Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pocket PC OS verges on being crippleware

Last response: in Cell Phones & Smartphones
Share
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 7:16:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Before I start, I will state that I really like my iPaq hx4700. Fantastic
screen, WiFi. Browsing the net anywhere in the house is a huge leap forwards
from my old Palm m500 with AvantGo.

However...
I am really disappointed by the quality of the built in applications. They
appear to be intentionally stripped down apps to appease the developer
community. As a developer myself, I'm not opposed to other people making a
living from writing good software, but as a user, it would nice if some
decent functionality was built in, out of the box.

Notes in particular is appalling, it looks like a demo app you'd see in a
programming book. Where are categories? Why can't I change font size of the
listing? Could I have a preview pane?

The calendar is useful, but fairly basic, and has such poor support for the
VGA screen that HP include Pocket Informant. Unfortunately, although some
features look great in VGA (calendar), it is so advanced that it has a
fairly sharp learning curve. Without looking into the manual, I've no idea
how to use the Notes feature - it seems to have been written without regard
for any of the standard UI elements present in the built in applications. It
seems to be designed to provide the maximum number of bullet points in a
feature list, instead of doing the basics correctly.

I understand that due to memory constraints, not all features can be build
into all applications. Every user has different requirements. As such, I'd
rather see the OS shipped with LESS software, and have the choice of
downloading FEATURE RICH, WELL DESIGNED versions of the apps I use the most.
Maybe use a point system like www.ipaqchoice.com

Personally, I'd go for the following:
Notes - with categories, and ability to use a tree (outline) structure if
required. Link to tasks
CHM Viewer - very useful for those C# books
Newsgroup reader - so I can rant anywhere!
Contacts - very minimal, may even use Notes if search is good enough
Calendar - VGA support, and ability to set default settings for new
appointments (I would set all to 'Private' as default, as my work calendar
has to be shared)
....And I wouldn't expect to have to pay $9.99 -> $49.99 for each
application - for the privilege of such basic functionality. A points
system, where you get free points (and buy more if required) which would
allow me to 'purchase' these approvd, consistent applications from
Microsoft, without spending weeks sifting the wheat from the chaff.

Or alternately, provide us with decent apps to start with.


Comments, flames welcome. Suggestions for good commercial software which may
fit my requirements also welcome. This is a general gut feeling about my
first 2 weeks on Pocket PC. I expect more posts with specific questions for
you all in the near future.

Happy mobile computing!

Greg Woods
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 7:16:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:16:12 -0000, "Nightdrive"
<nightdrive@supanet.com> wrote:

>Before I start, I will state that I really like my iPaq hx4700. Fantastic
>screen, WiFi. Browsing the net anywhere in the house is a huge leap forwards
>from my old Palm m500 with AvantGo.
>
>However...
>I am really disappointed by the quality of the built in applications. They
>appear to be intentionally stripped down apps to appease the developer
>community. As a developer myself, I'm not opposed to other people making a
>living from writing good software, but as a user, it would nice if some
>decent functionality was built in, out of the box.
>
>Notes in particular is appalling, it looks like a demo app you'd see in a
>programming book. Where are categories? Why can't I change font size of the
>listing? Could I have a preview pane?
>
>The calendar is useful, but fairly basic, and has such poor support for the
>VGA screen that HP include Pocket Informant. Unfortunately, although some
>features look great in VGA (calendar), it is so advanced that it has a
>fairly sharp learning curve. Without looking into the manual, I've no idea
>how to use the Notes feature - it seems to have been written without regard
>for any of the standard UI elements present in the built in applications. It
>seems to be designed to provide the maximum number of bullet points in a
>feature list, instead of doing the basics correctly.
>
>I understand that due to memory constraints, not all features can be build
>into all applications. Every user has different requirements. As such, I'd
>rather see the OS shipped with LESS software, and have the choice of
>downloading FEATURE RICH, WELL DESIGNED versions of the apps I use the most.
>Maybe use a point system like www.ipaqchoice.com
>
>Personally, I'd go for the following:
>Notes - with categories, and ability to use a tree (outline) structure if
>required. Link to tasks
>CHM Viewer - very useful for those C# books
>Newsgroup reader - so I can rant anywhere!
>Contacts - very minimal, may even use Notes if search is good enough
>Calendar - VGA support, and ability to set default settings for new
>appointments (I would set all to 'Private' as default, as my work calendar
>has to be shared)
>...And I wouldn't expect to have to pay $9.99 -> $49.99 for each
>application - for the privilege of such basic functionality. A points
>system, where you get free points (and buy more if required) which would
>allow me to 'purchase' these approvd, consistent applications from
>Microsoft, without spending weeks sifting the wheat from the chaff.
>
>Or alternately, provide us with decent apps to start with.
>
>
>Comments, flames welcome. Suggestions for good commercial software which may
>fit my requirements also welcome. This is a general gut feeling about my
>first 2 weeks on Pocket PC. I expect more posts with specific questions for
>you all in the near future.
>
>Happy mobile computing!
>
>Greg Woods
>
>
You do realize it is a "Pocket PC?"

Maybe what you should have purchased a full size laptop.

Maybe instead of getting a ppc with a limited amount of
memory/storage space maybe you should have gotten
a full laptop with a 40 gig hard drive.

http://www.pocketpcmag.com/bg04/specs.asp

That is what happens when you have a device that
doesn't have 40 gig of storage.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 7:16:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Well, it may cost you another 20 there are a number software overlays that are really good. My favorite is pocket informant, but there are others such as agenda fusion. Not only do they improve the look they add a ton of functionality as well.

nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.pocketpc/<u0YndZO8EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>

Before I start, I will state that I really like my iPaq hx4700. Fantastic
screen, WiFi. Browsing the net anywhere in the house is a huge leap forwards
from my old Palm m500 with AvantGo.

However...
I am really disappointed by the quality of the built in applications. They
appear to be intentionally stripped down apps to appease the developer
community. As a developer myself, I'm not opposed to other people making a
living from writing good software, but as a user, it would nice if some
decent functionality was built in, out of the box.

Notes in particular is appalling, it looks like a demo app you'd see in a
programming book. Where are categories? Why can't I change font size of the
listing? Could I have a preview pane?

The calendar is useful, but fairly basic, and has such poor support for the
VGA screen that HP include Pocket Informant. Unfortunately, although some
features look great in VGA (calendar), it is so advanced that it has a
fairly sharp learning curve. Without looking into the manual, I've no idea
how to use the Notes feature - it seems to have been written without regard
for any of the standard UI elements present in the built in applications. It
seems to be designed to provide the maximum number of bullet points in a
feature list, instead of doing the basics correctly.

I understand that due to memory constraints, not all features can be build
into all applications. Every user has different requirements. As such, I'd
rather see the OS shipped with LESS software, and have the choice of
downloading FEATURE RICH, WELL DESIGNED versions of the apps I use the most.
Maybe use a point system like www.ipaqchoice.com

Personally, I'd go for the following:
Notes - with categories, and ability to use a tree (outline) structure if
required. Link to tasks
CHM Viewer - very useful for those C# books
Newsgroup reader - so I can rant anywhere!
Contacts - very minimal, may even use Notes if search is good enough
Calendar - VGA support, and ability to set default settings for new
appointments (I would set all to 'Private' as default, as my work calendar
has to be shared)
...And I wouldn't expect to have to pay $9.99 -> $49.99 for each
application - for the privilege of such basic functionality. A points
system, where you get free points (and buy more if required) which would
allow me to 'purchase' these approvd, consistent applications from
Microsoft, without spending weeks sifting the wheat from the chaff.

Or alternately, provide us with decent apps to start with.


Comments, flames welcome. Suggestions for good commercial software which may
fit my requirements also welcome. This is a general gut feeling about my
first 2 weeks on Pocket PC. I expect more posts with specific questions for
you all in the near future.

Happy mobile computing!

Greg Woods





[microsoft.public.pocketpc]
Related resources
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 11:14:53 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Reply to message from Amy Gray <JudgeAmyGrayNOSPAM@hotmail.com> (Sun, 02
Jan 2005 13:03:15) about ""Re: Pocket PC OS verges on being crippleware"":



AG> You do realize it is a "Pocket PC?"

AG> Maybe what you should have purchased a full size laptop.

I would have to disagree with your summation, Amy ( in a most honorable
way, if possible). You have to take into account the sheer power and
storage capability an average ppc with a 512m card has as compared to a
386/20 mhz computer of yesterday (year?), and to say that it is undeserving
of capable software the desktop has enjoyed for many years since such
machines were the mainstay is not logical, especially when such a
comparison is taken into consideration. Or am I the only old fart here who
suffered through the intervening years enough to realize what the right
software with a decent amount of hardware, albeit even limited, can do? ;) 
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 12:05:40 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Could you please summarize your QUESTION for the newsgroup?

David H

Nightdrive wrote:
> Before I start, I will state that I really like my iPaq hx4700. Fantastic
> screen, WiFi. Browsing the net anywhere in the house is a huge leap forwards
> from my old Palm m500 with AvantGo.
>
> However...
> I am really disappointed by the quality of the built in applications. They
> appear to be intentionally stripped down apps to appease the developer
> community. As a developer myself, I'm not opposed to other people making a
> living from writing good software, but as a user, it would nice if some
> decent functionality was built in, out of the box.
>
> Notes in particular is appalling, it looks like a demo app you'd see in a
> programming book. Where are categories? Why can't I change font size of the
> listing? Could I have a preview pane?
>
> The calendar is useful, but fairly basic, and has such poor support for the
> VGA screen that HP include Pocket Informant. Unfortunately, although some
> features look great in VGA (calendar), it is so advanced that it has a
> fairly sharp learning curve. Without looking into the manual, I've no idea
> how to use the Notes feature - it seems to have been written without regard
> for any of the standard UI elements present in the built in applications. It
> seems to be designed to provide the maximum number of bullet points in a
> feature list, instead of doing the basics correctly.
>
> I understand that due to memory constraints, not all features can be build
> into all applications. Every user has different requirements. As such, I'd
> rather see the OS shipped with LESS software, and have the choice of
> downloading FEATURE RICH, WELL DESIGNED versions of the apps I use the most.
> Maybe use a point system like www.ipaqchoice.com
>
> Personally, I'd go for the following:
> Notes - with categories, and ability to use a tree (outline) structure if
> required. Link to tasks
> CHM Viewer - very useful for those C# books
> Newsgroup reader - so I can rant anywhere!
> Contacts - very minimal, may even use Notes if search is good enough
> Calendar - VGA support, and ability to set default settings for new
> appointments (I would set all to 'Private' as default, as my work calendar
> has to be shared)
> ...And I wouldn't expect to have to pay $9.99 -> $49.99 for each
> application - for the privilege of such basic functionality. A points
> system, where you get free points (and buy more if required) which would
> allow me to 'purchase' these approvd, consistent applications from
> Microsoft, without spending weeks sifting the wheat from the chaff.
>
> Or alternately, provide us with decent apps to start with.
>
>
> Comments, flames welcome. Suggestions for good commercial software which may
> fit my requirements also welcome. This is a general gut feeling about my
> first 2 weeks on Pocket PC. I expect more posts with specific questions for
> you all in the near future.
>
> Happy mobile computing!
>
> Greg Woods
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 4:16:04 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Umm, you mean like Notepad (instead of an full-fledged text editor), Wordpad
(instead of a 'real' word processor), or Movie Maker (as opposed to Adobe
Premier)? Geez, it's and OPERATING SYSTEM, not an application suite! MS
throws that stuff in so you can START to do things with the OS; y'know, show
you some possibilities? I for one am glad the dev. community *can* fill the
holes Gates & Co. left behind.

