Comments on: Opinion: Why I Won't Be Buying a Pocket PC

Improvements for T3. Kill the slider. Use T|C buttons, stereo output, and price it below $400. Forget about the camera lens. It will blow away every except for the Zire 71.

___________________________________
Casio B.O.S.S --> M100 --> vX --> M505

Yankees, Steinbrenner,...... I will never turn to the dark side.

In my experience, it's not the OS that crashes, it's the programs. PalmOS doesn't have any protection from a crashing program crashing the entire system.

(This is something that PalmOS 6 is suppose to fix.)

Have to agree with you there... the V and M5xx series is the best form factor for pockets, but a little too wide for the hand. Loved my M515, but the T|T is more comfortable to hold.

>>>Actually, I can. We pried my mother's Apple IIe out of her hands somewhere around 1995. We replaced it with a beige windows box, running 3.0.

I'm not touching this at all. You expect me to comment on your *mother*?!

tthiel, that was disgusting.

How come no mention of the trademarked "handgasm" along with the e550g?

-Bosco

The majority of the software I tried put a non-collapsible menu bar above the application window, and often added a second menu bar at the bottom of the screen. Net result-- comparing the device side-by-side with a Palm, it provided a scant few extra millimeters of display for the actual program contents. In text-intensive apps such as ebook readers and word processors, the higher resolution of the square Palm screen would often match or exceed the ammount of info the rectangular screen PPC could display.

This problem is more an issue with PPC developers and does not represent an inherent limitation in in the PPC OS, and there certainly were a few apps which did take advantage of the full screen. However, for around 85% of the 120+ apps I tried, the extra screen length was a wash.

Alas, Sony also makes some on-screen controls *too* small. Hawkins & Team made some controls intentionally large in their designs so you could hit them with a thumb or fingernail. Sony CLIE controls -- especially in CLIE Camera -- really require the stylus point.

Got an m125... I hated that thing, and still won't recommend it even for a bargain model. Reminded me of running Windows ME. CRASH, CRASH, CRASH, CRASH, BUG, CRASH.

Tungsten|T isn't that bad unless you're trying to surf the net over bluetooth, then I still have plenty of headaches (it locks up quite nicely often). But otherwise, OS 5 is stable for me. Since I was able to fix my digitizer issue (surgery is FUN) I haven't had any major problems, and everything works fine :) I was gonna get rid of my T|T, but now that it works, I'm gonna hold out for a WiFi SD card.

As for blaming the OS, and calling it an embarrassment. I wouldn't say that. The IMPLEMENTATION has issues (PalmSG in particular) and that is where the embarrassment should reside. My Windows XP machine suffers from a consistant (but appears to have something to do with Windows XP updating it's network printer drivers from the machine with the printer installed) crash of Winlogon.exe which takes explorer.exe down with it (sympathetic crash).

In this instance, I'm more likely to blame user error (I'm the person who set up the entire network, and installed windows on each machine, but only mine is maintained properly, so I'm the one to blame).

And you want to talk about embarrassing OSes? Windows ME is GARBAGE. PocketPC 2002 is CRUD, we only recently discovered to get my boss's WiFi to work properly, you change the settings in the network dialog, then shut off the unit, then when you turn it back on it works... WHERE'S THE LOGIC IN THAT??? It isn't even EASY to configure the network stuff.... Palm OS is SO MUCH more easy, it's right up there with my standard, which is Windows XP/2000.

------
BLUE PUNCH BUGGY!!!!!

-James.

I put it on www.itsbeenstolen.com, for what it's worth... Search for TG-50!

-James.

Just interested...

-James.

"Seminar" comments? ;)

Why not just say, "Cool, I wish HotSync had that option"? Oh, yes, it is an option in ActiveSync; you don't have to have continuous syncing. But I suppose you'll find something wrong with that, too.

Steve

Silicon Valley Pocket PC
http://www.garlic.com

The things I hate about Palm OS are the lack of a file system, lack of multitasking, and some dumb limits like the clipboard. The things I like about Palm OS that I can't get in PPC is flexibility. You can't find a thumbboard on a PPC. Oh wait, yes you can, it's the monster Hitachi. Also, there are various screen resolution options. While this may also be a weakness, 320x480 is just plain awesome.

Above, you mention your OS 5 device crashes with regularity. My old m105 crashed more often than my NX80v. You also say you have problems with wireless connectivity. I'm sorry, but I get none of this with Wifi. It's been working like a dream so far, and I don't even need to knock on wood. And not liking the OS because it's not advanced enough to have one thing crash and have it reboot?? This was barely implemented in WINDOWS XP!! You're blaming Palm for not doing it? Are you insane??

