Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

horrible design flaws in pocketpc

Last response: in Cell Phones & Smartphones
Share
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 5:21:00 PM

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

The first of many design flaws on the pocket pc is the fact that the
reminders window is system modal. This had to be done on purpose and I'm
not sure what engineering/design team actually thought hard to make this
decision. I won't post why it's a bad idea - all you have to do is google
search for pocket pc reminders on newsgroups and you'll get enough evidence
there. Yes, I know I can disable notifications on screen but that
completely misses the point entirely. Anyone at MS care to elaborate? I
hope the next version fixes this problem.

To add insult to injury, the next design flaw also has to do with the
shortage of options in dealing with the reminders that pop up and basically
require you to rearrange your life to deal with them. Maybe a snooze all
would mitigate the modality issue. But no. You are forced to throw them all
away forever, or pick each one separately only to be bothered 5 minutes
later since that's the only thing you can do to get at your pda quickly to
retrieve a contact, or whatever.

Third also has to do with reminders. Why can't they have the same options in
the pda as outlook when setting reminders? This is now pouring acid in the
wound on top of insult and injury. I can only set a single reminder time on
the pda for tasks rather than 1 hour before, etc. So, first thing in the
morning I get my 75 reminders of the tasks I've got to do and of course
they're unmanageable and I ultimately have to dismiss them all just to
cope, thereby defeating the purpose entirely.

There are more, but I shan't go on. Since arguably calendaring, tasks and
reminders are possibly the most important function used in a PDA, why
didn't MS use it's vast usability lab resources to test these features out?
I find them downright debilitating and am going to be forced to move to a
Treo just to remove this unnecessary stress from my life.

NN
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 6:49:19 PM

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

"News Nut" <trippsathyperconcom-tripps@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eHp1V$5ZFHA.3492@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
>Since arguably calendaring, tasks and
> reminders are possibly the most important function used in a PDA
>


Am I in an extreme minority? I never ever use those functions on my PPC as
designed (except for an occasional glance at the calendar), yet I use it all
the time.

I tend to think of them as a Pocket PC, and use it accordingly...
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 10:41:20 PM

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

News Nut wrote:

<snip>

> There are more, but I shan't go on.

thank you.

> Since arguably calendaring, tasks and reminders are possibly the most
> important function used in a PDA

GPS, WiFi, Web Access, Arguably ?

> why didn't MS use it's vast usability lab resources to test these features out?

it didn't work with any other Micro$oft applications, what makes you think it
would have made any difference to any of the pocket PC applications ?

> I find them downright debilitating and am going to be forced to move to a
> Treo just to remove this unnecessary stress from my life.

calm down, dear, it's only a gadget.

may I suggest this solution to your e-woes ? http://snipurl.com/fbk6



RT
Related resources
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 11:55:20 PM

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

Your allowed your opinion, but it is just that. The elements you mention
would seem to not provide insurmountable problems or to be unaaceptable to
most users as the ng is not filled to overflowing with similar opinions.

If the machine doesnt do what you want you have chosen the wrong machine.

Research your purchases, choose something that does what you want, or
identify suitable third party software *before* you buy. Take responsibility
for your own choices- Microsoft didn't *make* you buy a ppc.
June 2, 2005 11:55:21 PM

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

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:55:20 +0100, Alan Smith wrote:

>Microsoft didn't *make* you buy a ppc.

Yes they did! They've been spiking the water at my employer's for
years!


--
"I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
- Slartibartfast
June 3, 2005 3:06:37 AM

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

News Nut wrote:
> The first of many design flaws on the pocket pc is the fact that the
> reminders window is system modal. This had to be done on purpose and I'm
> not sure what engineering/design team actually thought hard to make this
> decision. I won't post why it's a bad idea - all you have to do is google
> search for pocket pc reminders on newsgroups and you'll get enough evidence
> there. Yes, I know I can disable notifications on screen but that
> completely misses the point entirely. Anyone at MS care to elaborate? I
> hope the next version fixes this problem.

<!snip>

Some good points you raise, and to be honest anyone here attempting to
stick of for Microsoft - or even blame you for choosing the wrong
product has got it all wrong.

When they say "Pocket Outlook" we, consumers, quite rightly expect a
decent attempt at porting the aspects of Outlook likely to be useful on
a Pocket Device to the PocketPC.