"Nightdrive" <nightdrive@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:u0YndZO8EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Before I start, I will state that I really like my iPaq hx4700. Fantastic
> screen, WiFi. Browsing the net anywhere in the house is a huge leap
forwards
> from my old Palm m500 with AvantGo.
>
> However...
> I am really disappointed by the quality of the built in applications. They
> appear to be intentionally stripped down apps to appease the developer
> community. As a developer myself, I'm not opposed to other people making a
> living from writing good software, but as a user, it would nice if some
> decent functionality was built in, out of the box.
>
> Notes in particular is appalling, it looks like a demo app you'd see in a
> programming book. Where are categories? Why can't I change font size of
the
> listing? Could I have a preview pane?
>
> The calendar is useful, but fairly basic, and has such poor support for
the
> VGA screen that HP include Pocket Informant. Unfortunately, although some
> features look great in VGA (calendar), it is so advanced that it has a
> fairly sharp learning curve. Without looking into the manual, I've no idea
> how to use the Notes feature - it seems to have been written without
regard
> for any of the standard UI elements present in the built in applications.
It
> seems to be designed to provide the maximum number of bullet points in a
> feature list, instead of doing the basics correctly.
>
> I understand that due to memory constraints, not all features can be build
> into all applications. Every user has different requirements. As such, I'd
> rather see the OS shipped with LESS software, and have the choice of
> downloading FEATURE RICH, WELL DESIGNED versions of the apps I use the
most.
> Maybe use a point system like www.ipaqchoice.com
>
> Personally, I'd go for the following:
> Notes - with categories, and ability to use a tree (outline) structure if
> required. Link to tasks
> CHM Viewer - very useful for those C# books
> Newsgroup reader - so I can rant anywhere!
> Contacts - very minimal, may even use Notes if search is good enough
> Calendar - VGA support, and ability to set default settings for new
> appointments (I would set all to 'Private' as default, as my work calendar
> has to be shared)
> ...And I wouldn't expect to have to pay $9.99 -> $49.99 for each
> application - for the privilege of such basic functionality. A points
> system, where you get free points (and buy more if required) which would
> allow me to 'purchase' these approvd, consistent applications from
> Microsoft, without spending weeks sifting the wheat from the chaff.
>
> Or alternately, provide us with decent apps to start with.
>
>
> Comments, flames welcome. Suggestions for good commercial software which
may
> fit my requirements also welcome. This is a general gut feeling about my
> first 2 weeks on Pocket PC. I expect more posts with specific questions
for
> you all in the near future.
>
> Happy mobile computing!
>
> Greg Woods
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 8:38:34 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

I just got my hx4700 as well. The people who buy this are eligible for the
Pocket Informant Pro for half price. This is a major improvement on the
version HP loaded. I have also been told that version 6 of pocket informant
is soon to be out. I downloaded from the web site with no problems. I used
my main computer to do so with the hx4700 in the cradle and using active
sync. The upgrade auto removed the old version. Pretty top software. I
also downloaded the free Adobe PDF reader for handhelds from the Adobe web
site. It works better than the basic version HP loaded. I did put a 1 gig
high speed SD card in my unit. It really frees up the memory.
Tim



"Nightdrive" <nightdrive@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:u0YndZO8EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Before I start, I will state that I really like my iPaq hx4700. Fantastic
> screen, WiFi. Browsing the net anywhere in the house is a huge leap
> forwards from my old Palm m500 with AvantGo.
>
> However...
> I am really disappointed by the quality of the built in applications. They
> appear to be intentionally stripped down apps to appease the developer
> community. As a developer myself, I'm not opposed to other people making a
> living from writing good software, but as a user, it would nice if some
> decent functionality was built in, out of the box.
>
> Notes in particular is appalling, it looks like a demo app you'd see in a
> programming book. Where are categories? Why can't I change font size of
> the listing? Could I have a preview pane?
>
> The calendar is useful, but fairly basic, and has such poor support for
> the VGA screen that HP include Pocket Informant. Unfortunately, although
> some features look great in VGA (calendar), it is so advanced that it has
> a fairly sharp learning curve. Without looking into the manual, I've no
> idea how to use the Notes feature - it seems to have been written without
> regard for any of the standard UI elements present in the built in
> applications. It seems to be designed to provide the maximum number of
> bullet points in a feature list, instead of doing the basics correctly.
>
> I understand that due to memory constraints, not all features can be build
> into all applications. Every user has different requirements. As such, I'd
> rather see the OS shipped with LESS software, and have the choice of
> downloading FEATURE RICH, WELL DESIGNED versions of the apps I use the
> most. Maybe use a point system like www.ipaqchoice.com
>
> Personally, I'd go for the following:
> Notes - with categories, and ability to use a tree (outline) structure if
> required. Link to tasks
> CHM Viewer - very useful for those C# books
> Newsgroup reader - so I can rant anywhere!
> Contacts - very minimal, may even use Notes if search is good enough
> Calendar - VGA support, and ability to set default settings for new
> appointments (I would set all to 'Private' as default, as my work calendar
> has to be shared)
> ...And I wouldn't expect to have to pay $9.99 -> $49.99 for each
> application - for the privilege of such basic functionality. A points
> system, where you get free points (and buy more if required) which would
> allow me to 'purchase' these approvd, consistent applications from
> Microsoft, without spending weeks sifting the wheat from the chaff.
>
> Or alternately, provide us with decent apps to start with.
>
>
> Comments, flames welcome. Suggestions for good commercial software which
> may fit my requirements also welcome. This is a general gut feeling about
> my first 2 weeks on Pocket PC. I expect more posts with specific questions
> for you all in the near future.
>
> Happy mobile computing!
>
> Greg Woods
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

This is right, but you have to take into account that this device MUST be
simple for everyone. Simple means simple, nothing more. And if you begin
boosting up with features requested by developers, simple is gone, and the
average user (something like 80% of the market) will not be able to operate
it.

So it is important to keep it very simple, and leave the option to whoever
wants more power to add the applications he wants.

I think Nightdrive has a point when it comes to Word and Excel, which are
expected by the simple user to do the same as their twins in Windows. But I
am sure they will get there.

--
********************************************************
Helio Diamant - MS-MVP/Mobile Devices
Editor-in-Chief
Pocket PC Freak - The Hebrew Pocket PC site
http://www.pocketpcfreak.com
********************************************************
"xTenn" <xtennremovethispart@tds.net> wrote in message
news:1104729293@xtennremovethispart.tds.net...
> Reply to message from Amy Gray <JudgeAmyGrayNOSPAM@hotmail.com> (Sun, 02
> Jan 2005 13:03:15) about ""Re: Pocket PC OS verges on being crippleware"":
>
>
>
> AG> You do realize it is a "Pocket PC?"
>
> AG> Maybe what you should have purchased a full size laptop.
>
> I would have to disagree with your summation, Amy ( in a most honorable
> way, if possible). You have to take into account the sheer power and
> storage capability an average ppc with a 512m card has as compared to a
> 386/20 mhz computer of yesterday (year?), and to say that it is
> undeserving
> of capable software the desktop has enjoyed for many years since such
> machines were the mainstay is not logical, especially when such a
> comparison is taken into consideration. Or am I the only old fart here who
> suffered through the intervening years enough to realize what the right
> software with a decent amount of hardware, albeit even limited, can do? ;) 
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"Helio Diamant - MS-MVP/Mobile Devices" <helio@nospam.pocketpcfreak.com>
wrote in message news:ec44DJa8EHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> This is right, but you have to take into account that this device MUST be
> simple for everyone. Simple means simple, nothing more. And if you begin
> boosting up with features requested by developers, simple is gone, and the
> average user (something like 80% of the market) will not be able to
> operate it.
>
> So it is important to keep it very simple, and leave the option to whoever
> wants more power to add the applications he wants.
>
> I think Nightdrive has a point when it comes to Word and Excel, which are
> expected by the simple user to do the same as their twins in Windows. But
> I am sure they will get there.
>

True. I'm not even suggesting that a great Spreadsheet and Word package
should come with the operating system - it does not happen with XP now. I'm
just suggesting that the hardware is quite capable of supporting many more
features than the free pocket excel and pocket word, as Planmaker and
Textmaker clearly ilustrate.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Which to a degree comes back to the right solution for the right problem
and not trying to make a solution work simply because of the 'COOLNESS'
factor.

Helio Diamant - MS-MVP/Mobile Devices wrote:
> This is right, but you have to take into account that this device MUST be
> simple for everyone. Simple means simple, nothing more. And if you begin
> boosting up with features requested by developers, simple is gone, and the
> average user (something like 80% of the market) will not be able to operate
> it.
>
> So it is important to keep it very simple, and leave the option to whoever
> wants more power to add the applications he wants.
>
> I think Nightdrive has a point when it comes to Word and Excel, which are
> expected by the simple user to do the same as their twins in Windows. But I
> am sure they will get there.
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Yes, the hardware could probably support more than what's out there, but
again its not a matter of wether or not the advance apps CAN be made but
wether or not they SHOULD be made. If you want the power of a laptop -
but a laptop. I personally see the power of a PPC going in the direction
of advanced solutions such as providing extensive wireless remote
control and monitoring.

Wouldn't it be neat for your car to beam a task to your PPC when its
time to service the car?

