My Thoughts and Opinions

I'm an opinionated sucker, and thought I'd share some of my thoughts and opinions with you. If you have any comments on them, feel free to send them to me using the Contact page.

Here are the articles on this page:

My Case For Windows Mobile 2003 SE
A Rebuttal To HP's Reasons For Not Producing A Windows Mobile 2003 SE Upgrade
A Requiem For iPAQ Sleeves
Why I Don't Want A Hard Disk In My Pocket PC
ActiveSync New Year's Resolutions
Rethinking Small Keyboards
A Suggested Upgrade Policy
One Device or Two?
Compaq/HP iPAQ Innovation

If you enjoy any of these rants, please consider donating to this site. No donation is too small, and anybody who donates will be added to the Hall of Fame. (See the "Top Reasons To Donate" list there, too.) Just click the PayPal button.

If you don't like these small solicitations, donating any amount will remove them for a year (if you have a compatible browser).

My Case for Windows Mobile 2003 SE

October 14, 2004

In discussions of HP's failure to create a Windows Mobile 2003 SE upgrade for existing iPAQs, I've seen several people say that WM 2003 SE isn't much of an improvement over Windows Mobile 2003. When they say that, I do two things.

First, I point out the main improvements for existing users:

Landscape mode support (and the ability to switch without a soft reset)
VGA support (although it's only useful for Toshiba e800 users)
Single-column Pocket Internet Explorer mode (which reduces horizontal scrolling)
Transcriber shortcuts
WPA WiFi encryption

There are other minor items, but I think these are the most important ones.

Landscape mode has been requested by users for years, as has a method to reduce horizontal scrolling in Pocket IE. With WM 2003 SE, Microsoft finally delivered those major, much-requested features.

The second thing I do is challenge the naysayers to name the user-centric improvements that Pocket PC 2002 had compared to Pocket PC 2000 and Windows Mobile 2003 had compared to Pocket PC 2002. Were there as many new features in those OS releases? Were they as important as the ones in WM 2003 SE?

In my opinion, WM 2003 SE is the most compelling Pocket PC operating system upgrade Microsoft has released. I would actually consider paying for it to upgrade my iPAQ 5550. I did not pay to upgrade my iPAQ 3650 to Pocket PC 2002 or to upgrade my iPAQ 3870 to Windows Mobile 2003. I think that says a lot. What do you think?

Post any comments about this in our forums.

A Rebuttal To HP's Reasons For Not Producing A Windows Mobile 2003 SE Upgrade

August 17, 2004

HP posted a thread on their support forums linking to a document detailing reasons why they wouldn't produce a Windows Mobile 2003 SE upgrade for existing iPAQs. In that document, HP listed the main features of the WM 2003 SE upgrade, why they thought most people wouldn't need them and some supposedly technical reasons for not providing the upgrade.

I posted a rebuttal in the forum, but that thread was deleted, so I thought I'd post HP's reasons here along with my refutations of those reasons.

HP:
Square Resolution, VGA Support, QVGA for SmartPhones: While the VGA viewing experience might be more enjoyable for certain users, the support is designed for products that contain VGA screens and/or SmartPhone functionality. The operating system alone does not enable these features. HP provides 3.5" or 3.8" Transflective Display Screens (depends on model) on HP iPAQ h1930, h1940, h2200, h4100, h4300, h5100 and h5500 series products, therefore these products cannot make use of these features.
ME:
While it's certainly true that the VGA support won't work fully on the Windows Mobile 2003 iPAQs, some features may still be useful, such as font scaling. This allows users to easily resize the fonts the way they want, which could be very useful.

