>. Sorry, I know we've been down this road before many times, but I can't help but rant after having seen how an utterly primitive handheld trumps the Pocket PC in this simple and useful scenario. Pathetic!

[Silver5]

I never really tried the Wifi sync that so many people lament the loss of with WM5. I have always synchronized my PPCs using bluetooth. In fact, after the initial ActiveSync with the computer during setup, I usually put the USB cable either in the car or back in the box the device came in. I leave it in the car as a car charger or in the box because I won't be using it with the computer or anywhere else.

[volwrath]

Another thing is the alarms always work :D

[SHC]

Well I can't get bluetooth to sync either thats assuming when I turn it on it doesn't want to soft reset first!

[ScottC]

With so many websites complaining about this one would hope/dream that Microsoft listens to us... Just because they thought some corporate users didn't want this feature should not mean we all get stuck without it.

They really need to bring this back, I miss it, and it is clear many others miss it too.

[Paragon]

Sorry, I know we've been down this road before many times, but I can't help but rant after having seen how an utterly primitive handheld trumps the Pocket PC in this simple and useful scenario. Pathetic!

One word....AGREED!

[Janak Parekh]

I never really tried the Wifi sync that so many people lament the loss of with WM5. I have always synchronized my PPCs using bluetooth.
I use Bluetooth with the 700w as well. However, it's not nearly as nice as the WiFi syncing experience. It's significantly slower and less reliable; I usually have to start Bluetooth syncing twice before it works. It's also less useful for PCs that don't have Bluetooth built-in (e.g., many desktops).

--janak

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Well... I'll make an even broader statement... while I've certainly never looked back since switching from my old Palm V to the Casio EM500 four years ago, I will say that HotSync NEVER gave me ANY issues at all. It was completely seamless, very easy, and it just worked. So it wouldn't surprise me at all that the wireless syncing is the same.

[Silver5]

[quote=Silver5]It's also less useful for PCs that don't have Bluetooth built-in (e.g., many desktops).

--janak

Good point...I sometimes forget that most people are using desktops. Everyone I know has a laptop and almost all of them have built-in bluetooth.

[Janak Parekh]

Good point...I sometimes forget that most people are using desktops. Everyone I know has a laptop and almost all of them have built-in bluetooth.
Laptops are quite prevalent today; I have a Powerbook with integrated Bluetooth. In fact, my mom uses a laptop, but hers is a bit older and lacks that integrated Bluetooth functionality.

--janak

[ADBrown]

Look at it this way--the TX does natively supports WiFi sync, but it's only the second Palm device in *three years* to have native WiFi.

Feel better?

[daS]

While I agree that Microsoft should work to bring back Wi-Fi sync. We should recall that the reason it was eliminated was security. I wonder how secure the PalmOS Wi-Fi connection is for the network?

Having said that. My suggestion has been that Microsoft should allow Network connections to be a security option that can be set by the network manager. As I understand it, the security issue doesn't really apply to home networks and enterprise managers could control allowing this feature or not on their networks. It could even be disabled by default.

In any case, I hope that Microsoft brings back this feature.

[griph]

[quote=Silver5]It's also less useful for PCs that don't have Bluetooth built-in (e.g., many desktops).
Make that MOST Desktops!

[sdeetz]

Just to be clear...

If you have a 700w with a data plan, you shouldn't need wifi to sync. You can sync using the EV-DO connection. This is what I use and it works fine.

Also, wifi sync IS supported for Exchange Server syncing but not directly with a PC. So if you use your phone for work and they have Exchange Server, you can sync with just a wifi connection. However, most companies only sync email, calendars, and contacts with Exchange Server accounts, so you wouldn't be able to sync favorites, notes, or other records unless your company turns these options on.

Syncing directly to a PC via wifi was turned off for security concerns, but there are plenty of ways around it.

Intellisync is reportedly working on a update that will enable wifi syncing as well, but reports are unclear if it will be sold to individual consumers or just via wholesale channels. (20 or more licenses at a time)

Lastly, if all else fails you can add a simple usb bluetooth adapter to any PC for around $20. So if your PC doesn't come with bluetooth, you can add it cheaply and sync that way.

