You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, download files, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
I like memory! And the more memory the better according to News.com, Western Digital will be releasing a number of 1 inch hard drives available as CompactFlash type II cards that will work with a variety of mobile devices. The drives will vary in storage space, but at the top of the spectrum there will be a 6 GB version released. No word yet on the price...
Thank goodness for interoperability in storage between platforms. The boom in this type of storage seems to be driven almost completely by digital photography. The pocket pc remains a niche product and depends, to some degree, on this type of innovation.
Thank goodness for interoperability in storage between platforms. The boom in this type of storage seems to be driven almost completely by digital photography. The pocket pc remains a niche product and depends, to some degree, on this type of innovation.
I'm on a roll tonight, and I think one of the biggest problems with the pocket pc, is it has an interface that works like windows 3.1, standard features with the OS that are pitiful, and you can't run windows programs on it.
I think if someone came along with a pocket pc that ran something compatible with windows and pocket pc programs both, that was well thought out and delivered for something less than $3,000, Pocket PCs would no longer be a niche product..
Perhaps that's just a dream that may take a while.
I'm on a roll tonight, and I think one of the biggest problems with the pocket pc, is it has an interface that works like windows 3.1, standard features with the OS that are pitiful, and you can't run windows programs on it.
Well kind of... I don't think of it is Windows 3 .1 yet a lot of the OS is standard. We often must purchase additional software to make it more interactive and functional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PockyBum522
I think if someone came along with a pocket pc that ran something compatible with windows and pocket pc programs both, that was well thought out and delivered for something less than $3,000, Pocket PCs would no longer be a niche product..
Perhaps that's just a dream that may take a while.
That is sounding an awful lot like an OQO device...I don't know if those are given be any success because one the prize, and to I don't believe they are designed for PIM functions and quick access. They are more for desktop applications you can put in your pocket.
OQO? I'll have to go look that up. It would still need to be designed as a Pocket PC device, but the ability to run any program would enhance the functionality alot.
I think if someone came along with a pocket pc that ran something compatible with windows and pocket pc programs both, that was well thought out and delivered for something less than $3,000, Pocket PCs would no longer be a niche product..
Perhaps that's just a dream that may take a while.
I think you must remember that one of the main strengths of the pocket pc is its size. With my iPAQ 4150 I really can have the power of a computer in my pocket. That is why devices like the iPAQ 4700 and toshiba 800 series miss the mark IMO - they are too big.
What you dream of pockybum is an ultraportable, they are very cool. Look at this. 8-)
But you can't put it in your pocket!
I think you must remember that one of the main strengths of the pocket pc is its size. With my iPAQ 4150 I really can have the power of a computer in my pocket. That is why devices like the iPAQ 4700 and toshiba 800 series miss the mark IMO - they are too big.
Honestly, I don't think the 4700 misses the mark at all. Granted I come from having a 3900 (which from what I remember people actually liked). But it's smaller than my 3900 and a bigger screen (I personally thought it was a downgrade that the newer ones had smaller screens than my 3900, I already wanted more room on the 3900's screen. If nothing else, for excel. One reason I was intrigued by VGA). I don't know how people can stand that tiny 3.5" screen. I am sure they could make the 4700 smaller, but if it came at the sacrifice of the screen size... well, I'm glad they didn't. I love the big screen, especially combined with VGA.
And actually, I like how they designed it (it's bigger because they made it symetrical. They could lose some space used at the top but then it would have to be asymetrical cause to try to put the screen in the middle would leave too little room for the touchpad). It's nice for when you want to use it horizontally (like watching converted DVDs). It's a lot less distracting then on an asymetrical frame around the screen. And it looks serious, not toyish and stupid (put it this way, my first pocket pc I went with the Jornada first cause it looked much better to me. Then returned it and got an Ipaq cause they Ipaq just worked better).
I'm sure some people want smaller. I want more useful. I find the 4700 a helluva lot more useful than the ones with tiny screens. It was one of my pet peeves when I wanted to upgrade my 3900, that the screens got smaller, the processors hadn't gotten faster, and there wasn't more RAM. The 4700 fixed the first two problems anyways and it's fast enough the last problem isn't as bad as it was on the 3900 though it is probably my one big complaint with it. Other than that, I find it is totally perfect and fits every thing I wanted improved from my 3900.