Second, the iPAQ rz1715 is running Windows Mobile 2003 SE, but doesn't support VGA (as most of your WM 2003 SE iPAQs don't). So the operating system seems to have benefits even for non-VGA devices.
HP:
Landscape Support: This support provides dynamic switching between screen orientations from portrait to landscape. With the March 2004 announcement of Microsoft Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition, tools became available to the extended application Development Community, so the wide variety of third-party applications could take advantage of the landscape mode. While Microsoft's standard applications will function in landscape mode not all HP value-added software delivered on platforms launched prior to June 2004 would be able to take advantage of this feature.
ME:
What "value-added software" are you referring to? If it's things like iPAQ Backup, iPAQ Wireless, etc., haven't you fixed those to work with the new iPAQs that ship with SE installed? If so, why can't those be included in the ROM image of an SE upgrade for existing devices?
HP:
Many software developers are focusing their efforts on the next release of their applications, as opposed to devising a retro-fit for existing versions. If HP added Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition to its pre-June 2004 launched products some applications would not function in landscape mode properly, and therefore providing no customer value.
ME:
First, most software developers are incorporating SE support into existing products, while still ensuring their products work on Windows Mobile 2003 (and Pocket PC 2002 and 2000 devices, in many cases). Those aren't "retro-fits", they're upgrades, and those applications, often available for free or at reduced cost to existing users, will work in WM 2003 SE, providing much value.

In fact, HP has it easier here. Your value-added applications (which, as I mentioned above, are already likely working correctly in SE) don't need to worry about running on any other operating system other than WM 2003 SE because they'll ship as part of the OS upgrade.

Second, if some third-party applications don't work in landscape mode, and aren't upgraded, so what? WM 2003 SE's ability to switch between landscape and portrait without a soft reset would make it easy to work with those applications in portrait mode and switch back to landscape mode for programs that work well there.

Even if some applications crash in landscape mode, that's not a sufficient reason to deny us an upgrade to SE. Not all Pocket PC 2000 programs worked in Pocket PC 2002, yet Compaq made an upgrade available. Not all Pocket PC 2002 programs worked in Windows Mobile 2003, yet HP made an upgrade available. Why is this suddenly being used as excuse to prevent us from upgrading to SE?
HP:
Why is ROM size a factor in deciding whether Microsoft Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition can be supported on the h1900, h2200, h4000, and h5000 series?

ROM size determines the maximum amount of software and value-added features that can be inherent to the handheld device. For the majority of models in question, HP delivers Windows Pocket PC 2003 Premium, substantial value-added software and 3rd party applications. When evaluating Microsoft Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition, it was determine that HP would have to de-feature its ROM deliverable and exclude a large portion of the value-added and 3rd party applications in order to fit into the existing device ROM capacity. The Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition is a larger operating system than that of Windows Pocket PC 2003 Premium Edition. The benefit of maintaining the value-added features outweighs the limited functionality that could be deployed on each of these units, especially when giving consideration to the fact that specific hardware changes were also required.
ME:
Granted, ROM size could be a limiting factor on some iPAQs, but this explanation falls short on several points.

First, how much larger is SE than Windows Mobile 2003? I'm guessing it's not that much larger, as you have managed to fit it in the 32 MB ROM of the iPAQ rz1715.

Second, my iPAQ 5550 has 48 MB ROM with 17.4 MB available to the user as the iPAQ File Store. If SE is larger, I would be willing to sacrifice some of the File Store for the new features. I'm only using 5.58 MB of it, and wouldn't miss a few megabytes.

Finally, for devices where the ROM could be filled up (like the iPAQ 2210 perhaps), there is the alternative of offering Pro and Premium upgrades, as was done for Pocket PC 2002 and Windows Mobile 2003.

The Premium version includes all software in the ROM image, while the Pro version omits some (Terminal Services, Reader, etc.) and includes them on a CD to install in RAM if the user chooses.

I asked HP to enlighten me if my arguments were somehow incorrect, but got no response.

Finally, while HP's list of features (along with WPA) may be the main improvements in Windows Mobile 2003 SE, they have neglected the Pocket Internet Explorer improvements. The single-column mode will be a boon to people reading Web pages, especially in portrait mode.

All told, I find upgrading to this version of Windows Mobile to be more compelling than the upgrade from Pocket PC 2002 to Windows Mobile 2003.

As a purchaser of three generations of iPAQs, I strongly urge HP to reconsider offering a Windows Mobile 2003 SE upgrade.

You can read an archived copy of the entire HP thread if you want. To see the original FAQ Word file, click the paperclip icon at the top right of the first post.

Post any comments about this in our forums.