If you do a google search on this topic, you can find many other people that are using WM5 wireless sync via EVDO or Exchange Server as well. Here is one example: http://www.modaco.com/XDA_Exec_WM5_Activesync_over_WiFi_does_workl-t234587.html

Good Luck!

[unxmully]

While I agree that Microsoft should work to bring back Wi-Fi sync. We should recall that the reason it was eliminated was security. I wonder how secure the PalmOS Wi-Fi connection is for the network?



Can we? I don't recall seeing any references to wireless security. Do you have a reference?

And on that subject, isn't a bluetooth link as hackable as a wirelesss one? The company I'm working for at the moment has disabled bluetooth on all devices on security grounds but is more than happy to allow wireless connections

Having said that. My suggestion has been that Microsoft should allow Network connections to be a security option that can be set by the network manager. As I understand it, the security issue doesn't really apply to home networks and enterprise managers could control allowing this feature or not on their networks. It could even be disabled by default.

In any case, I hope that Microsoft brings back this feature.

Agreed on all of that. The places where customers would want to turn it off seem to me to be the enterprise organisations that want to secure everything. And they would turn it off using policies.

Home users would neither know nor care and won't have security concerns of the same type....

[Ed Hansberry]

Just to be clear...

If you have a 700w with a data plan, you shouldn't need wifi to sync. You can sync using the EV-DO connection. This is what I use and it works fine.
not with AS 4.x. that doesn't allow any tcp/ip syncing.

[Nurhisham Hussein]

Can we? I don't recall seeing any references to wireless security. Do you have a reference?


Here (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=39975) and here (http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/archive/2005/05/22/420884.aspx).

[flooty3333]

Last night, I had to set up a Palm T|X for my mom. (She was a happy Pocket PC user, but the hospital she's working at has deployed some Palm-based solution to manage patients, so she doesn't have much of a choice, and would prefer to carry one PDA instead of two.)


Janak,
Just an FYI... there is a program out there (Styletap) that is a Palm emulator for PPC.
So, your mom can keep her beloved PPC and still use the palm software that her hospital is providing.
Just a thought...

[biglouis]

I too had to change to a Palm T|X recently forgoing my i-mate JAM. First thing I noticed straight off was how much easier and quicker syncing with Outlook is. What is even better is the WiFi implementation. Works like a charm.

I'll tell you what is even more frightening. I also purchased a Nokia 6233 last week and I've been using Nokia Data Suite to sync with Outlook.

I'm staggered to say that Nokia Data Suite makes both Activesync and Hotsync look slow and klunky. I'm only syncing using Bluetooth with the Nokia, BTW.

LouisB

[daS]

... isn't a bluetooth link as hackable as a wirelesss one?

I'm not sure about the specifics, but as I understand it, the issue with using a network connection for ActiveSync has to do with ports that are opened in the network to make it happen rather than packet sniffing. It's the host side of ActiveSync that's the problem not the Windows Mobile side. Note that all network access to ActiveSync has been removed - not just Wi-Fi. It's not talked about that way because wired Ethernet adaptors for Pocket PCs are quite rare.

When using Bluetooth with ActiveSync it uses the serial port profile that is a point-to-point connection. Therefore from the host's security perspective it's like having a serial cable to a single device. Assuming that a reasonably strong key is used when pairing your Windows Mobile device with the host, the security of Bluetooth is certainly better than Wi-Fi with WEP.

The company I'm working for at the moment has disabled bluetooth on all devices on security grounds but is more than happy to allow wireless connections

I'm curious to know why. It's true that you always want to disable "discovery" on Bluetooth devices to avoid simple hacks, but as I noted above, if a strong key is used in the initial pairing, Bluetooth provides a reasonably secure way to transfer data between two paired devices.

[MRNUTTY]

Just because they thought some corporate users didn't want this feature should not mean we all get stuck without it.

it's not always a matter of 'want', it's 'need'. our network is so locked up tight i can't even use wifi with my pocketpc. the IT department implemented a hand rolled version of a cisco vpn client that only has a windows version. i can't use wifi, vpn, or exchange server sync at work. i'm forced to use a blackberry (blah) or email/outlook redirector like SEVEN. i'm suprised bluetooth isn't outlawed here (yet).