Come on, man. I agree it's a choice between the lesser of two evils, but you make it sound like it's a choice between Satan and Lucifer. The end results of these products are still very different, IMO.

-Bosco

The problems are in IMPLEMENTATION!!!

Abosco doesn't have problems because Sony has WORKED OUT the problems before they sent the product to market.

You can't say that for the Tungsten T (or as I've complained even the m125).

The problem is the same people-PalmSG.

So quit blaming the OS for implementation problems

------
BLUE PUNCH BUGGY!!!!!

Now compare all this to Palm, which designed their OS for the PDa environment. They don't NEED all of this extra power. When they do get it, however, they are FAST.

In short, the specs can be deciving, another example is Intel's P4, but, thats a story for another day.

Of course, if you try running legacy software which doesn't follow the SDK guidlines, you will experience regular crashes, but you can hardly blame this on the OS.

So, because Microsoft (and Apple) have been getting away with shipping pathetic software, it's OK for Palm to do the same thing as well? We have had operating systems that work for a few decades; the only reason why these consumer companies are getting away with putting out this junk is because consumers don't know any better. Would you put up with a TV or car that flakes out a few times a day?

but you make it sound like it's a choice between Satan and Lucifer.

It is. Add in Apple and you have Beelzebub in there, too. These companies don't give a damn about software quality, they survive on bloated feature lists, marketing hype, and image.

The things I hate about Palm OS are the lack of a file system, lack of multitasking, and some dumb limits like the clipboard. The things I like about Palm OS that I can't get in PPC is flexibility. You can't find a thumbboard on a PPC.

Yup: those are the same things I hate and I like about PalmOS and PPC. But the fact that people make nifty hardware and applications for PalmOS does not make PalmOS technically any better.

The MacOS was originally released for a 128k machine with a 7.5 MHz CPU and no MMU. After Mr. Gates saw the Mac prototype, he had Windows 1.0 developed for PC AT's with a 6 MHz '286 CPU. The first Pilot 1000's had a faster CPU, at 16 MHz. The first release of Linux needed a bit more memory, requiring a 16 MHz '386 with 4 MB of RAM.

There is nothing wrong with the PocketPC kernel; it's the GUI that stinks.

Yes, and the upshot of all that? By starting with non-MMU hardware, Apple and Microsoft kept shipping one flaky operating system after another. It took both companies until the late 1990's to come out with a modern kernel. And Palm is repeating that history: they started off with non-MMU hardware and they are shipping software based on that original design many years later. Linux required an MMU and more memory from the start, and that is exactly why it has worked so much better than the competition.

Except for an emulation mode, OS 6 needs to throw out most of the OS 4/5 architecture in order to be competitive. Otherwise, Palm will keep bleeding users like Apple did until they finally switched to OS X.

Well, not only do we have something to show for it,
Apple and Microsoft have validated our criticism:
Apple has adopted a BSD and Mach kernel, after railing
for years against those platforms, and Microsoft
has implemented a mix of BSD and VMS for their
platform. Of course, they could have done that much
earlier--UNIX has been around since the 1970s.

It's know-nothings like you that keep supporting
companies that put out lousy products. Palm will
sooner or later switch to a standard kernel and API
as well, or they will go out of business. But in
the meantime, they'll drain everybody's wallets
quite a bit more--the kind of junky software they put
out may not be good for customers, but as long as
they can get away with it, it's good for their
bottom line.

So? Both Palm and Microsoft are companies making proprietary software, proprietary APIs, and selling ther software at a premium. Whether Palm "has a chance against Microsoft" makes no difference to me unless Palm gives me something Microsoft doesn't. Right now, it still does (it works with non-Windows desktops). But otherwise, I really don't care.

So what, you're saying you can run Quake 3 on your Palm V???? The fact that PC applications won't run on a Windows powered PDA is not a deal breaker in my opinion :) In addition, one of the features of PPC is direct synchronization with MS Word and Excel on the desktop. The problem with Pocket Word is that it strips out a lot of special formatting. I've been using various iPAQs over the last year or so. I recently picked up a Zire 71, and it feels great to back with the Palm OS.

It surprises me the number of people who complain that PPC is 'difficult' or 'overly complicated.' It isn't. It's just different. Sure, I had a shock going from a Sony Clie T615 to an iPAQ 3900, but it was even worse going from an iPAQ back to a Zire 71. There are some things I really liked about the stock scheduling program on my iPAQ I wish I could do on my Palm, such as being able to cut and paste ENTIRE appointments, not just the appointment text. In addition, I'd take contacts on the PPC over the Palm's address book anyday. They're both great, but come on, the Palm's only has room for one address and no web page field? Gimme a break! Sure you can use custom fields, but it's not as neat and organized as the PPC's.