A Requiem For iPAQ Sleeves

June 14, 2004

There have been a few articles (including this one at pocketnow.com) written recently about HP finally killing off iPAQ expansion packs (also known as sleeves or jackets). I think this is a sad day for iPAQ fans, but I think HP will also lose business for the following reasons.

iPAQ Inertia

"iPAQ inertia" is a term I coined that describes how people with current sleeve-compatible iPAQs and an investment in sleeves are more likely to upgrade to another sleeve-compatible iPAQ than to switch to another Pocket PC, especially one from another manufacturer. Once HP stops producing sleeve-compatible iPAQs, those people will either delay purchasing a new Pocket PC or start considering other Pocket PC models.

My first iPAQ was the 3650, I upgraded to the 3870 and, most recently, to the 5550. One of the reasons I chose the latter iPAQs was because I had sleeves that I used. If HP doesn't introduce any new iPAQs that work with sleeves, I will certainly consider Pocket PCs from Dell (the new X30 looks hot), Toshiba (the e805 is very good), ASUS (which has a few interesting models coming out) and other vendors. By voiding my investment in sleeves, HP is risking losing me — and other people — as customers.

You may not think there are a lot of people who want the bulk of sleeves, but I bet there are more than most people think. These are people who like the flexibility and expansion capabilities that sleves provide more than they like having the smallest possible Pocket PC. With an iPAQ, a dual-slot sleeve and a lot of money, you can have over 25 GB of memory available — two 12 GB Compact Flash cards and a 1 GB SD card. With 4 GB MultiMedia Cards on the horizon, that would give over 28 GB of storage.

Specialized Uses

Companies that need iPAQ sleeves for specialized tasks will be out of luck. They'll either have to buy up a lot of sleeve-compatible iPAQs now, hope they can find them later or switch to some other technology. If they switch technologies to something else, HP may lose sales.

Another specialized use is PC Card support. As far as I know, a sleeve-compatiable iPAQ is the only Pocket PC currently being made that can support PC Cards. Yes, other Pocket PCs in the past had PC Card support — the URThere @migo even included a PC Card slot. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is current support for any of them.

While PC Card usage in PDAs isn't what it used to be thanks to Compact Flash and SDIO peripherals, there are still uses for PC Cards. For example, one use could be 802.11g WiFi. I'm not aware of any 802.11g Compact Flash cards, but there are plenty in PC Card format (although I don't know if any of those provide Windows CE drivers).

Third-Party Vendors

Companies that make iPAQ sleeves will see their market dry up. A company like Nexian could be badly hurt. A look at their product page shows two Handspring Visor GPS Springboard modules, two iPAQ sleeves and an OEM GPS board. The Visor is no longer made, so I can't imagine there's a big market for Springboard modules. If the same thing happens to iPAQ sleeves, that only leaves them with one current product.

While this move won't hurt HP directly, it will damage their relationships with vendors.

I was asked recently if I liked iPAQ sleeves, and I had to admit that I don't really. What I like is the possibility for expansion that they provide.

In fact, I have only bought three sleeves:

A Compaq Dual PC Card sleeve: I used this with my iPAQ 3870 for my 512 MB CF card and my PC Card WiFi card. The battery in it seemed to be going dead, so I gave it to my wife when I gave her the 3870.
A Navman 3420 GPS sleeve: I used this with Pocket CoPilot for navigation. Unfortunately, it seems to have died (I would lose GPS connections and now I seem to get memory corruption in my GPS data if I use it). It has been replaced by the Haicom 303MMF Compact Flash card and Bluetooth slipper.
A Nexian NexiPak dual Compact Flash sleeve: I bought this to replace my Dual PC Card sleeve. I use it with my 512 MB CF card now and either my iBiz PocketRadio, the Haicom GPS card or a Prolink presentation card.

So I only use one sleeve, but it is an important one.

Nowadays, I'd rather have two Compact Flash slots, an SDIO slot and USB host capability built into my Pocket PC — assuming it would be smaller than my iPAQ 5550 in the NexiPak. If the largest SD memory cards ever get competitive in price with Compact Flash cards of the same capacity, I'd accept one Compact Flash slot and two SDIO slots.

Unfortunately, no Pocket PC has three slots; the only way you can get three slots is with an iPAQ and a dual-slot sleeve. Given that, I wish that HP would keep making sleeve-compatible iPAQs so I could continue to use my NexiPak. As that doesn't seem likely to happen, I thought I'd write this to say one last farewell to our trusted friends, the iPAQ sleeves.