The real answer is probably why Halo 1 has 5 levels that looked the
same: the deadline rush, these small but extreamly useful features were
not added because they'd be yet another thing to test, and of course one
less reason for people to upgrade to the next version!

Most Microsoft products are the unfinished thing. I was using Access
today and laughed out loud when reading the help file try and explain to
me that when referencing bound columns they started from 0, but when
accessing columns they started from 1... typical

Still however, the PocketPC does do a lot of things well, which is why
we all use them in this group, although I must admit I nearly thew mine
out the window today when I had to reset it and I lost about 1000 words,
carefully typed on the HP!Dodgy-space-bar keyboard :-/- auto recovery
please ? :-)


--
Marc
See http://www.imarc.co.uk/ for contact details.
June 3, 2005 3:10:29 AM

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

Alan Smith wrote:
> Research your purchases, choose something that does what you want, or
> identify suitable third party software *before* you buy. Take responsibility
> for your own choices- Microsoft didn't *make* you buy a ppc.

They did however, tempt him with a good looking product. If this product
hasn't lived up to expectations then surely he has a right to suggest
new features, whether Microsoft decide to implement them is a business
decision and they would need to calculate how many other dissapointed
users there are. Better competition would be a good thing for sure.



--
Marc
See http://www.imarc.co.uk/ for contact details.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 1:14:03 PM

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

"Marc" <see@signature.url> wrote in message
news:1117750241.98589.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
> Alan Smith wrote:
>> Research your purchases, choose something that does what you want, or
>> identify suitable third party software *before* you buy. Take
>> responsibility for your own choices- Microsoft didn't *make* you buy a
>> ppc.
>
> They did however, tempt him with a good looking product. If this product
> hasn't lived up to expectations then surely he has a right to suggest new
> features, whether Microsoft decide to implement them is a business
> decision and they would need to calculate how many other dissapointed
> users there are. Better competition would be a good thing for sure.
>
>
>
> --
> Marc
> See http://www.imarc.co.uk/ for contact details.

But he bought something not suitable. There is nothing to stop his putting
forward suggestions without buying. The bottom line is he shouldn't buy
something if it is not suitable- that is his issue, not MS.
June 3, 2005 2:08:58 PM

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

>There are more, but I shan't go on. Since arguably calendaring, tasks and
>reminders are possibly the most important function used in a PDA, why
>didn't MS use it's vast usability lab resources to test these features out?
>I find them downright debilitating and am going to be forced to move to a
>Treo just to remove this unnecessary stress from my life.

Is the Treo OS better in al respects you mention above?
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 2:46:16 PM

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

"Marc" <see@signature.url> wrote in message
news:1117750005.22325.0@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
>
> When they say "Pocket Outlook" we, consumers, quite rightly expect a
> decent attempt at porting the aspects of Outlook likely to be useful on a
> Pocket Device to the PocketPC.
>

I use Pocket Outlook for my email and it works quite well. I read email, I
compose email, I get and send attachments, and I even occasionally send
voice mails through it. So, for a simple (minded?) user like myself for
email I guess it fits the bill. I do have one major gripe over a minor
problem - when you select emails to mark as read if there is one read in
between 20 unread it defaults to "mark them unread". So you have to hit the
menu twice, once to mark unread, then as read. Like one more choice would
bloat the screen...




> The real answer is probably why Halo 1 has 5 levels that looked the same:
> the deadline rush, these small but extreamly useful features were not
> added because they'd be yet another thing to test, and of course one less
> reason for people to upgrade to the next version!
>


Dissing Halo? Okay, now, them's fightin' words. Laser swords at 20
paces...
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 3:00:27 PM