Or maybe your television beaming information to the PPC on the current
TV program being seen?

What about being at a sports event and having other sports scores beamed
out? Or maybe real-time stats on the teams & players beamed out during
the game?

Maybe you walk into a mall, your PPC beams out a profile and then
receives information on stores, specials & sales that you might be
interested in?

David H

xTenn wrote:

> "Helio Diamant - MS-MVP/Mobile Devices" <helio@nospam.pocketpcfreak.com>
> wrote in message news:ec44DJa8EHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>>This is right, but you have to take into account that this device MUST be
>>simple for everyone. Simple means simple, nothing more. And if you begin
>>boosting up with features requested by developers, simple is gone, and the
>>average user (something like 80% of the market) will not be able to
>>operate it.
>>
>>So it is important to keep it very simple, and leave the option to whoever
>>wants more power to add the applications he wants.
>>
>>I think Nightdrive has a point when it comes to Word and Excel, which are
>>expected by the simple user to do the same as their twins in Windows. But
>>I am sure they will get there.
>>
>
>
> True. I'm not even suggesting that a great Spreadsheet and Word package
> should come with the operating system - it does not happen with XP now. I'm
> just suggesting that the hardware is quite capable of supporting many more
> features than the free pocket excel and pocket word, as Planmaker and
> Textmaker clearly ilustrate.
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:o KqoX$a8EHA.2572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Which to a degree comes back to the right solution for the right problem
> and not trying to make a solution work simply because of the 'COOLNESS'
> factor.
>

Agree.

However, I wish I could count how many times I found having wikipedia in my
pocket has been helpful, yet other encyclopedias for the pocket pc are jokes
by comparison. Quality software makes the difference between coolness and
usefulness IMHO.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Um... sounds like virtual spam to me...

have you ever seen minority report?

"David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:%23SVPIDb8EHA.2900@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Yes, the hardware could probably support more than what's out there, but
> again its not a matter of wether or not the advance apps CAN be made but
> wether or not they SHOULD be made. If you want the power of a laptop - but
> a laptop. I personally see the power of a PPC going in the direction of
> advanced solutions such as providing extensive wireless remote control and
> monitoring.
>
> Wouldn't it be neat for your car to beam a task to your PPC when its
> time to service the car?
>
> Or maybe your television beaming information to the PPC on the current TV
> program being seen?
>
> What about being at a sports event and having other sports scores beamed
> out? Or maybe real-time stats on the teams & players beamed out during the
> game?
>
> Maybe you walk into a mall, your PPC beams out a profile and then receives
> information on stores, specials & sales that you might be interested in?
>
> David H
>
> xTenn wrote:
>
>> "Helio Diamant - MS-MVP/Mobile Devices" <helio@nospam.pocketpcfreak.com>
>> wrote in message news:ec44DJa8EHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>This is right, but you have to take into account that this device MUST be
>>>simple for everyone. Simple means simple, nothing more. And if you begin
>>>boosting up with features requested by developers, simple is gone, and
>>>the average user (something like 80% of the market) will not be able to
>>>operate it.
>>>
>>>So it is important to keep it very simple, and leave the option to
>>>whoever wants more power to add the applications he wants.
>>>
>>>I think Nightdrive has a point when it comes to Word and Excel, which are
>>>expected by the simple user to do the same as their twins in Windows. But
>>>I am sure they will get there.
>>>
>>
>>
>> True. I'm not even suggesting that a great Spreadsheet and Word package
>> should come with the operating system - it does not happen with XP now.
>> I'm just suggesting that the hardware is quite capable of supporting many
>> more features than the free pocket excel and pocket word, as Planmaker
>> and Textmaker clearly ilustrate.
>>
>>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:%23SVPIDb8EHA.2900@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> If you want the power of a laptop - but a laptop.


Okay - now define what exactly the "power of a laptop" is.

Browsing, email, spreadsheets? Done now on the pocket pc.
Financial tracking? On the pocket PC.
Workout tracking, downloading data from Polar watches, completely with
trending and graphs - Pocket PC.
Drawing, sketching, even basic cad creation - You know the answer.
Complete Quality (imho) desktop Encyclopedias (ala Wiki) - Pocket PC.
70k plus recipes for handy acess - yes, pocket pc.
Complete personal libraries - on the pocket thing.
Movies, videos, music - Do I even have to say?

The list goes on...
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

But fundamentally the software, and/or hardware, chosen has to fit the
business need.

xTenn wrote:

> "David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:o KqoX$a8EHA.2572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
>>Which to a degree comes back to the right solution for the right problem
>>and not trying to make a solution work simply because of the 'COOLNESS'
>>factor.
>>
>
>
> Agree.
>
> However, I wish I could count how many times I found having wikipedia in my
> pocket has been helpful, yet other encyclopedias for the pocket pc are jokes
> by comparison. Quality software makes the difference between coolness and
> usefulness IMHO.
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

I'm envisioning SPAM - mass emails beamed out to any IR device nearby,
but rather something that displays information pertaining to your
location that is beamed as its updated. Think of it as another section
on the TODAY screen along with TASKS, INBOX and CALENDAR. The
information is updated as long as you're in the area and then is
automaticaly removed from the TODAY screen when your PPC detects that
you're nolong nearby.

David H

finndo wrote:
> Um... sounds like virtual spam to me...
>
> have you ever seen minority report?
>
> "David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:%23SVPIDb8EHA.2900@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>>Yes, the hardware could probably support more than what's out there, but
>>again its not a matter of wether or not the advance apps CAN be made but
>>wether or not they SHOULD be made. If you want the power of a laptop - but
>>a laptop. I personally see the power of a PPC going in the direction of
>>advanced solutions such as providing extensive wireless remote control and
>>monitoring.
>>
>>Wouldn't it be neat for your car to beam a task to your PPC when its
>>time to service the car?
>>
>>Or maybe your television beaming information to the PPC on the current TV
>>program being seen?
>>
>>What about being at a sports event and having other sports scores beamed
>>out? Or maybe real-time stats on the teams & players beamed out during the
>>game?
>>
>>Maybe you walk into a mall, your PPC beams out a profile and then receives
>>information on stores, specials & sales that you might be interested in?
>>
>>David H
>>
>>xTenn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Helio Diamant - MS-MVP/Mobile Devices" <helio@nospam.pocketpcfreak.com>
>>>wrote in message news:ec44DJa8EHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is right, but you have to take into account that this device MUST be
>>>>simple for everyone. Simple means simple, nothing more. And if you begin
>>>>boosting up with features requested by developers, simple is gone, and
>>>>the average user (something like 80% of the market) will not be able to
>>>>operate it.
>>>>
>>>>So it is important to keep it very simple, and leave the option to
>>>>whoever wants more power to add the applications he wants.
>>>>
>>>>I think Nightdrive has a point when it comes to Word and Excel, which are
>>>>expected by the simple user to do the same as their twins in Windows. But
>>>>I am sure they will get there.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>True. I'm not even suggesting that a great Spreadsheet and Word package
>>>should come with the operating system - it does not happen with XP now.
>>>I'm just suggesting that the hardware is quite capable of supporting many
>>>more features than the free pocket excel and pocket word, as Planmaker
>>>and Textmaker clearly ilustrate.
>>>
>>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

I type close to 50 words per minute. Do you really believe that you
would be able to keep up with me on your PPC if you and I were to
compete in a contest where we have to type? Or that you would be able to
keep up with me if we both set out to perform the same exercises in an
Excel workbook?

David

xTenn wrote:

> "David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:%23SVPIDb8EHA.2900@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>>If you want the power of a laptop - but a laptop.
>
>
>
> Okay - now define what exactly the "power of a laptop" is.
>
> Browsing, email, spreadsheets? Done now on the pocket pc.
> Financial tracking? On the pocket PC.
> Workout tracking, downloading data from Polar watches, completely with
> trending and graphs - Pocket PC.
> Drawing, sketching, even basic cad creation - You know the answer.
> Complete Quality (imho) desktop Encyclopedias (ala Wiki) - Pocket PC.
> 70k plus recipes for handy acess - yes, pocket pc.
> Complete personal libraries - on the pocket thing.
> Movies, videos, music - Do I even have to say?
>
> The list goes on...
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:uQ60a0b8EHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> But fundamentally the software, and/or hardware, chosen has to fit the
> business need.
>

Agreed. Now, can you define the business need as to how it would preclude
the use of a small device with with right software? Granted, high speed text
entering would require an all too common keyboard addition, but if you do a
lot of this (such as call operators) I would not even suggest a laptop.
Besides, it might be that audio would be a better fit for the particular
model. For example, I use audio email notes a lot, something that works
well with the device that is not practical with a full size PC (unless you
remember to drag along the microphone), and carries more inflected
information back and forth than mere words.

There are applications that are not suited for such devices (such as those
that require a lot of screen real estate), but with rollout screens and more
coming that solve some base issues the ideal of needing a PC instead of a
personal device might be the definition of the business need. Already cell
phones are taking the functions of the all-important desktop phone in some
business arenas.