I'm saddened that the 4700 has a lot of people complaining about its size. it means HP will prolly go with that annoyingly small 3.5" screen (the 3.7" my 3900 had was adequate at best) with their future PDAs. And weight even... come on, it feels solid. PDAs need more tough designs (even better it feels solid without being super big like a lot of "tough" designs). They're designed to be carried around which means they'll get dropped some.
You make a great point about the 3900 series. I forgot all about the "screen shock" I experienced when I went from a 3975 to a 2215! It was so much smaller. Plus, the weight of that unit was like a brick. I'll never forget handing it to a PALM toting coworker who immediately said "That is so heavy!! How can you stand to have it in your pocket?" Point taken.
I don't know how people can stand that tiny 3.5" screen. I am sure they could make the 4700 smaller, but if it came at the sacrifice of the screen size... well, I'm glad they didn't. I love the big screen, especially combined with VGA.
I'm sure some people want smaller. I want more useful. I find the 4700 a helluva lot more useful than the ones with tiny screens.
Larger screen size does not = higher screen resolution. If I had to choose between a device with a 3.5" QVGA screen and a 4.5" QVGA screen I would choose the 3.5" screen every time (assuming everything else equal). The amount of overall detail displayed on each screen is the same and therefore it makes no difference when working with excel files or whatever. However the device with the larger screen is more difficult to put in my pocket.
The caveat here is the smaller screen requires better vision and greater dexterity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigress
I'm saddened that the 4700 has a lot of people complaining about its size. it means HP will prolly go with that annoyingly small 3.5" screen.... with their future PDAs.
HP show no sign of listening to enthusiast sites like this one. The proof of this is their ill fated rz1715.
Larger screen size does not = higher screen resolution. If I had to choose between a device with a 3.5" QVGA screen and a 4.5" QVGA screen I would choose the 3.5" screen every time (assuming everything else equal). The amount of overall detail displayed on each screen is the same and therefore it makes no difference when working with excel files or whatever. However the device with the larger screen is more difficult to put in my pocket.
The caveat here is the smaller screen requires better vision and greater dexterity.
Um, I can see more excel lines on my 4.0" VGA screen than my old pocket PC's 3.7" SVGA screen. I don't know what you've been looking at that makes you think you don't get more fitted on the screen. I can fit more on the screen. Whether it's due to it being VGA or bigger or both, what matters is that I do fit more on the screen. It does not display the same amount of stuff.... it does not make the stuff bigger on the screen, it gives you more screen space.
Maybe whatever one you were looking at had excel zoomed in or something and you didn't notice. But you are able to see more excel lines on my pocket pc than on a 3.7" and you could see more excel line on my old 3.7" than on that tiny 3.5" (I've checked, a spreadsheet I wrote was not entirely viewable on my old 3900 and you can see the whole thing on my 4700. And when I compared my 3900 with a newer one with a smaller screen you could see more lines on the database on my 3900 than the newer one). So, I don't know where you got your information, but I've looked in real life and compared the different screens and, yes, you can view more of a spreadsheet on a bigger screen (even comparing two SVGA screens of different size and not a SVGA screen vs. VGA screen).
Let me add that a bigger screen is also much nicer for using as a portable DVD player also and you definitely couldn't argue that it was just a matter of dextirity there. Bigger picture to watch a movie is nicer period.
I write all this because I'm sick of reading how everyone hates the size of the new 4700 and thought maybe I should post an alternate view. So, you see, not everyone agrees with you that the 4700 is too big and that the big screen isn't worth it. Yes, there are people out there that are happy HP gave it a big screen (and some of us who even get the added bonus that it's smaller than their previous PDA on top). I applaud them for it.
Though... I think I saw a lot more 3900's out there when I had my 3900 tahn I see 4700's so unfortunately for me the market doesn't seem to be with me. But maybe (hopefully imo) it's too soon to tell. I'm sure they won't stop making smaller PDAs so I doubt you have anythign to worry about. But I do worry that I'll never find another PDA to upgrade to that I'll like as much cause they will give up on larger screen size (I'm a techno junky, as much as I like this now eventually I'll want to upgrade just for the sake of having a new toy though I get the feeling that this one will make me happy for a long while).
Sorry but the 4" screen does NOT give you more screen space. It gives you a bigger screen. The VGA gives you more screen space and the bigger screen makes than space easier to see.
It is true that with more screen size and VGA you can zoom out and get more excel cells on the screen in a usable fashion.