Post any comments about this in our forums.

Why I Don't Want A Hard Disk In My Pocket PC

April 30, 2004
(Updated September 7, 2004)

There have been some articles and forum posts written recently about putting hard disks in PDAs. While the concept of gigabytes of storage is certainly appealing, I for one don't really want a hard disk embedded in my Pocket PC.

"But why not?" I hear you ask. Actually, there are several reasons.

Reliability — Pocket PCs tend to be carried around a lot, and, worse, bumped. Hard disks have moving parts and close tolerances, especially microdrives. The two don't really mix well.

Yes, I realize that the drives are designed to be carried and bumped, but, if one does go bad, having it embedded in my Pocket PC means a trip to the service center. A drive on a card can just be swapped out and replaced.
Battery life — Battery life is a major concern in PDAs, and hard disks require quite a bit of power. I don't need a disk sucking my battery dry unless I ask for it.

Yes, I suppose there could be power management software that spins the disk down after a certain period of inactivity, but then my Pocket PC will be slower when trying to access data. Also, the longer that period of inactivity before the disk spins down, the more it's unnecessarily draining my battery.

These tradeoffs aren't anything new, of course. We have them with display brightness and timing and wireless access. All Pocket PCs have IR, which many people turn off to extended battery life; Bluetooth, WiFi and cellular in many Pocket PCs just exacerbate things. I just don't think we need one more.
Portability — An embedded hard drive probably won't be removable. This means that you won't be able to move it from one device to another like you can with a memory card or current microdrives. This limits your flexibility.

Also, if you decide that you want a new Pocket PC, your hard disk goes with the old one. Unless all Pocket PCs come with hard disks, you might end up having to buy a memory card anyway.
Speed — If the drive isn't removable, you'll have to back it up using ActiveSync. Can you imagine trying to back up 4 GB (the size of newer Microdrives) over ActiveSync? What a nightmare that would be. I'd rather have a removable drive that I can plug into my USB 2.0 card reader and back up. It would be faster and more flexible.

That's not to say that I wouldn't use a hard disk in my Pocket PC (although I haven't yet). I would rather have more slots on my Pocket PC, which I could choose to put a hard disk in — or anything else I want. One of the reasons I actually like iPAQ sleeves is because they give me great flexibility — more than any other Pocket PC has or had. I'd rather have expandability and choice than an embedded hard disk. How about you?

Post any comments about this in our forums.

ActiveSync New Year's Resolutions

January 8, 2004
(Updated January 15, 2004)
(Updated May 14, 2004)

Hi, I'm Microsoft ActiveSync. This page hasn't had much new content for a while, so I thought I'd post my list of New Year's Resolutions. I know some of you nitpickers out there have complained about me, so here's what I'll do better in 2004 (or my next release, whichever comes first).

More Partners

I resolve to let you set up more than two partnerships. If you have a desktop, a laptop and a work computer, I don't help you much. Sure, there's third-party software like ManyPartners, but this is something I should fix.

More Flexible Synchronization Setup

I resolve to be more flexible about how I let you set up synchronization when creating a new partnership. Currently, I give you three options to synchronize:

Replace items on the device with items from the PC.
Combine items on the device with items on the PC.
Don't synchronize at all.

That's OK, but some of you actually treat your PDA as your main repository. You would like to replace items on the PC with items on the device, but I don't let you. I will this year.

More Flexible Partnership Setup

I resolve to make it easier to recover after a hard reset. Some of you may hard reset your Pocket PC every now and then to clean things up, and rumor has it that some bugs also cause a hard reset. When you go to reestablish a partnership, you might want to keep the same name for your Pocket PC that you used previously. However, I try to prevent that, because I don't want somebody else to name their Pocket PC the same as yours and mess things up for you. (This isn't very effective, of course, because that person could just choose another name, synchronize, delete the synchronized data on their Pocket PC and your Pocket PC would have its data deleted on the next sync.)

You can keep the same partnership name if you rename some folders in Windows and delete some registry entries, but that's a bit much, isn't it?