There are only two things for sure - the business need is in state of flux,
and the line between a laptop function and a personal device function is
getting more blurred all the time.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:42 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:o mMlozb8EHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I type close to 50 words per minute. Do you really believe that you would
>be able to keep up with me on your PPC if you and I were to compete in a
>contest where we have to type? Or that you would be able to keep up with me
>if we both set out to perform the same exercises in an Excel workbook?
>
> David
>

Heck, I'm a horrible typist - I couldn't keep up with you on a full size
keyboard. I just try to say it in fewer words. ;) 

But as for Excel, well, I will say that I give planmaker a pretty good
workout, well beyond pocket excel.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:42 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

It depends on the person and specific usage. I don't think though that
there would ever been a need for full-fledged Word or Excel though
simply because of their requirements for a keyboard and larger screen.

xTenn wrote:
> "David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:uQ60a0b8EHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
>>But fundamentally the software, and/or hardware, chosen has to fit the
>>business need.
>>
>
>
> Agreed. Now, can you define the business need as to how it would preclude
> the use of a small device with with right software? Granted, high speed text
> entering would require an all too common keyboard addition, but if you do a
> lot of this (such as call operators) I would not even suggest a laptop.
> Besides, it might be that audio would be a better fit for the particular
> model. For example, I use audio email notes a lot, something that works
> well with the device that is not practical with a full size PC (unless you
> remember to drag along the microphone), and carries more inflected
> information back and forth than mere words.
>
> There are applications that are not suited for such devices (such as those
> that require a lot of screen real estate), but with rollout screens and more
> coming that solve some base issues the ideal of needing a PC instead of a
> personal device might be the definition of the business need. Already cell
> phones are taking the functions of the all-important desktop phone in some
> business arenas.
>
> There are only two things for sure - the business need is in state of flux,
> and the line between a laptop function and a personal device function is
> getting more blurred all the time.
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

So you're right at home on your PPC using chicken-pecking?

xTenn wrote:
> "David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:o mMlozb8EHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
>>I type close to 50 words per minute. Do you really believe that you would
>>be able to keep up with me on your PPC if you and I were to compete in a
>>contest where we have to type? Or that you would be able to keep up with me
>>if we both set out to perform the same exercises in an Excel workbook?
>>
>>David
>>
>
>
> Heck, I'm a horrible typist - I couldn't keep up with you on a full size
> keyboard. I just try to say it in fewer words. ;) 
>
> But as for Excel, well, I will say that I give planmaker a pretty good
> workout, well beyond pocket excel.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:u82tdVd8EHA.3756@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> It depends on the person and specific usage. I don't think though that
> there would ever been a need for full-fledged Word or Excel though simply
> because of their requirements for a keyboard and larger screen.
>


Granted, screen real estate (or poor use thereof) is one of my gripes, but
check here for a Word and Excel brother that has managed to find that need
....

http://www.softmaker.de/index_en.htm
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:42:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:%23mQj0wc8EHA.2192@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> So you're right at home on your PPC using chicken-pecking?
>


Check out the response on another part of the thread, but for simple things,
yes. Audio notes, drawings, and blue tooth keyboard do the rest. There
are exceptions, of course, especially those with the demands of large screen
real estate and development/control uses. But a personal device empowers me
more directly than lugging around the extra gear, although it is not all
there yet.

The thrust of the thread as which I entered is that the current devices are
much more capable than the abilities the base software shipped with the
units provide.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:50:07 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

I agree with Nightdrive, shipping the PPC with no software and "points" to
spend at a Microsoft store online to download applications that are powerful
and fully featured, would be wonderful.

I also wish I could use Pocket Streets with Microsoft's online mapping
software and not have to buy the home based program to even install it. (I
have streets and trips 2001 but when I try to install pocket streets 2004 or
2005 it says it does not detect a valid program installed on my PC)



"Nightdrive" <nightdrive@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:u0YndZO8EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Before I start, I will state that I really like my iPaq hx4700. Fantastic
> screen, WiFi. Browsing the net anywhere in the house is a huge leap
> forwards from my old Palm m500 with AvantGo.
>
> However...
> I am really disappointed by the quality of the built in applications. They
> appear to be intentionally stripped down apps to appease the developer
> community. As a developer myself, I'm not opposed to other people making a
> living from writing good software, but as a user, it would nice if some
> decent functionality was built in, out of the box.
>
> Notes in particular is appalling, it looks like a demo app you'd see in a
> programming book. Where are categories? Why can't I change font size of
> the listing? Could I have a preview pane?
>
> The calendar is useful, but fairly basic, and has such poor support for
> the VGA screen that HP include Pocket Informant. Unfortunately, although
> some features look great in VGA (calendar), it is so advanced that it has
> a fairly sharp learning curve. Without looking into the manual, I've no
> idea how to use the Notes feature - it seems to have been written without
> regard for any of the standard UI elements present in the built in
> applications. It seems to be designed to provide the maximum number of
> bullet points in a feature list, instead of doing the basics correctly.
>
> I understand that due to memory constraints, not all features can be build
> into all applications. Every user has different requirements. As such, I'd
> rather see the OS shipped with LESS software, and have the choice of
> downloading FEATURE RICH, WELL DESIGNED versions of the apps I use the
> most. Maybe use a point system like www.ipaqchoice.com
>
> Personally, I'd go for the following:
> Notes - with categories, and ability to use a tree (outline) structure if
> required. Link to tasks
> CHM Viewer - very useful for those C# books
> Newsgroup reader - so I can rant anywhere!
> Contacts - very minimal, may even use Notes if search is good enough
> Calendar - VGA support, and ability to set default settings for new
> appointments (I would set all to 'Private' as default, as my work calendar
> has to be shared)
> ...And I wouldn't expect to have to pay $9.99 -> $49.99 for each
> application - for the privilege of such basic functionality. A points
> system, where you get free points (and buy more if required) which would
> allow me to 'purchase' these approvd, consistent applications from
> Microsoft, without spending weeks sifting the wheat from the chaff.
>
> Or alternately, provide us with decent apps to start with.
>
>
> Comments, flames welcome. Suggestions for good commercial software which
> may fit my requirements also welcome. This is a general gut feeling about
> my first 2 weeks on Pocket PC. I expect more posts with specific questions
> for you all in the near future.
>
> Happy mobile computing!
>
> Greg Woods
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 6:08:44 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On 02 Jan 2005, "Nightdrive" <nightdrive@supanet.com> pondered an
unfair universe and came up with
news:u0YndZO8EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:

> Comments, flames welcome. Suggestions for good commercial software
> which may fit my requirements also welcome. This is a general gut
> feeling about my first 2 weeks on Pocket PC. I expect more posts
> with specific questions for you all in the near future.

I'd say, "Get theyself to freewareppc.com and see what's on there
that meets your needs."

But I agree on almost all counts. The fact that there's a lot of
enhancements to the basic programs available out there shows that the
software that comes with the OS could be a lot more functional out of
the box, a major complaint of mine. There's absolutely no excuse for
Pocket IE not being IE 5.5 compliant without having to hack the
registry. There's no excuse for Pocket Outlook's mail reader not to
have the ability to use a different POP and SMTP domain. There's no
excuse for WMP's piss poor playlist management or lack of widely
available features like an equalizer. There's no excuse for Explorer
not being able to see system files. There's no excuse for a lack of
registry editor. There's no excuse for a lack of newsgroup reader.
There's no excuse for lack of a desktop. Or decent task manager. Or
built in FTP.

And those who say that Pocket PCs aren't desktop PCs are full of it.
My Pocket PC, outfitted with software from the various freeware sites
has 85% of the functionality of my desktop PC. Here are some of those
sites:

http://www.freewareppc.com/
http://www.snapfiles.com/pocketpc/pocketpcfw.html
http://www.pocketpcsoft.net/php/freeware.php
http://www.pocketpcfreewares.com/en/index.php?soft=449

As for those who say that the PPC shouldn't have more capabilities
and excusing the piss poor storage that PPCs come with, all I can say
is considering the state of the art and pricing of flash memory,
there is no excuse why PPCs still mostly come with the same ROM and
RAM that they came with 5 years ago. If we can get 1gb flash cards
for $70, it's a good bet that the manufacturers could get that flash
memory in raw form for a good deal less, and it wouldn't take up any
more room than the pathetic 64-128mb of ROM (really flash) that they
currently come with. Maybe lack of storage can be justified for the
lowest priced models, but not those costing $400 or more.

--
StephG
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 4:32:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:14:53 -0400, xTenn
<xtennremovethispart@tds.net> wrote:

>I would have to disagree with your summation, Amy ( in a most honorable
>way, if possible). You have to take into account the sheer power and
>storage capability an average ppc with a 512m card has as compared to a
>386/20 mhz computer of yesterday (year?), and to say that it is undeserving
>of capable software the desktop has enjoyed for many years since such
>machines were the mainstay is not logical, especially when such a
>comparison is taken into consideration. Or am I the only old fart here who
>suffered through the intervening years enough to realize what the right
>software with a decent amount of hardware, albeit even limited, can do? ;) 
That would be logical if the PPC had 70gig of storage. I believe the
largest storage on a ppc is 128 meg without a CF/SD card. That sort
of limits your options when creating software.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 4:41:10 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"Amy Gray" <JudgeAmyGrayNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r5olt0pr3udh0q681f3q6m7ojeelvbdt9b@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:14:53 -0400, xTenn
> <xtennremovethispart@tds.net> wrote:
>
> That would be logical if the PPC had 70gig of storage. I believe the
> largest storage on a ppc is 128 meg without a CF/SD card. That sort
> of limits your options when creating software.
>

<sigh>

Okay, name a program that you cannot do with a PPC with a good size storage
card and/or network access... Fast typing not withstanding, of course...
January 4, 2005 5:32:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

xTenn wrote:
>
> <sigh>
>
> Okay, name a program that you cannot do with a PPC with a good size storage
> card and/or network access... Fast typing not withstanding, of course...
>

Half Life 2,
Adobe Premiere,
3DStudio Max,
Maya,
hundreds of applicaitons that require intensive graphics calculations,
many electrical circuit simulation applications might run but would take
too long to do anything practical..
the list goes on and on.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 6:12:33 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"potatoman" <hambonejazz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34098aF44ic3nU1@individual.net...
> xTenn wrote:
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> Okay, name a program that you cannot do with a PPC with a good size
>> storage card and/or network access... Fast typing not withstanding, of
>> course...
>>
>
> Half Life 2,
> Adobe Premiere,
> 3DStudio Max,
> Maya,
> hundreds of applicaitons that require intensive graphics calculations,
> many electrical circuit simulation applications might run but would take
> too long to do anything practical..
> the list goes on and on.

<sigh> I was expecting this

Yes, there are 3d games...
Pocket Quake

Yes, there are pocket 3d cad...
Pocket Blender (You may have to dig to find it)

Yes, there are spice programs for circuit analysis.

I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that a pocket PC would run
Doom3 or Halo2... half of the laptops on the country would fail that test.

I assume the gaming is what you refer to as graphics calculations, otherwise
you probably realize that numerical analysis is quite popular on pocket
devices, hence the proliferation of scientific graphing calculator programs
and spreadsheet programs with statistical abilities. There will be
exceptions, as there are with gaming, but that really falls out of the realm
of common comparison.