I too have a VGA machine but it is the Axim X50v. Frankly I hated the "touchpad" ( to each his or her own) on the 4700 series but I can't afford Ipaq anyway so it is moot. The size doesn't bother me at all. In fact, my new X50v is smaller, thinner and lighter than the X5 I carried for the last 2 years. I gladly give up the little bit of screen size vs. the 4700 for the 3d graphic chip and the hardware equalizer and the external mic jack.
Now to get back on topic, I certainly welcome this new 6gig HD card to the market to keep pushing the prices down but I'll probably keep holding out for solid state cards as they use less power.
Um, I can see more excel lines on my 4.0" VGA screen than my old pocket PC's 3.7" SVGA screen. I don't know what you've been looking at that makes you think you don't get more fitted on the screen. I can fit more on the screen. Whether it's due to it being VGA or bigger or both, what matters is that I do fit more on the screen.
Tigress, I think you misunderstand me. Perhaps my explanation was poor and for that I am sorry.
When I talk about screen resolution I am talking about the number of lines of pixels horizontally by the number of pixels vertically. In a QVGA (quater VGA) device the screen resolution is 240 x 320. All QVGA devices have this resolution by definition. Therefore if you compare two QVGA devices, regardless of the screen size, they will be limited to this level of detail.
In a VGA device the screen resolution is 480 x 640. Therefore a VGA device compared to a QVGA device will display more detail. Four times as much actually (hence the "quater"). That is why your 4700 fits more on the screen. (By the way the 4700 does have a lovely screen).
When you say SVGA this is Super VGA and actually means a screen resolution of 600 x 800. To my knowledge there are currently no Pocket PC's with this resolution. But that would be lush. 8-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigress
So, I don't know where you got your information, but I've looked in real life and compared the different screens and, yes, you can view more of a spreadsheet on a bigger screen (even comparing two SVGA screens of different size and not a SVGA screen vs. VGA screen).
So it is impossible for two screens, of the same resolution, to display different amounts of real detail. When I say real, you can zoom and so on but that is not real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigress
Let me add that a bigger screen is also much nicer for using as a portable DVD player also and you definitely couldn't argue that it was just a matter of dextirity there. Bigger picture to watch a movie is nicer period.
I agree with you here. A small screen can be a strain on the eyes. I suppose that is why televisions are large. With your 4700 you have an excellent portable device for watching movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigress
I write all this because I'm sick of reading how everyone hates the size of the new 4700 and thought maybe I should post an alternate view. So, you see, not everyone agrees with you that the 4700 is too big and that the big screen isn't worth it.
Tigress, I respect your view. Your 4700 is a very nice Pocket PC, but just not for me.
When I talk about screen resolution I am talking about the number of lines of pixels horizontally by the number of pixels vertically. In a QVGA (quater VGA) device the screen resolution is 240 x 320. All QVGA devices have this resolution by definition. Therefore if you compare two QVGA devices, regardless of the screen size, they will be limited to this level of detail.
Ok, what I was mentioning before though, is that I compared my 3900, which is a QVGA (? Whatever the previous screen is) to a later one that had same style screen, not the VGA I have now, but was smaller, and I did actually open up excel to see if I could see the same amount, and I could not. I did see more lines in my PDA. Granted it was not that big of a change, but I was of the opinion that I was not willing to see even less on my screen (as one of my few complaints about the PDA at the time was I was already wanting a bigger screen).
Quote:
Originally Posted by noolly
Tigress, I respect your view. Your 4700 is a very nice Pocket PC, but just not for me.
*nod* As I said, I thought I'd point out a different point of view as it seems a lot of people are dissing on the 4700 for the size, and I'd like to point out some of us don't mind it being bigger than the current PDAs (cause it surely is not bigger than my older one, it's a good deal smaller and definitely smaller than the 5955? monster.. the first one with the thumbprint scanner) because we also enjoy the bigger screen.
But... I think at least judging from what I read I'm in the minority on this. And at least from what I see the 4700 doesn't seem to be that successful. I just worry that I'll be stuck with a 3.5" if/when I want to upgrade.
I forgot all about the "screen shock" I experienced when I went from a 3975 to a 2215! It was so much smaller. Plus, the weight of that unit was like a brick. I'll never forget handing it to a PALM toting coworker who immediately said "That is so heavy!! How can you stand to have it in your pocket?" Point taken.
Linear Mode