Instead of preventing this completely, if the device name already exists, I'll ask if you hard reset your device. If you say yes, I'll ask you to enter the password you used on the device the last time you synchronized. (I'll save the password — encrypted, of course — each time you sync.) If the password matches, I'll use the partnership data I had for that device to synchronize things without a hassle.

More Flexible File Synchronization

I resolve to be more flexible about how I let you synchronize files. When creating a synchronized file folder currently, I create a new directory in your My Documents folder based on your device's name. This is OK for most people, but I've heard some of you have more than one Pocket PC. Good for you! Unfortunately, I don't allow you to share the synchronized files with both of those devices. You have to manually keep the multiple synchronized files folders in sync, something I could easily do.

Yes, you could use third-party software like MightySync, but you shouldn't have to.

When setting up the synchronized files folder, the default will be the same as it is now, but I'll allow you to change it so you can point to any other directory on your PC — including another Pocket PC's synchronized files folder.

More Flexible Program Installation

I resolve to be more flexible about how I let you install programs. When installing software currently, I do ask if you want to install in the default location (usually a subfolder in the Program Files folder). If you choose not to install in the default location, I offer the following locations:

Main Memory (the same as the default location)
Any storage cards you may have in the Pocket PC
Any user-accessible Flash ROM area your Pocket PC may have

That's OK, but the programs usually get installed in a subfolder of the root directory of those last two locations. The default should be to create a Program Files directory there and install to a subdirectory there. However, the user should be able to override that, and put the program anywhere he wants. For example, some game programs don't install in Program Files\Games, so the user should be able to fix that.

I used to allow that back in the days of Handheld PCs, so I know it's possible. Unfortunately, I lost that ability in a bad programming accident. I'll fix that this year.

Remote Backup Initiation

I resolve to allow you to back up your Pocket PC from your Pocket PC. Currently, the only way I allow a backup to be done over a wireless connection is if the Automatically back up each time the device connects box is checked in the ActiveSync Backup/Restore dialog and the Pocket PC ActiveSync client has the option selected to maintain a connection after a remote synchronization completes. Worse, the latter option is in different places in the Pocket PC 2002 and Windows Mobile 2003 versions of ActiveSync.

An ActiveSync component was added to Pocket PC 2002 to allow ActiveSync to be initiated remotely, so why not allow Backup to initiated there, too? Good question, and I'll address that this year.

Improved Backup Indication

As long as Backup is being discussed, I resolve to display a message on your Pocket PC when a backup is in progress. Currently, I display a message on your PC telling you not to use your Pocket PC until the backup is complete. That's because the backup can take a long time, and I don't want you to get things out of sync. Unfortunately, I only tell you this on your PC, not on the Pocket PC where it makes more sense.

Because backups can take so long, it's not unlikely that some of you will do other tasks on your PC, hiding my backup progress dialog. Since you all don't have memories like I do, you might forget that a backup is in progress and try to use your Pocket PC.

If I displayed a message on the Pocket PC indicating that a backup was in progress, you'd be less likely to forget. I could even do that by popping up the ActiveSync client with the message displayed. That fits in well with the previous point, too. To be even nicer, I'll include a progress indicator showing how the backup is progressing. I'll do that this year.

Improved PIM Synchronization Error Information

I resolve to give better error messages when an error occurs while synchronizing the Personal Information Manager (PIM) data. Currently, I often give you obscure error codes that seem to make solving the problem difficult for some people. To avoid this, I'll give more detailed error messages and, if the message applies to a specific entry, I'll show you the following:

For Calendar items, the starting date and time and the appointment text.
For Task items, the task text and any start or due dates.
For Contact items, the contact name (or company name if there's no personal name).

This should make finding the problem much easier for you.

Improved File Synchronization Error Information

I resolve to tell you exactly which files didn't synchronize if an error occurs. Currently, I tell you how many files I couldn't synchronize, but not which ones. Some people with many files find this less than helpful.

This year, I'll display a list of all the files that couldn't synchronize to allow you to more easily fix the problem.

Support Simultaneous Synchronizing

I resolve to allow you to connect and synchronize multiple devices simultaneously. Currently, I can only connect to one device at a time. This makes life difficult for those of you with more than one device (like a Pocket PC and a Smartphone). This is especially important now that you can syncrhonize wirelessly — you don't have to have multiple cradles and cables for each device if you use WiFi or Bluetooth.