I think it was obvious that I was referring to a common program type,
otherwise you could state any specific game on a mac as well... ;) 
January 4, 2005 6:58:49 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

xTenn wrote:
> "potatoman" <hambonejazz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:34098aF44ic3nU1@individual.net...
>
>>xTenn wrote:
>>
>>><sigh>
>>>
>>>Okay, name a program that you cannot do with a PPC with a good size
>>>storage card and/or network access... Fast typing not withstanding, of
>>>course...
>>>
>>
>>Half Life 2,
>>Adobe Premiere,
>>3DStudio Max,
>>Maya,
>>hundreds of applicaitons that require intensive graphics calculations,
>>many electrical circuit simulation applications might run but would take
>>too long to do anything practical..
>>the list goes on and on.
>
>
> <sigh> I was expecting this
>
> Yes, there are 3d games...
> Pocket Quake
>
> Yes, there are pocket 3d cad...
> Pocket Blender (You may have to dig to find it)
>
> Yes, there are spice programs for circuit analysis.
>
> I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that a pocket PC would run
> Doom3 or Halo2... half of the laptops on the country would fail that test.
>
> I assume the gaming is what you refer to as graphics calculations, otherwise
> you probably realize that numerical analysis is quite popular on pocket
> devices, hence the proliferation of scientific graphing calculator programs
> and spreadsheet programs with statistical abilities. There will be
> exceptions, as there are with gaming, but that really falls out of the realm
> of common comparison.
>
> I think it was obvious that I was referring to a common program type,
> otherwise you could state any specific game on a mac as well... ;) 
>

Maybe I'm missing your argument. Are you saying that a pocket pc could
do exactly what a laptop of the same cpu, memory, storage capacicity,
network access, etc. could do? If that's your argument, then yeah the
only difference is the mechanism of interaction.

If you are trying to say that a pocket pc can do anything a laptop with
a faster cpu, more memory, drive space, graphics accelaration, etc. can
do then I'm saying no it can't. The exact question you posed was: "name
a program that you cannot do with a PPC with a good size storage
card and/or network access".

For someone that deals with extensive 3d visualizations and numerical
analysis (which happens to be my career), there is no pocket pc that can
even come close to comparing to an almost infinitely configurable pc
(desktop or laptop). Sure you could probably manage a rudementary 3D
application that uses bitmaps to reproduce what an openGL program would
do on a pocket pc but there is no way it's going to compare to a
full-fledged 3D creation environment running on a machine that has a
dedicated 3D graphics card. That's not the intent of a pocket PC.

And I think that was Amy's point - if you want something that's going to
be as powerful as a modern day desktop, you might should be looking at
something a little closer to the hardware specifications of a desktop.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 7:54:42 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"potatoman" <hambonejazz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:340eb1F448otnU1@individual.net...
>
> Maybe I'm missing your argument. Are you saying that a pocket pc could do
> exactly what a laptop of the same cpu, memory, storage capacicity, network
> access, etc. could do? If that's your argument, then yeah the only
> difference is the mechanism of interaction.
>

> If you are trying to say that a pocket pc can do anything a laptop with a
> faster cpu, more memory, drive space, graphics accelaration, etc. can do
> then I'm saying no it can't. The exact question you posed was: "name a
> program that you cannot do with a PPC with a good size storage
> card and/or network access".
>
> For someone that deals with extensive 3d visualizations and numerical
> analysis (which happens to be my career), there is no pocket pc that can
> even come close to comparing to an almost infinitely configurable pc
> (desktop or laptop). Sure you could probably manage a rudementary 3D
> application that uses bitmaps to reproduce what an openGL program would do
> on a pocket pc but there is no way it's going to compare to a full-fledged
> 3D creation environment running on a machine that has a dedicated 3D
> graphics card. That's not the intent of a pocket PC.
>
> And I think that was Amy's point - if you want something that's going to
> be as powerful as a modern day desktop, you might should be looking at
> something a little closer to the hardware specifications of a desktop.


Just a little reflection here.

Do you really think that, for an instant, nightdrive was referring to the
heavy-hitting needs that you refer to?

Yet it was to this that Amy responded - note that the caliber of processing
that you are mentioning has not been mentioned before now. You could just
as easy refer to graphical workstations and render farms that no laptop
could do within a practical reason (as is the argument now against the ppc),
but I was hoping that a modicum of rationale would prevade...

However, since we are here, The answer is YES, the pocket PC can do 3d
graphical games. This is a program function. As would be a full featured
Spreadsheet, another program function that Pocket PCs now have, but a sane
person would not counter that MatLab will not work on a PPC either... ;) 

Maybe in my original post I should have stated that by "Name A Program" I
was referring to a function, not a specific program - in all things usenet
it would be best to be specific, but I was delighted to see that someone did
lead out with programs (HL2) that required hardware (FAST video card) that
again half the laptops in actual use will not possess...
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 7:56:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"StephG" <dontspamFrankensoftail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D3C32877525StephG@130.133.1.4...
> On 02 Jan 2005, "Nightdrive" <nightdrive@supanet.com> pondered an
> unfair universe and came up with
> news:u0YndZO8EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:
>
>> Comments, flames welcome. Suggestions for good commercial software
>> which may fit my requirements also welcome. This is a general gut
>> feeling about my first 2 weeks on Pocket PC. I expect more posts
>> with specific questions for you all in the near future.
>
> I'd say, "Get theyself to freewareppc.com and see what's on there
> that meets your needs."
>
> But I agree on almost all counts. The fact that there's a lot of
> enhancements to the basic programs available out there shows that the
> software that comes with the OS could be a lot more functional out of
> the box, a major complaint of mine. There's absolutely no excuse for
> Pocket IE not being IE 5.5 compliant without having to hack the
> registry. There's no excuse for Pocket Outlook's mail reader not to
> have the ability to use a different POP and SMTP domain. There's no
> excuse for WMP's piss poor playlist management or lack of widely
> available features like an equalizer. There's no excuse for Explorer
> not being able to see system files. There's no excuse for a lack of
> registry editor. There's no excuse for a lack of newsgroup reader.
> There's no excuse for lack of a desktop. Or decent task manager. Or
> built in FTP.
>
> And those who say that Pocket PCs aren't desktop PCs are full of it.
> My Pocket PC, outfitted with software from the various freeware sites
> has 85% of the functionality of my desktop PC. Here are some of those
> sites:
>
> As for those who say that the PPC shouldn't have more capabilities
> and excusing the piss poor storage that PPCs come with, all I can say
> is considering the state of the art and pricing of flash memory,
> there is no excuse why PPCs still mostly come with the same ROM and
> RAM that they came with 5 years ago. If we can get 1gb flash cards
> for $70, it's a good bet that the manufacturers could get that flash
> memory in raw form for a good deal less, and it wouldn't take up any
> more room than the pathetic 64-128mb of ROM (really flash) that they
> currently come with. Maybe lack of storage can be justified for the
> lowest priced models, but not those costing $400 or more.
>
> --
> StephG

Battery life is the major concern when we talk about memory on Pocket PC.
There's a battery drain to keep RAM memory constantly on - because a Pocket
PC is never off - it's always in a sleep mode, a button click away. While
it's "sleeping" RAM must be kept alive.

As for functionality, Windows Mobile is an OS, not an application suite.
Since older OS we've seen this happening. What was CP/M without WordStar and
Visicalc? These were not supplied with the OS. What was TRS-DOS without a
Cobol compiler? this was not supplied with the OS.

--
Mauricio Freitas, Microsoft MVP Mobile Devices
Bluetooth guides: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=449
Geekzone Software Store: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/store
Our RSS feeds give you up to date information on new software as soon as
they're available: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=3344
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 7:56:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On 03 Jan 2005, "Mauricio Freitas [MVP]"
<dr.emailposter@nowhere.invalid> pondered an unfair universe and
came up with news:o 5wHnDh8EHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:

>
> "StephG" <dontspamFrankensoftail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95D3C32877525StephG@130.133.1.4...
>> On 02 Jan 2005, "Nightdrive" <nightdrive@supanet.com> pondered an
>> unfair universe and came up with
>> news:u0YndZO8EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> Comments, flames welcome. Suggestions for good commercial
>>> software which may fit my requirements also welcome. This is a
>>> general gut feeling about my first 2 weeks on Pocket PC. I
>>> expect more posts with specific questions for you all in the
>>> near future.
>>
>> I'd say, "Get theyself to freewareppc.com and see what's on there
>> that meets your needs."
>>
>> But I agree on almost all counts. The fact that there's a lot of
>> enhancements to the basic programs available out there shows that
>> the software that comes with the OS could be a lot more
>> functional out of the box, a major complaint of mine. There's
>> absolutely no excuse for Pocket IE not being IE 5.5 compliant
>> without having to hack the registry. There's no excuse for Pocket
>> Outlook's mail reader not to have the ability to use a different
>> POP and SMTP domain. There's no excuse for WMP's piss poor
>> playlist management or lack of widely available features like an
>> equalizer. There's no excuse for Explorer not being able to see
>> system files. There's no excuse for a lack of registry editor.
>> There's no excuse for a lack of newsgroup reader. There's no
>> excuse for lack of a desktop. Or decent task manager. Or built in
>> FTP.
>>
>> And those who say that Pocket PCs aren't desktop PCs are full of
>> it. My Pocket PC, outfitted with software from the various
>> freeware sites has 85% of the functionality of my desktop PC.
>> Here are some of those sites:
>>
>> As for those who say that the PPC shouldn't have more
>> capabilities and excusing the piss poor storage that PPCs come
>> with, all I can say is considering the state of the art and
>> pricing of flash memory, there is no excuse why PPCs still mostly
>> come with the same ROM and RAM that they came with 5 years ago.
>> If we can get 1gb flash cards for $70, it's a good bet that the
>> manufacturers could get that flash memory in raw form for a good
>> deal less, and it wouldn't take up any more room than the
>> pathetic 64-128mb of ROM (really flash) that they currently come
>> with. Maybe lack of storage can be justified for the lowest
>> priced models, but not those costing $400 or more.
>>
>> --
>> StephG
>
> Battery life is the major concern when we talk about memory on
> Pocket PC. There's a battery drain to keep RAM memory constantly
> on - because a Pocket PC is never off - it's always in a sleep
> mode, a button click away. While it's "sleeping" RAM must be kept
> alive.

However, flash doesn't take power to keep it alive. If there were
sufficient flash "ROM" included with stock PPCs, then before the
battery drained, the RAM image could be copied over to "ROM" (like
"hibernate" mode on a PC) so when the battery is recharged, the RAM
could be recovered.

> As for functionality, Windows Mobile is an OS, not an application
> suite. Since older OS we've seen this happening. What was CP/M
> without WordStar and Visicalc? These were not supplied with the
> OS. What was TRS-DOS without a Cobol compiler? this was not
> supplied with the OS.

All OSes are application suites. Unix commands are all based on
programs added to the Unix kernel, for example.

As far as Windows Mobile, the expectation is that it has similar
functionality to Windows. And there's no technical reason why it
shouldn't, considering that third party programs have that
functionality.