On the other hand, I do enjoy the stability and speed of the Zire, although it has crashed on me from time to time. To each his own, I just think a lot of people on this board haven't really given the PPC platform a fair chance. Just because it doesn't behave like a Palm doesn't mean it's a bad OS or unintuitive. If you try to use a PPC like a Palm, it IS bad and unintuitive. PPC is just different, and if you don't prefer it fine, but IMHO, it is still a good OS; it is NOT Windows just 'shrunken down.' It's interesting the author condemns tap and hold- I love it! Select some text, tap and hold and chose cut- easy! I've tried to tap and hold in the scroll bars of my iPAQ and it doesn't work- maybe you need to recalibrate your digitizer, Mike :)

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your article. I'd just say try it before you condemn it- it ain't so bad :)

As for the digitizer -- no; it was fine. I've noticed that each model PPC has its own set of, uh, quirks. You can read post after post about how PPC from A has X problem while PPC from B doesn't, yet exhibits problem Y.

True, some PPC's have been notoriously unstable, but you could also say the same things about Palms (although to a lesser extent- my problem was I always loaded them up with so many hacks the poor things couldn't help but crash :). I just wish we could take the best of both worlds to create the 'perfect' pda, if such a thing ever exists :)

Thanks again for the interesting article!

But it's a hell of a lot easier for software vendors to port applications and libraries to PPC than to Palm.

I am just turned off by the 1940 stupidly yellowish screen, if HP repairs the screen problem I will buy one regardless of the mediocre OS. I don't want to deal with clumsy sliders, I just want a small form factor.

You should be able to travel with a PDA without worrying about charging it all the time. They shouldn't be tamagochi: they are there to help you!

PPC boosters have been able to dismiss the 320x480 screen of Sony. But once Palm SG itself has them...

-Oh Brother Where Art Though...

But seriously. Cite please.

I could dig up my previous posts on this previously which showed multiple manufacturers specs, with the difference essentially a wash in most cases. But I think the burden of effort goes to you first.

Even a 5-10mA difference would be a near pointless difference all things considered (size, durability, manufacturing costs), especially when compared to the vastly more consuming components like RAM, CPU, and Screen. I can use *both* the SD and CF slot's at the same time in my HandEra 330, waaaay longer than most other color ARM toting PDA's even with their SD slot sitting idle. And I could continous ping with a wireless CF card in it, longer than many SD slotted color PDA's with or without wirless devices enabled would last. My Tungsten C only keeps up due to the hugeness of it's battery, but I note that the discharge rate is nearly as steep and the charge rate even at minimum brightness. The SD slot is the least of my power worries.

Comparing power consumption of an SD vs. CF slot is like pondering if I'll get less wet, jumping into a lake with or without my hat on.

In the real world, one will more likely compare the size of devices like the Margi Presenter-to-go in CF, SD, and Memory Stick forms. Far and away, the CF version is the smallest, least protruding (and at that the MS and SD versions still need an external box).

When an SD version of something is more costly for the manufacturer to make, less convenient for me to use, and harder to obtain (today) in the same variety of brands, and as cheaply as CF, I think it's safe to say SD is still a case in point of shrinking the usefulness right out of a device.

Power-Schmower, a couple mA's here or there is the *least* of anyone's issue in a comparison. Next year, maybe a different story, but not today.

Actually, some industrial PC's still come with ISA slots. So, maybe someone (Acacia? Symbol?) will manufacture industrialized PalmOS devices with CF slots for tiny specialized markets. Probably priced accordingly though...

But, the bottom line is just as you say, there are no desktop cliets for many Palm OS databases, and tons of other limitations that Palm OS must overcome to be really as useful as it ought to be.

-- agreed on that and what you said. But the Mac allows you to put X "blob" *there*. With PalmOS -- thus far -- it can't *see* there. Unless I go through the contortions of *adding* that capability from a third party. I think that capability should be built-in, and I'm sure you agree with that.

You're still thinking of a desktop definition of "there". In a hierarchical file system, "there" is "directory X inside directory Y inside directory Z". On the Palm, in RAM, there is only one there; "in RAM". (VFS-accessed cards have a desktop-style file system, and are accessed independently.)

There are really two completely separate and independent questions here.