[unxmully]

Can we? I don't recall seeing any references to wireless security. Do you have a reference?


Here (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=39975) and here (http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/archive/2005/05/22/420884.aspx).

Ta. There are lots of references to "security" concerns, but there's nothing specific mentioned though I only went through four pages of the pocketpcthoughts thread...

[unxmully]

... isn't a bluetooth link as hackable as a wirelesss one?

I'm not sure about the specifics, but as I understand it, the issue with using a network connection for ActiveSync has to do with ports that are opened in the network to make it happen rather than packet sniffing. It's the host side of ActiveSync that's the problem not the Windows Mobile side. Note that all network access to ActiveSync has been removed - not just Wi-Fi. It's not talked about that way because wired Ethernet adaptors for Pocket PCs are quite rare.

Though I do have one myself, a CF card wired lan adaptor. Don't tend to use it that much as I use wireless connections at home and putting "other" devices onto a corporate LAN tends to be a sacking offence in most places.

When using Bluetooth with ActiveSync it uses the serial port profile that is a point-to-point connection. Therefore from the host's security perspective it's like having a serial cable to a single device. Assuming that a reasonably strong key is used when pairing your Windows Mobile device with the host, the security of Bluetooth is certainly better than Wi-Fi with WEP.

The security concerns make a bit more sense now. Ta.

The company I'm working for at the moment has disabled bluetooth on all devices on security grounds but is more than happy to allow wireless connections

I'm curious to know why. It's true that you always want to disable "discovery" on Bluetooth devices to avoid simple hacks, but as I noted above, if a strong key is used in the initial pairing, Bluetooth provides a reasonably secure way to transfer data between two paired devices.

To be honest I have no idea. The company is VERY risk averse but not so risk averse that it doesn't allow foreign laptops onto a segregated wireless lan.

p.s. Bloody hell! Getting those quotes in the right place is seriously non-trivial.

[Janak Parekh]

Look at it this way--the TX does natively supports WiFi sync, but it's only the second Palm device in *three years* to have native WiFi.

Feel better?
A little, but not much. :lol: Pocket PC's supposed to be so much better. ;)

While I agree that Microsoft should work to bring back Wi-Fi sync. We should recall that the reason it was eliminated was security. I wonder how secure the PalmOS Wi-Fi connection is for the network?
That's a good question, and I don't have an answer to that. However, I agree this should be a policy-settable decision. In my home network, the security implications of having the ports open aren't an issue. Each machine also has the XP host firewall, so if I'm concerned with open services, I can establish policies on an IP basis.

If you have a 700w with a data plan, you shouldn't need wifi to sync. You can sync using the EV-DO connection. This is what I use and it works fine.
not with AS 4.x. that doesn't allow any tcp/ip syncing.
I believe sdeetz is referring to Verizon's Wireless Sync (http://www.wirelesssync.vzw.com/), which replicates data via a desktop redirector to Verizon's servers; the Pocket PC can then sync with it thanks to software designed by IntelliSync. sdeetz, while this is true, it a) assumes a Verizon Phone Edition device; b) assumes you're going to pay for the data plan; c) assumes you trust Verizon servers with all of your PIM data; d) you don't need non-PIM sync services (including app install). In this case, not even a) is true.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

Just an FYI... there is a program out there (Styletap) that is a Palm emulator for PPC.
Oh, I know. I heard about it well before it came out. The problem with this is the hospital is unlikely to deploy or support Pocket PCs running a Palm emulator, and I really don't want her to be using unauthorized devices and methods for something that's part of business infrastructure.

I'm staggered to say that Nokia Data Suite makes both Activesync and Hotsync look slow and klunky.
Interesting. In defense of AS, I don't have too many problems with it, and I've heard horror stories about Nokia Data Suite. I wonder if the new version is signifcantly better than the old days.