Stop making excuses for Microsoft's laziness. Maybe they'll be more
diligent with WM 2005, but that doesn't help those who can't upgrade
due to MS's departure from the "open architecture" structure they
promoted on PCs.

--
StephG
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 9:15:27 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Hey, why don't you try to build a device that you can sell for $500 and has
all the functionality you have just described? You could make a lot of money
out of that.... if you manage to.

--
********************************************************
Helio Diamant - MS-MVP/Mobile Devices
Editor-in-Chief
Pocket PC Freak - The Hebrew Pocket PC site
http://www.pocketpcfreak.com
********************************************************
"StephG" <dontspamFrankensoftail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D414E2924BStephG@130.133.1.4...
> On 03 Jan 2005, "Mauricio Freitas [MVP]"
> <dr.emailposter@nowhere.invalid> pondered an unfair universe and
> came up with news:o 5wHnDh8EHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:
>
>>
>> "StephG" <dontspamFrankensoftail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns95D3C32877525StephG@130.133.1.4...
>>> On 02 Jan 2005, "Nightdrive" <nightdrive@supanet.com> pondered an
>>> unfair universe and came up with
>>> news:u0YndZO8EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:
>>>
>>>> Comments, flames welcome. Suggestions for good commercial
>>>> software which may fit my requirements also welcome. This is a
>>>> general gut feeling about my first 2 weeks on Pocket PC. I
>>>> expect more posts with specific questions for you all in the
>>>> near future.
>>>
>>> I'd say, "Get theyself to freewareppc.com and see what's on there
>>> that meets your needs."
>>>
>>> But I agree on almost all counts. The fact that there's a lot of
>>> enhancements to the basic programs available out there shows that
>>> the software that comes with the OS could be a lot more
>>> functional out of the box, a major complaint of mine. There's
>>> absolutely no excuse for Pocket IE not being IE 5.5 compliant
>>> without having to hack the registry. There's no excuse for Pocket
>>> Outlook's mail reader not to have the ability to use a different
>>> POP and SMTP domain. There's no excuse for WMP's piss poor
>>> playlist management or lack of widely available features like an
>>> equalizer. There's no excuse for Explorer not being able to see
>>> system files. There's no excuse for a lack of registry editor.
>>> There's no excuse for a lack of newsgroup reader. There's no
>>> excuse for lack of a desktop. Or decent task manager. Or built in
>>> FTP.
>>>
>>> And those who say that Pocket PCs aren't desktop PCs are full of
>>> it. My Pocket PC, outfitted with software from the various
>>> freeware sites has 85% of the functionality of my desktop PC.
>>> Here are some of those sites:
>>>
>>> As for those who say that the PPC shouldn't have more
>>> capabilities and excusing the piss poor storage that PPCs come
>>> with, all I can say is considering the state of the art and
>>> pricing of flash memory, there is no excuse why PPCs still mostly
>>> come with the same ROM and RAM that they came with 5 years ago.
>>> If we can get 1gb flash cards for $70, it's a good bet that the
>>> manufacturers could get that flash memory in raw form for a good
>>> deal less, and it wouldn't take up any more room than the
>>> pathetic 64-128mb of ROM (really flash) that they currently come
>>> with. Maybe lack of storage can be justified for the lowest
>>> priced models, but not those costing $400 or more.
>>>
>>> --
>>> StephG
>>
>> Battery life is the major concern when we talk about memory on
>> Pocket PC. There's a battery drain to keep RAM memory constantly
>> on - because a Pocket PC is never off - it's always in a sleep
>> mode, a button click away. While it's "sleeping" RAM must be kept
>> alive.
>
> However, flash doesn't take power to keep it alive. If there were
> sufficient flash "ROM" included with stock PPCs, then before the
> battery drained, the RAM image could be copied over to "ROM" (like
> "hibernate" mode on a PC) so when the battery is recharged, the RAM
> could be recovered.
>
>> As for functionality, Windows Mobile is an OS, not an application
>> suite. Since older OS we've seen this happening. What was CP/M
>> without WordStar and Visicalc? These were not supplied with the
>> OS. What was TRS-DOS without a Cobol compiler? this was not
>> supplied with the OS.
>
> All OSes are application suites. Unix commands are all based on
> programs added to the Unix kernel, for example.
>
> As far as Windows Mobile, the expectation is that it has similar
> functionality to Windows. And there's no technical reason why it
> shouldn't, considering that third party programs have that
> functionality.
>
> Stop making excuses for Microsoft's laziness. Maybe they'll be more
> diligent with WM 2005, but that doesn't help those who can't upgrade
> due to MS's departure from the "open architecture" structure they
> promoted on PCs.
>
> --
> StephG
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 9:32:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

>And I think that was Amy's point - if you want something that's going to
>be as powerful as a modern day desktop, you might should be looking at
>something a little closer to the hardware specifications of a desktop.
When you decide you want to do something on a computer the first thing
to do is look at what you want to do and what software will do that
task. In your case it sounds like a laptop would be a better fit.
Escpecially where you're talking gigabytes to hold the programs.

Maybe in ten years they will figure out a way to put 75 gigs into
a pocket pc, until then you're stuck with the existing technology.

Of course if someone wants to create an application for the PPC that
equals anything on the desktop then by all means be my guest....go for
it......create it and market it.

After all one of the beautiful things about the PPC is if you want
to create an application for the PPC you're more than welcome to try.
And if the result is good the PPC users will beat a path to your door.

BTW, i'm not sure where I saw it but a company is going to be coming
out with a "full sized" Windows XP computer that is about the size
of an IPAQ. Maybe that is what you should be looking at?
(I had a link to it a while back.....before the computer died.)
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 3:45:24 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On 04 Jan 2005, "Helio Diamant - MS-MVP/Mobile Devices"
<helio@nospam.pocketpcfreak.com> pondered an unfair universe and
came up with news:u0FFlhn8EHA.1408@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:

> Hey, why don't you try to build a device that you can sell for
> $500 and has all the functionality you have just described? You
> could make a lot of money out of that.... if you manage to.

More excuses for the weakness, laziness and sloppiness of a company
worth tens of billions of dollars that only has to put a tiny bit
more effort into making a truly unequaled product instead of one that
has a lot of potential but isn't very good as it comes out of the
box.

By the way, "If you can do better, why don't you do it yourself?" is
a pretty lame argument. But I'll tell you what: if you can convince
Microsoft to make me the PPC project manager and give me the power to
hire and fire anyone I want but with the current budget, I could
defintely produce a superior product right out of the box for less
than they're spending on the underpowered, shabby one they've been
putting out. I'd start by hiring Philippe Majerus, Mirko Schenk,
Gábor Kovács, Toshi Furukawa, Matt Pattman, Christian Ghisler,
Nakashima Tomoaki, Marc Pelmar, and Dmitry Qusnetsov to bring the
platform up to a decent level of out of the box Internet, OS
management and Multimedia functionality that wouldn't disappoint
people used to their desktop functionality.

In fact, with that group, Palm and the upstart Linux pocket devices
would be blown so far out of the water that no one would even start
to consider them. Of course, then MS would have to consider that
whole monopoly problem again.

--
StephG
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 4:02:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On 04 Jan 2005, potatoman <hambonejazz@hotmail.com> pondered an
unfair universe and came up with
news:34098aF44ic3nU1@individual.net:

> xTenn wrote:
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> Okay, name a program that you cannot do with a PPC with a good
>> size storage card and/or network access... Fast typing not
>> withstanding, of course...
>>
>
> Half Life 2,
> Adobe Premiere,
> 3DStudio Max,
> Maya,
> hundreds of applicaitons that require intensive graphics
> calculations, many electrical circuit simulation applications
> might run but would take too long to do anything practical..
> the list goes on and on.

For me, that's the 15% that the PPC can't do. For one thing, the
screen size is a major stumbling block in graphics programs anyway,
so it's moot. The processing power is there, and an efficient program
like Animation Master could probably work. It used to work on PCs
with 90mhz processors and 64 megs of memory pretty handily.

But any text program and 2d graphics display that doesn't require
manipulation of the graphic image other than resizing could easily
function with PPC sized screen images: like, say, web page authoring
or Power Point presentations.

And memory use could be expanded if larger flash memory were standard
and part of it was dedicated to caching, which is how we used to work
when memory was expensive on PCs.

I don't know about electrical circuit simulation apps, but it's only
about 7 years ago that PC performance, where circuit simulation
programs were often run at the time, was well below that of Pocket
PCs today (and SGI Indigo 2 workstations were slower than that, and a
lot of EE work was being done on them).

There are certainly a lot of things that a PPC would be suboptimal
for, but then the platform would make an excellent scratchpad for
portions of work during times of transit when nothing would be
getting done at all.

--
StephG
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 4:15:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On 04 Jan 2005, "xTenn" <xTennREmoveThisPart@tds.net> pondered an
unfair universe and came up with
news:#DgF8fq8EHA.3416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:

> Yet it was to this that Amy responded - note that the caliber of
> processing that you are mentioning has not been mentioned before
> now. You could just as easy refer to graphical workstations and
> render farms that no laptop could do within a practical reason (as
> is the argument now against the ppc), but I was hoping that a
> modicum of rationale would prevade...

Now that just isn't true. I know people in the effects industry who
*are* using laptops for their scenes using Maya. I'm thinking of
doing the same when I finally replace my PC.

But there *is* a hierarchy of processing power. While the PPC would
occupy some of the lowest rungs, there are many desktop activities
that it's more than capable of.

There's also the chicken/egg syndrome at work here. If there were
more applications that pushed the PPC to the edge, then
manufacturers would have the incentive to make PPCs with more RAM
and more flash-ROM storage, and better IO as well if it meant
expanding the market.

And there are near PPC sized devices that are actually PCs, running
Windows XP. http://www.oqo.com/hardware/specs/

My prediction is that these devices will get smaller, lighter and
more practical, and will make WinCE devices obsolete, unless WinCE
starts reaching toward WinXP functionality and the devices start
being what is implied by the words "Pocket PC".

--
StephG
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 4:15:03 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Reply to message from StephG <dontspamFrankensoftail@hotmail.com> (Tue, 04
Jan 2005 21:15:02) about ""Re: Pocket PC OS verges on being crippleware"":


S> My prediction is that these devices will get smaller, lighter and more
S> practical, and will make WinCE devices obsolete, unless WinCE starts
S> reaching toward WinXP functionality and the devices start being what is
S> implied by the words "Pocket PC".