1) "Palm OS needs to support non-database bit blob files." I agree completely.
2) "Palm OS needs directory support." I disagree completely.

Directories are a mess. Frankly the OS X method of dealing with the issue (applications that are directories and the OS hides that fact from you) is brilliant, if you're not interested in backward compatibility. Moving Palm OS to such a system, however, would be a byatch. :-)

--
This post is ROT26 encrypted. Reading it is a violation of the DMCA

And yes I do sleep. I went to bed around 1:00AM, and awoke at 8:00AM. That good enough for you? ;-)

-------------------------------
My blog: www.pocketfactory.com

The (classic) iPaq to me has been and still is the ugliest PDA I've ever seen. And it's a brick and a half. But you like yours, so enjoy it!

Just me, though. I could enter text pretty fast and accurately on the 3.8 inch screen without screen protection (I only paid $60 for my mono Ipaq.)

If they put a camera at the top of a 3835, I might pay $200-300 for it today. That is like totally unlikely.

Is it really a mystery? I visit plenty of Pocket PC sites (like pocketnow and Pocket PC Thoughts) and general PDA sites (like Brighthand). Would it surprise you to learn that some of them link to Palm Infocenter?

I don't link to this site because my site is dedicated to sites that cover Pocket PCs and other Windows CE platforms, which I suspect does not include Palm Infocenter. :-)

MikeCane wrote:
The (classic) iPaq to me has been and still is the ugliest PDA I've ever seen. And it's a brick and a half. But you like yours, so enjoy it!
Well, I'll avoid the troll, as that comment is completely irrelevant to what's being discussed, and just say that I always found the iPAQ rather sexy (if you can call a PDA "sexy"). I think the Dell Axim Pocket PC and low-end Zire are far uglier.

As for "bricks", people who use this term make me wonder if they've ever tried carrying a real brick. :-)

MikeCane wrote:
>>>No, that's not how text-handling on every PDA should work; it's just how it works on the Palm, and what the author is used to. It's certainly not how text selection works in Windows, which is what the Pocket PC is supposed to emulate, nor is it how selection on the Mac works (as far as I remember).

First, it turns out thius guy has posted the same message on another forum. Seems he has been Called by God (or by Bill; to him, the same thing) to make sure anyone who cites this piece gets The Other (Darker) Side of things.

Yes, I posted a similar reply at pocketnow (which is where I read about your critique). See http://discuss.pocketnow.com/showthread.php?threadid=13965 for the reference.

However, I figured you might not frequent a Pocket PC site, so I thought I'd also respond in a place where you might read it. If posting something twice is being "called by God", you need to reexamine your religion.

As for Bill (presumably Gates) being God, suffice it to say that I think a lot less of Bill than you seem to think I do. Try trolling somewhere else.

MikeCane wrote:
Second, as for his comment above, he's full of it.

1) Not every language is written left-to-right.

2) Lefties would appreciate being able to double-tap/drag "backwards".

3) Using a desktop paradigm for PDAs is what MS has tried for three revs now -- and that's why PPC is so damned schizoid still.

Well, somebody is full of it, but it's not me. Are you trying to win some kind of troll award? But let's examine your points.

First, are you saying Windows or the Mac support the text selection method you're advocating?

Second, I never mentioned anything about left-to-right selection or languages at all, so you're attacking a straw man, a logical fallacy. However, I fail to see how the Palm method of selection (if I understand the differences) would work any better with right-to-left languages than the Windows/Mac/Pocket PC method.

Third, you can tap and drag "backwards" on the Pocket PC. The difference is that your selection starts from the cursor location. If you drag to the right, all text to the right of the cursor is selected; if you drag to the left, all text to the left is selected.

It's really fairly simple to select multiple words, although perhaps not quite as simple as the Palm, as you do have to position the cursor either to the left of the first word you want to select or to the right of the last word want to select (assuming left-to-right word order) instead of double tapping.

In fact, it would make more sense for left-handers to drag to the right, because less of their hand would obscure the text they're trying to select! It's not like writing, where their hands get inky rubbing what they just wrote.

Also, to select a single word, you can just double tap it, just like you can double click a word in Windows.

Finally, as for being "schizoid", I don't get that. Text selection works similarly to the desktop, so people coming from a desktop won't have to shift paradigms. That's generally a good thing in user interface design.

Steve

Silicon Valley Pocket PC
http://www.svpocketpc.com

I read your History. It mentioned you love the iPaq. Its looks attracted you. You said to read your history, so bringing it up is fair game.