I'm curious to know why. It's true that you always want to disable "discovery" on Bluetooth devices to avoid simple hacks, but as I noted above, if a strong key is used in the initial pairing, Bluetooth provides a reasonably secure way to transfer data between two paired devices.
If I had to guess: probably a lack of knowledge about enterprise Bluetooth support. Most companies don't know (and are fearful of) Bluetooth, partially thanks to the media. WiFi's been around so long and has become so persuasive that a) people request it to the point where IT feels forced to deploy; b) enterprise solutions and strategies for WiFi have become pervasive.

--janak

[desertrat_blog]

... proprietary file system ...
As opposed to a proprietary MS file system?

[ADBrown]

... proprietary file system ...
As opposed to a proprietary MS file system?

What are you on about? Windows uses standard file systems.

[Janak Parekh]

... proprietary file system ...
As opposed to a proprietary MS file system?
Okay, let me rephrase: opaque filesystem. Palm's exclusive use of PDB in main memory is quite the pain.

And FAT, despite MS's best attempts, is open. (Right?) Although I don't know if the internal Pocket PC filesystem is FAT. That's an interesting question in-and-of-itself...

--janak

[desertrat_blog]

Okay, let me rephrase: opaque filesystem. Palm's exclusive use of PDB in main memory is quite the pain.

OK, I've never owned a Palm before so tell me what I'm missing - presumably the Palm itself knows how to handle it's filesystem, and that there are mechanisms for transferring files between the Palm and some external sytem, so where is the problem?


And FAT, despite MS's best attempts, is open. (Right?)

No. Even though their patent has been revoked there's no telling what evil scheme MS will think up next. It will be open only if anyone has the explicit right to implement it without having to pay any monetary fees.


Although I don't know if the internal Pocket PC filesystem is FAT. That's an interesting question in-and-of-itself...

It's some variant of FAT (in case you didn't know there are at least FAT12, FAT16, FAT32 variants).

[ADBrown]

OK, I've never owned a Palm before so tell me what I'm missing - presumably the Palm itself knows how to handle it's filesystem, and that there are mechanisms for transferring files between the Palm and some external sytem, so where is the problem?

The problem is that Palm doesn't really have a file system in any traditional sense. It runs on a database system instead, and you can't put anything not a program or a database into internal memory. Native format files like documents have to be kept on an external card. And even then, since Palm OS isn't very friendly to file systems, there's an almost no way to manage or control those files. They improved this a little in recent models by adding a file manager (finally) but it's still a far cry from real files.

[Janak Parekh]

No. Even though their patent has been revoked there's no telling what evil scheme MS will think up next. It will be open only if anyone has the explicit right to implement it without having to pay any monetary fees.
Well, if we focus on the opaqueness of the file system, Pocket PC uses a file system that readily interfaces with desktops and has standard file-oriented API calls. As ADBrown points out, Palm does not.

(Re MS's FAT patents: I think it's highly unlikely that MS will be able to go further with that, given the current state of the patents as reviewed by the USPTO. And it isn't immediately relevant to the argument at hand, anyway. ;))

--janak

[desertrat_blog]

Well, if we focus on the opaqueness of the file system, Pocket PC uses a file system that readily interfaces with desktops and has standard file-oriented API calls. As ADBrown points out, Palm does not.
Again, I assume that

(i) once connected to a desktop the Palm does allow easy(?) exchange of files
(ii) external media (CF/SD) are readily readable by Windows (which would mean they are FAT formatted)

So if both the above are true then your original rant should be directed at the PITA "filesystem" and not its proprietary nature. Also whether it is "opaque" or not is largely a moot point, because as long as you can exchange data in and out of the Palm, who cares? (Richard Stallman would ...)


(Re MS's FAT patents: I think it's highly unlikely that MS will be able to go further with that, given the current state of the patents as reviewed by the USPTO.

But you underestimate the creativity of Brad Smith (head of the MS legal dept?) and his team :) Eg in the EU case against MS, they (MS) are required to provide documentation for the "Windows network filesharing" protocols. Instead of complying they sought to bury the EU by supplying thousands of pages of the relevant (one would hope) source code.


And it isn't immediately relevant to the argument at hand, anyway. ;))

Well patents and proprietary systems usually go hand-in-hand.

[phreaker18]

i completely agree with Janak.... i just hate the opaqueness of the Palm.. just doesnt feel right and interactive.... u always feel as if something is hidden from u