This is one that might not be done this year, though. I may have to wait until Longhorn (the next Windows operating system) is released. By then, I might even be integrated into the system (and have my name changed, too). Here's a picture of how I might look.

If I do anything this year, I suppose that I could add a row of tabs under the tool bar. There would be one tab for each partnered or connected Pocket PC, and switching tabs would show you the synchronization status of that device. It would also allow the menus to control that device so you could explore it, back it up, add or remove software and so on.

I hope these items will make most of you happy with me. Happy New Year!

DISCLAIMER: This isn't really ActiveSync talking. (DUH!) Other than the Longhorn screenshot, I have no knowledge of what Microsoft may be planning for ActiveSync. This is just a list of what I'd like to see done better, phrased in a topical (and hopefully humorous) manner.

Post any comments about this in our forums.

Rethinking Small Keyboards

July 23, 2003

Pocket PCs are obviously too small to have a full-sized keyboard. Because of their size, we're usually forced to use a virtual keyboard or some form of handwriting recognition. Some PDAs, like the Sharp Zaurus or Palm Tungsten W, have integrated thumb boards. Almost no Pocket PCs have integrated thumb boards, but there are many add-on ones available (at least for the iPAQ).

The problem with every thumb board I've seen, and even the new Stowaway XT, is that they omit the row of keys containing the numbers. You obviously can't have a keyboard without numbers, so the numbers are placed on the same keys used for the letters and users have to use a shift key to access them. This means that users used to a QWERTY keyboard will have to relearn how to enter these characters. Even when the user gets used to the new placement of the numbers, they'll still be slower thanks to having to use a shift key.

Worse, these keyboards don't have many of the symbols contained on their full-size cousins. For example, my iPAQ Micro Keyboard does not contain the following 15 symbols:

~ (tilde)
` (accent grave)
# (octothorpe)
^ (caret)
& (ampersand)
_ (underscore)
[ ] (left and right brackets)
{ } (left and right braces)
| (vertical bar)
\ (backslash)
; (semicolon)
< (less than)
> (greater than)

While many of those symbols aren't commonly used, the semicolon and ampersand are used frequently in everyday writing. If you do any programming, Web development or math, you may use several of those other symbols, too. If you have to switch from the keyboard to use the stylus to access these symbols, that makes it even harder to be productive.

So what can be done about this? I think there's a simple answer -- add another row of keys for the numbers and their associated symbols. This has two major benefits. First, the user won't have to relearn where the numbers are nor will they have to relearn where the symbols on those keys are. Second, with those 20 characters moved back to their usual positions, the symbols that weren't included on the keyboard can be placed on the letter keys and accessed with a shift key.

So why hasn't any keyboard manufacturer done this? It's likely a matter of cost. Key switches cost money, additional wiring would be needed and the case would be bigger, requiring more material. Also, the larger case would make the keyboard somewhat less portable.

Those strike me as minor rationalizations, though. I know that I'd be willing to pay a couple of dollars more and have a slightly larger keyboard if it made my typing easier. What about you?

Post any comments about this in our forums.

A Suggested Upgrade Policy

July 3, 2003

After Windows Mobile 2003 (AKA Pocket PC 2003) was released, it was discovered that some manufacturers would not be releasing an upgrade for some fairly recent Pocket PCs. Specifically, HP would not be supporting the 1910 and Toshiba would not be supporting the e740 and e330. This led to petition drives against both companies.

That got me thinking about what the upgrade policy should be. Clearly, users would like their devices to be supported forever. We don't want to be forced to buy a new device just to get a new operating system.

Just as clearly, Pocket PC manufacturers (OEMs) would love us all to buy their new devices. That makes them more money and eases their support burden for older devices.

Of course, technology moves on, and users can't expect to upgrade an ancient device forever. Windows XP won't run on your old PC XT, for example.

OEMs also realize that not everybody can afford to upgrade every time they release a new Pocket PC. They also want to provide good service to build customer loyalty. Good service includes technical support, bug fixes and upgrades to newer technology.

Microsoft could probably dictate an upgrade policy, but, unlike Windows, they don't have a monopoly in the PDA space. This means they have to be more flexible with their OEMs.