Your reading skills leave much to be desired. I said "If you want to see why I chose Windows CE over Palm, check out my Windows CE history." I had two other Windows CE machines before the iPAQ, and I chose those over the Palm.

Also, I never said that I "love" my iPAQ. The only place I used "love" was when I said, "I still think the Handheld PCs were the coolest devices I've had, but I love being able to take my iPAQ everywhere."

As for looks, bringing up what you thought was just a troll. It's sad that you can't admit it. I didn't mention the looks in my postings here, and only said "Then I saw the iPAQ! The iPAQ was bright and sexy[...]" on my Web site in over 10 paragraphs about my history with Windows CE.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion that it's ugly, but there was no reason to mention it when nobody had brought it up -- except to be a troll.

Mike Cane wrote:
>>>Yes, I posted a similar reply at pocketnow (which is where I read about your critique).

This is zealotry: To post a reply in a place *other* than its source.

Zealotry? Did you even bother to read what I wrote? What's wrong with posting a reply on the Pocket PC site where I read about your article? Not every Pocket PC user there will want to visit a Palm site and slog through all of the comments here to see what I had to say.

In fact, if anything, coming here to try to discuss it with you would be a greater sign of zealotry. Maybe I was stupid, but I thought we might have a reasonable discussion about the points you brought up. Too bad you can't seem to handle that, and resort to ad hominem attacks and cracks about people's religion and manhood.

Mike Cane wrote:
>>>First, are you saying Windows or the Mac support the text selection method you're advocating?

Why do you keep bringing in desktop OSes?! Do you use a stylus with your desktop?! What is this damned obsession you have?!

What is this damned obtuseness you have? I've explained before why it's relevant. I'll say it slowly, just for you:

I T ' S B E C A U S E W I N D O W S C E W A S S U P P O S E D T O W O R K S I M I L A R L Y T O W I N D O W S.

Did that help? The selection paradigm works just like it does on the desktop, which is what most people are familiar with.

Mike Cane wrote:
>>>It's really fairly simple to select multiple words, although perhaps not quite as simple as the Palm, as you do have to position the cursor either to the left of the first word you want to select or to the right of the last word want to select (assuming left-to-right word order) instead of double tapping.

You go ahead and drag drag drag all around the screen hoping the TnH prompt doesn't come up. I'll double-tap/drag and select *more words more accurately* than you ever will with PPC.

I'm not saying you can't. I'm saying the Pocket PC paradigm is just as simple. The implementation may well be worse than Palm. I'd have to use a Palm to know, and even admitted that the Palm method sounded simpler.

I also pointed out that I don't like automatic word selection, which the Palm seems to do (if I correctly understood your description). So, in my case, I may not like the Palm method as much.

Mike Cane wrote:
How you can call the PPC method "simple" is beyond me; is simple-minded what you meant to say?

No, I was discussing text selection, not you. I will agree with one thing -- a lot seems to be beyond you.

Mike Cane wrote:
>>>Finally, as for being "schizoid", I don't get that.

I don't expect those in love with PPC to "get" any criticism leveled at that hulking beast. Schizoid: having to go to a frigging *entry screen* in Calendar to enter an appointment, as if this was a desktop app. Palm method (and we are comparing built-ins here): Tap on the line next to the starting time and start entering the appointment.

That sounds like a very simple way to create an appointment, and can probably create an appointment faster than I can on a Pocket PC. However, I like the power of the entry screen. I prefer power over simplicity in many things, so that's my bias.

As for "not getting" criticism, you're the one who seems to have trouble with any criticism. I recognize many flaws with the Pocket PC OS -- a stupid Connection Manager, alarms that occasionally don't sound when they should, and many more. As I said, I'm pretty agnostic about things -- use what works for you.

But if I think you said something incorrect about the Pocket PC, or there is a way to do something that you didn't know about, I don't think telling you that indicates an ability to see a flaw.

Mike Cane wrote:
Now please go away. You don't see *me* going around preaching the gospel of Palm to you heathen on *your* sites, do you?

Closing on a low note is such an effective strategy. I had submitted a link to your article to my favorite Pocket PC site, as I thought they might like to see why some Palm users didn't like the Pocket PC, and your article seemed fairly unbiased.

One of the admins wrote back and said:

Except that is one of the most poorly written rants I've ever seen. Cane is way to narcissistic to give any credibility to by linking to his stuff. Who copyrights a rant?

Given this admin's propensity to rant himself, I thought he was being short-sighted. After engaging in this discussion with you, I completely understand the admin's point.

Steve

Silicon Valley Pocket PC
http://www.svpocketpc.com