It could go either way, true enough, and as long as 1) it is a pc first,
not a poor phone attempt 2) it has decent processing and storage and 3) it
can fit in my pocket, well then, that is wonderful.

Oh, 802.11g or better would be good, too.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 7:11:26 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On 04 Jan 2005, xTenn <xtennremovethispart@tds.net> pondered an
unfair universe and came up with
news:1104905779@xtennremovethispart.tds.net:

> Reply to message from StephG <dontspamFrankensoftail@hotmail.com>
> (Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:15:02) about ""Re: Pocket PC OS verges on
> being crippleware"":
>
>
> S> My prediction is that these devices will get smaller, lighter
> and more S> practical, and will make WinCE devices obsolete,
> unless WinCE starts S> reaching toward WinXP functionality and
> the devices start being what is S> implied by the words "Pocket
> PC".
>
> It could go either way, true enough, and as long as 1) it is a pc
> first, not a poor phone attempt 2) it has decent processing and
> storage and 3) it can fit in my pocket, well then, that is
> wonderful.
>
> Oh, 802.11g or better would be good, too.

I think the OQO is the writing on the wall. It's an early proof of
concept that will be more practical down the line when other
companies with more resources (in Asia, of course) emulate it.

Recent reports that WM2005 is principally targeted at "enterprise
customers" rather than additionally targeting students and the young
who are new to the world of the employed, who obviously can afford
iPods, they're still principally looking at PPCs as basically an
upwardly mobile PIM shows how truly warped the marketing dweebs at
Microsoft really are.

I think WinCE is becoming computing's bastard stepchild.

--
StephG
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 7:20:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

I would (if I needed to) be using something like IBM's via voice for my
pocket word most likely, but I do not do a lot of writing...


"David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:u82tdVd8EHA.3756@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> It depends on the person and specific usage. I don't think though that
> there would ever been a need for full-fledged Word or Excel though simply
> because of their requirements for a keyboard and larger screen.
>
> xTenn wrote:
>> "David C. Holley" <DavidCHolley@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:uQ60a0b8EHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>But fundamentally the software, and/or hardware, chosen has to fit the
>>>business need.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed. Now, can you define the business need as to how it would
>> preclude the use of a small device with with right software? Granted,
>> high speed text entering would require an all too common keyboard
>> addition, but if you do a lot of this (such as call operators) I would
>> not even suggest a laptop. Besides, it might be that audio would be a
>> better fit for the particular model. For example, I use audio email
>> notes a lot, something that works well with the device that is not
>> practical with a full size PC (unless you remember to drag along the
>> microphone), and carries more inflected information back and forth than
>> mere words.
>>
>> There are applications that are not suited for such devices (such as
>> those that require a lot of screen real estate), but with rollout screens
>> and more coming that solve some base issues the ideal of needing a PC
>> instead of a personal device might be the definition of the business
>> need. Already cell phones are taking the functions of the all-important
>> desktop phone in some business arenas.
>>
>> There are only two things for sure - the business need is in state of
>> flux, and the line between a laptop function and a personal device
>> function is getting more blurred all the time.
>>
>>
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 7:40:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

I have not yet figured out why PPC's have not gotten a larger amount of ram
Is it so unfathomable to offer an upgrade via the manufacturer during the
initial order to boost the ram to any size? I mean websites like Dell
"claim" that when you customize any device for order that they actually go
"make it" for you. so why would it be such a hard stretch to order an Axim
with 1 gig of ram built in? I mean if someone wants to pay for it... I
understand there are space requirements but have you ever used an extended
battery? on some of the smaller sized PPC's it almost doubles the thickness
of the device. Why can I not order my PPC with the extended battery built
in? just slap a different back on the device, which would give more space to
add the extra ram I want. I don't care about a 3d accelerator, its a pocket
PPC for crying out loud. But if I can buy a 5+ gig microdrive that FITS
INSIDE my PPC, why do I have to be stuck with 32 or 64 MEGS of ram?


you can feel free to not read the rest of this it is not really related, I
am not sure why I typed it, but I don't feel like deleting it...


With desktop computers (before the Pentium 4 launch) I always had
(had=upgraded to) at least twice if not four times as much ram installed as
the CPU's processing speed. dating back to 1981, but with a pocket pc I
have 1/10th the ram of the processor's speed (not that this is a
mathematically, nor scientifically comparable situation. but I'm one of
those idiots that frequently has 30+ web pages open and Photoshop running
while my PPC is syncing and a couple of other various programs might or
might not be running at the same time. completely possible on an AMD K6-300
MHz computer, with 2 gigs of ram. But it would never happen on a P4 3.4 GHz
with 64 megs of ram.)



"StephG" <dontspamFrankensoftail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D4ADC144FC6StephG@130.133.1.4...
> On 04 Jan 2005, potatoman <hambonejazz@hotmail.com> pondered an
> unfair universe and came up with
> news:34098aF44ic3nU1@individual.net:
>
>> xTenn wrote:
>>>
>>> <sigh>
>>>
>>> Okay, name a program that you cannot do with a PPC with a good
>>> size storage card and/or network access... Fast typing not
>>> withstanding, of course...
>>>
>>
>> Half Life 2,
>> Adobe Premiere,
>> 3DStudio Max,
>> Maya,
>> hundreds of applicaitons that require intensive graphics
>> calculations, many electrical circuit simulation applications
>> might run but would take too long to do anything practical..
>> the list goes on and on.
>
> For me, that's the 15% that the PPC can't do. For one thing, the
> screen size is a major stumbling block in graphics programs anyway,
> so it's moot. The processing power is there, and an efficient program
> like Animation Master could probably work. It used to work on PCs
> with 90mhz processors and 64 megs of memory pretty handily.
>
> But any text program and 2d graphics display that doesn't require
> manipulation of the graphic image other than resizing could easily
> function with PPC sized screen images: like, say, web page authoring
> or Power Point presentations.
>
> And memory use could be expanded if larger flash memory were standard
> and part of it was dedicated to caching, which is how we used to work
> when memory was expensive on PCs.
>
> I don't know about electrical circuit simulation apps, but it's only
> about 7 years ago that PC performance, where circuit simulation
> programs were often run at the time, was well below that of Pocket
> PCs today (and SGI Indigo 2 workstations were slower than that, and a
> lot of EE work was being done on them).
>
> There are certainly a lot of things that a PPC would be suboptimal
> for, but then the platform would make an excellent scratchpad for
> portions of work during times of transit when nothing would be
> getting done at all.
>
> --
> StephG
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 9:48:36 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On 05 Jan 2005, "finndo" <finndo@nospam.sc.rr.com> pondered an
unfair universe and came up with
news:7MUCd.1000$hQ6.35011@twister.southeast.rr.com:

> I have not yet figured out why PPC's have not gotten a larger
> amount of ram Is it so unfathomable to offer an upgrade via the
> manufacturer during the initial order to boost the ram to any
> size? I mean websites like Dell "claim" that when you customize
> any device for order that they actually go "make it" for you. so
> why would it be such a hard stretch to order an Axim with 1 gig of
> ram built in? I mean if someone wants to pay for it... I
> understand there are space requirements but have you ever used an
> extended battery? on some of the smaller sized PPC's it almost
> doubles the thickness of the device. Why can I not order my PPC
> with the extended battery built in? just slap a different back on
> the device, which would give more space to add the extra ram I
> want. I don't care about a 3d accelerator, its a pocket PPC for
> crying out loud. But if I can buy a 5+ gig microdrive that FITS
> INSIDE my PPC, why do I have to be stuck with 32 or 64 MEGS of
> ram?

The answer appears to be simple. The market for PPCs is "enterprise
customers". Who are evidently expected to use the PPC for mostly PIM
purposes, enough Internet to communicate with the office, and for on-
site data acquisition.

It was never meant to be a free standing computer platform in its own
right. If you start making PPCs as powerful as laptops (which is
really what a lot of us would like to see), then they start to
compete for market with a company's own laptops, creating a
territorial struggle. I'm sure they have separate management
hierarchies in every company, as they also have from manufacturers
that sell mp3 players as well (like Dell and its DJ line).

If companies put PPCs under the same management structure as the
laptop/notebooks, which would encourage them to sell PPCs in the same
way that they sell notebooks and not to worry about PPCs taking
market share away from notebooks, it wouldn't matter. The goal would
be to sell, and upsell, any device they could. You would probably see
the sort of options you're describing.

The problem now, is that the laptop people would see PPCs encroaching
on their territory and taking sales away from their division.

The base problem, as I see it, is called "product differentiation".

--
StephG
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 3:09:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"StephG" <dontspamFrankensoftail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D4CDDA36209StephG@130.133.1.4...
>
> I think the OQO is the writing on the wall. It's an early proof of
> concept that will be more practical down the line when other
> companies with more resources (in Asia, of course) emulate it.
>
> Recent reports that WM2005 is principally targeted at "enterprise
> customers" rather than additionally targeting students and the young
> who are new to the world of the employed, who obviously can afford
> iPods, they're still principally looking at PPCs as basically an
> upwardly mobile PIM shows how truly warped the marketing dweebs at
> Microsoft really are.
>
> I think WinCE is becoming computing's bastard stepchild.
>

Wish you were wrong about WinCE, but the wide margin MS is giving developers
would tend to agree with your summation.

There are a few features of note with WM2005 ( Graphing with excel, etc.)
that would at first appear hopeful, but any docs really seem to push with
coompatibility with desktop docs, not so much on-device creation (although
that is speculation).

I have heard that the least profitable part of a laptop is the screen - it
would seem that a $400 PocketPC would be more profitable than a $500 laptop
(as many are offering), but the actions would argue otherwise.

If nothing else, maybe the capable 3rd party support for Pocket PC will act
to keep the prices of the pocket XP down...

No matter the flavor, I want my Pocket PC!! Not a PIM...
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 12:47:43 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On 06 Jan 2005, "xTenn" <xTennREmoveThisPart@tds.net> pondered an
unfair universe and came up with
news:enrS8JB9EHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl:

> Wish you were wrong about WinCE, but the wide margin MS is giving
> developers would tend to agree with your summation.
>
> There are a few features of note with WM2005 ( Graphing with
> excel, etc.) that would at first appear hopeful, but any docs
> really seem to push with coompatibility with desktop docs, not so
> much on-device creation (although that is speculation).
>
> I have heard that the least profitable part of a laptop is the
> screen - it would seem that a $400 PocketPC would be more
> profitable than a $500 laptop (as many are offering), but the
> actions would argue otherwise.