So what is a reasonable upgrade policy? I think that providing support for all Microsoft End User Updates (EUUs) and one OS upgrade is a fair policy. This will guarantee that users get all bug fixes and aren't abandoned when a new OS comes out. It also guarantees that OEMs won't have to support ancient legacy devices forever, while still keeping most of their customers happy.

If HP and Toshiba had followed my suggestion, there wouldn't be any petitions out there. Wouldn't that be the best for both sides?

Post any comments about this in our forums.

One Device or Two?

April 30, 2003
(Updated April 25, 2004)

One constant theme on various Pocket PC sites is whether you want one device which is both a PDA and a phone, or whether you want two separate devices, each optimized to what it does best. I'm not going to go over the merits of the two sides, as most of them seem obvious; I'm just going to tell you what I want.

I want both:

A connected PDA -- I would only use this for Internet access, with its larger screen, more friendly input and (typically) faster processor. If my phone gave out, I'd also have the option of using this as an emergency phone, but I wouldn't want to.
A smart phone -- I would use this primarily for phone calls, with its small size and ergonomics designed for calling. The PDA functions would allow easier dialing of my contacts. And, of course, it could serve as an emergency PDA if my main one died.

I already carry a non-connected Pocket PC and a not-so-smart LG VX6000 camera phone, so this wouldn't give me anything more to carry than I already do. I would expect the basic PIM data on both devices to be synchronized with my main PC and, ideally, between each other (preferably via Bluetooth).

Another advantage to having both is that I could easily carry on a phone conversation and access the Internet at the same time. For example, if somebody called me, I'd answer on the Smartphone. If it was somebody who was supposed to meet me, but had gotten lost, I could use my connected PDA to go to MapQuest and give them directions. That's something I'm not even sure is possible using only a Pocket PC Phone or Smartphone.

Don't you think that would be the best of both worlds?

Post any comments about this in our forums.

iPAQ Innovation

April 21, 2003
(Updated October 25, 2003)
(Updated April 30, 2004)
(Updated August 14, 2004)

Why do people knock Compaq (and now Hewlett-Packard) for not innovating in the iPAQ? When iPAQ nay-sayers claim there has been no innovation, I like to point out all of the iPAQ's firsts. Here's my list:

Model	Firsts
iPAQ 3600s	Strong ARM 206 MHz processor (a first in the industry) Side-lit screen that's easily visible outdoors (a first in the industry) Flash ROM for upgradability (a first in the industry) Expansion sleeves (a first in the industry)
iPAQ 3670	64 MB RAM (a first in the industry)
iPAQ 3800s	64K side-lit color screen that's easily visible outdoors (a first in the industry) SD support (a first, I think, although the Casio EM-500 had MMC)
iPAQ 3870	Bluetooth (a first in the industry)
iPAQ 3900s	Transflective screen (a first in Pocket PCs) Consumer-level IR (a first in Pocket PCs)
iPAQ 3970	48 MB ROM (a first in the industry)
iPAQ 5450	Built-in fingerprint scanner
iPAQ 5550	128 MB RAM (a first in the industry)
iPAQ 4350	Built-in thumb board (a first in general Pocket PCs — although some ruggedized versions and the Hitachi G1000 Pocket PC Phone did have them)
iPAQ 6315	Integrated PAN, WLAN and WAN (Bluetooth, WiFi and GSM, a first in the consumer industry -- although some industrial machines, made for UPS, I believe, might have had all three)
iPAQ 4705	Touch pad (a first in the industry)

Without the innovations of Compaq, I don't think the Pocket PC market would be where it is today. The fact that Microsoft standardized on the StrongARM processor and required Pocket PCs to have Flash ROM in Pocket PC 2002 is a testament to that.

This isn't to say that other Pocket PC manufacturers haven't innovated — many have. I just don't like hearing about the lack of innovation in iPAQs, especially when it's not true. Innovation, regardless of who it's from, benefits us all, and we should give credit where it's due.

Post any comments about this in our forums.

Home	Thoughts & Opinions	Reviews	Downloads
Links	Entertainment	News	Search
Donate	Preferences	About

Home	Thoughts & Opinions	Reviews	Downloads
Links	Entertainment	News	Search
Donate	Preferences	About