The thing is, $500 is about the cap for PPCs. Except for specialty
ones, the cap for laptops is around $2000. And it doesn't cost much
more to make a $2000 laptop than it does to make a $600 one. The
lower priced ones are essentially "loss leaders" whose purpose is to
provide an opportunity to "upsell".

The OQO is essentially treading in unexplored territory to see if the
cap is really $2000 on upscale pocket computers. If it proves to be,
there's proof that there's a market there for more fully featured
PPCs with hard drives and full PC I/O between the current models and
the OQO price point.

> If nothing else, maybe the capable 3rd party support for Pocket PC
> will act to keep the prices of the pocket XP down...
>
> No matter the flavor, I want my Pocket PC!! Not a PIM...

Exactly. A PC in a pocket it what it claims, and it's only about 75%
true.

--
StephG
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 3:23:20 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Well, you can put a micro drive in some PPC's (I am not completely up to
date on them , but I believe IBM is up to 6 gig drives now in micro
format?). The main problem I have is the built in system rom/ram quantity.
If they would up the total rom/ram to 768 megs or 1 gig then I don't see why
anyone would need to buy a laptop anymore (as the cost difference would be
more than worth losing the built in CD/DVD drive and keyboard, especially
with a blue tooth KB and some PPC's having USB 2.0 or even Firewire? for a
optical drive).

The only real benefit that I USED to see in a notebook was that I could play
cool games on it, but I am past that now as I think it is pretty stupid to
buy a laptop to play games, since you have to sit still to play the game,
you might as well have a pc.

"StephG" <dontspamFrankensoftail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D78CC47AE9EStephG@130.133.1.4...
> On 06 Jan 2005, "xTenn" <xTennREmoveThisPart@tds.net> pondered an
> unfair universe and came up with
> news:enrS8JB9EHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl:
>
>> Wish you were wrong about WinCE, but the wide margin MS is giving
>> developers would tend to agree with your summation.
>>
>> There are a few features of note with WM2005 ( Graphing with
>> excel, etc.) that would at first appear hopeful, but any docs
>> really seem to push with coompatibility with desktop docs, not so
>> much on-device creation (although that is speculation).
>>
>> I have heard that the least profitable part of a laptop is the
>> screen - it would seem that a $400 PocketPC would be more
>> profitable than a $500 laptop (as many are offering), but the
>> actions would argue otherwise.
>
> The thing is, $500 is about the cap for PPCs. Except for specialty
> ones, the cap for laptops is around $2000. And it doesn't cost much
> more to make a $2000 laptop than it does to make a $600 one. The
> lower priced ones are essentially "loss leaders" whose purpose is to
> provide an opportunity to "upsell".
>
> The OQO is essentially treading in unexplored territory to see if the
> cap is really $2000 on upscale pocket computers. If it proves to be,
> there's proof that there's a market there for more fully featured
> PPCs with hard drives and full PC I/O between the current models and
> the OQO price point.
>
>> If nothing else, maybe the capable 3rd party support for Pocket PC
>> will act to keep the prices of the pocket XP down...
>>
>> No matter the flavor, I want my Pocket PC!! Not a PIM...
>
> Exactly. A PC in a pocket it what it claims, and it's only about 75%
> true.
>
> --
> StephG
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 10:03:15 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On 08 Jan 2005, "finndo" <finndo@nospam.sc.rr.com> pondered an
unfair universe and came up with
news:YP_Dd.13845$dt3.478779@twister.southeast.rr.com:

> Well, you can put a micro drive in some PPC's (I am not completely
> up to date on them , but I believe IBM is up to 6 gig drives now
> in micro format?). The main problem I have is the built in system
> rom/ram quantity. If they would up the total rom/ram to 768 megs
> or 1 gig then I don't see why anyone would need to buy a laptop
> anymore (as the cost difference would be more than worth losing
> the built in CD/DVD drive and keyboard, especially with a blue
> tooth KB and some PPC's having USB 2.0 or even Firewire? for a
> optical drive).

Now that's just silly. You can't watch DVDs on a 15.4" screen on a
PPC. With my laptop, I use it for watching reference footage all the
time when I'm working (I'm an animator), and the 3.5" PPC screen
wouldn't hack it. Neither would a 5" screen.

I can also run a lot of software on a laptop that couldn't be run on
any PPC, like Maya. Alias will never port Maya to the PPC.

However, for communications and most forms of Internet browsing while
I travel, the PPC form factor is better. Takes up very little room in
luggage or the saddlebag (if I even leave it in the saddlebag, since
I'm currently using it for MP3s and soon GPS). For travel where I
don't have to use heavy hitting software, the PPC or something that
size like the OQO or Sony U750 is ideal. If true pocket sized PCs
come down to the $500 price point, I'll probably sell the Axim.

Through lack of forward looking vision, MS and the PPC vendors have
largely been unwilling to make the commitment to true pocket sized
PCs. A guy I've been talking to with an OQO says a lot of the issues
people talk about most are non-issues. He gets "instant on" by just
leaving the Q in standby, with the software he uses most frequently
always running. PPCs don't really start instantly either, when you
turn them off they just go into standby mode anyway, and there just
isn't a full "off" button.

> The only real benefit that I USED to see in a notebook was that I
> could play cool games on it, but I am past that now as I think it
> is pretty stupid to buy a laptop to play games, since you have to
> sit still to play the game, you might as well have a pc.

When I replace my current PC, I'll be replacing it with a highish end
laptop. My current laptop has been 7 times more reliable than any of
my 3 PCs. Two blown MBs and 5 blown CPUs (non-overclocked, 2 replaced
under warranty, all with properly functional cooling systems) just
tells me that PC equipment isn't as reliable as it used to be.

The laptop is also a lot quieter and with my WiFi network, I can take
it anywhere in the house.

--
StephG
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 10:05:59 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Reply to message from StephG <dontspamFrankensoftail@hotmail.com> (Sun, 09
Jan 2005 03:03:15) about ""Re: Pocket PC OS verges on being crippleware"":


S> Now that's just silly. You can't watch DVDs on a 15.4" screen on a PPC.
S> With my laptop, I use it for watching reference footage all the time
S> when I'm working (I'm an animator), and the 3.5" PPC screen wouldn't
S> hack it. Neither would a 5" screen.


Some people would not watch a dvd on a laptop screen, claiming it was too
small. I watch a lot of recorded tv, only a few ripped dvds, divided
between the ppc and a wifi enabled laptop. But if someone more that just
myself watches a recorded show it is usually piped to the big screen. (For
the record, recorded shows are automatically ripped at different
resolutions, depending on show. Some, but not many, are left at multiple
resolutions and I'll clean it up after viewing it as opportunity and
viewing option presents itself. )

Granted, reference footage where your livelihood depends on the quality of
the output should not be relagated to such a tiny screen as the ppc, but no
doubt final checks at pixar would not be complete with merely a laptop
viewing as well. It is all relative.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 4:49:00 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On 09 Jan 2005, xTenn <xtennremovethispart@tds.net> pondered an
unfair universe and came up with
news:1105286759@xtennremovethispart.tds.net:

> Reply to message from StephG <dontspamFrankensoftail@hotmail.com>
> (Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:03:15) about ""Re: Pocket PC OS verges on
> being crippleware"":
>
>
> S> Now that's just silly. You can't watch DVDs on a 15.4" screen
> on a PPC. S> With my laptop, I use it for watching reference
> footage all the time S> when I'm working (I'm an animator), and
> the 3.5" PPC screen wouldn't S> hack it. Neither would a 5"
> screen.
>
>
> Some people would not watch a dvd on a laptop screen, claiming it
> was too small.

Actually, from two or three feet away, it equal to the size of my
36" TV nine feet away.

Currently, the effort you have to go through to rip a DVD and
downconvert it for full speed playback on a PPC is also considerably
more than just sticking the DVD in disc slot and hitting "play".

> Granted, reference footage where your livelihood depends on the
> quality of the output should not be relagated to such a tiny
> screen as the ppc, but no doubt final checks at pixar would not be
> complete with merely a laptop viewing as well. It is all relative.

A place like Pixar provides all sorts of support you don't find at
smaller, less well heeled facilities ;) 

The point of my original reply was to the statement that implied
there was no need for a laptop. Not that deploying a PPC for many
laptop functions isn't a good thing. When I'm on the road on my
motorcycle, the PPC is a perfect communications and music platform.
On such trips, I really have no need for movies, and if I have time
to burn, I'd rather read a book while listening to MP3s ;) 

--
StephG
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 4:49:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Going back to the whole thing about not trying to use a PPC for a
solution that a handheld PC or laptop is more suitable for...

Would you EVER try to use a Corvette convertable to haul lumber or move
furniture? NO you wouldn't because its not intended for that purpose!

David H

StephG wrote:
> On 09 Jan 2005, xTenn <xtennremovethispart@tds.net> pondered an
> unfair universe and came up with
> news:1105286759@xtennremovethispart.tds.net:
>
>
>>Reply to message from StephG <dontspamFrankensoftail@hotmail.com>
>>(Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:03:15) about ""Re: Pocket PC OS verges on
>>being crippleware"":
>>
>>
>> S> Now that's just silly. You can't watch DVDs on a 15.4" screen
>> on a PPC. S> With my laptop, I use it for watching reference
>> footage all the time S> when I'm working (I'm an animator), and
>> the 3.5" PPC screen wouldn't S> hack it. Neither would a 5"
>> screen.
>>
>>
>>Some people would not watch a dvd on a laptop screen, claiming it
>>was too small.
>
>
> Actually, from two or three feet away, it equal to the size of my
> 36" TV nine feet away.
>
> Currently, the effort you have to go through to rip a DVD and
> downconvert it for full speed playback on a PPC is also considerably
> more than just sticking the DVD in disc slot and hitting "play".
>
>
>>Granted, reference footage where your livelihood depends on the
>>quality of the output should not be relagated to such a tiny
>>screen as the ppc, but no doubt final checks at pixar would not be
>>complete with merely a laptop viewing as well. It is all relative.
>
>
> A place like Pixar provides all sorts of support you don't find at
> smaller, less well heeled facilities ;) 
>
> The point of my original reply was to the statement that implied
> there was no need for a laptop. Not that deploying a PPC for many
> laptop functions isn't a good thing. When I'm on the road on my
> motorcycle, the PPC is a perfect communications and music platform.
> On such trips, I really have no need for movies, and if I have time
> to burn, I'd rather read a book while listening to MP3s ;) 
>
!