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

News Nut wrote:
> The first of many design flaws on the pocket pc is the fact that the
> reminders window is system modal. This had to be done on purpose and I'm
> not sure what engineering/design team actually thought hard to make this
> decision. I won't post why it's a bad idea - all you have to do is google
> search for pocket pc reminders on newsgroups and you'll get enough evidence
> there. Yes, I know I can disable notifications on screen but that
> completely misses the point entirely. Anyone at MS care to elaborate? I
> hope the next version fixes this problem.
>
> To add insult to injury, the next design flaw also has to do with the
> shortage of options in dealing with the reminders that pop up and basically
> require you to rearrange your life to deal with them. Maybe a snooze all
> would mitigate the modality issue. But no. You are forced to throw them all
> away forever, or pick each one separately only to be bothered 5 minutes
> later since that's the only thing you can do to get at your pda quickly to
> retrieve a contact, or whatever.
>
> Third also has to do with reminders. Why can't they have the same options in
> the pda as outlook when setting reminders? This is now pouring acid in the
> wound on top of insult and injury. I can only set a single reminder time on
> the pda for tasks rather than 1 hour before, etc. So, first thing in the
> morning I get my 75 reminders of the tasks I've got to do and of course
> they're unmanageable and I ultimately have to dismiss them all just to
> cope, thereby defeating the purpose entirely.
>
> There are more, but I shan't go on. Since arguably calendaring, tasks and
> reminders are possibly the most important function used in a PDA, why
> didn't MS use it's vast usability lab resources to test these features out?
> I find them downright debilitating and am going to be forced to move to a
> Treo just to remove this unnecessary stress from my life.

Get a Palm. Save yourself the PocketPC headaches.

>
> NN
June 3, 2005 8:45:21 PM

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

On 3 Jun 2005 11:00:27 -0700, casioculture wrote:

>Get a Palm. Save yourself the PocketPC headaches.

Just a different set of headaches. I'm a former Palm user.

--
"I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
- Slartibartfast
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 6:56:44 PM

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

"xTenn" <xTennREmoveThisPart@tds.net> wrote in message
news:edkiKP6ZFHA.2796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "News Nut" <trippsathyperconcom-tripps@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eHp1V$5ZFHA.3492@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>
>>Since arguably calendaring, tasks and
>> reminders are possibly the most important function used in a PDA
>>
>
>
> Am I in an extreme minority? I never ever use those functions on my PPC
> as designed (except for an occasional glance at the calendar), yet I use
> it all the time.

Personally, I use them a lot and sync a lot, but "most important" isn't how
I think of them. I think of them as "very helpful".
>
> I tend to think of them as a Pocket PC, and use it accordingly...

Agreed. The PPC has LOTS of uses. One might say, its uses are boundless and
defy clear classification. No one can single out a "most important" function
as that would be clearly subjective.


>
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 3:16:29 PM

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

"Chance Hopkins" <chance_hopkins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1vqhbTaFHA.1940@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "xTenn" <xTennREmoveThisPart@tds.net> wrote in message
> news:edkiKP6ZFHA.2796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> I tend to think of them as a Pocket PC, and use it accordingly...
>
> Agreed. The PPC has LOTS of uses. One might say, its uses are boundless
> and defy clear classification. No one can single out a "most important"
> function as that would be clearly subjective.
>


The nomenclature "Pocket PC" seems so natural in concept that I can't
understand Microsoft moving away from that name, yet they are. In so many
ways it seems they are missing the boat here, unless there is something else
coming down the pike that has Microsoft's interest.
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 6:35:49 PM

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

In article <uu9X2qqaFHA.1044@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
xTennREmoveThisPart@tds.net says...
>
> "Chance Hopkins" <chance_hopkins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e1vqhbTaFHA.1940@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "xTenn" <xTennREmoveThisPart@tds.net> wrote in message
> > news:edkiKP6ZFHA.2796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >>
> >>
> >> I tend to think of them as a Pocket PC, and use it accordingly...
> >
> > Agreed. The PPC has LOTS of uses. One might say, its uses are boundless
> > and defy clear classification. No one can single out a "most important"
> > function as that would be clearly subjective.
> >
>
>
> The nomenclature "Pocket PC" seems so natural in concept that I can't
> understand Microsoft moving away from that name, yet they are. In so many
> ways it seems they are missing the boat here, unless there is something else
> coming down the pike that has Microsoft's interest.

That's because the concept of a Pocket PC refers to the device not the
OS.

/steve
--
Free Privacy Resources
http://www.cotse.net/resources.html
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 6:52:34 PM

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

"Stephen K. Gielda" <steve@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d0e618e661cd1a8989a5f@38.144.126.106...
> In article <uu9X2qqaFHA.1044@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> xTennREmoveThisPart@tds.net says...
>>
>>
>> The nomenclature "Pocket PC" seems so natural in concept that I can't
>> understand Microsoft moving away from that name, yet they are. In so
>> many
>> ways it seems they are missing the boat here, unless there is something
>> else
>> coming down the pike that has Microsoft's interest.
>
> That's because the concept of a Pocket PC refers to the device not the
> OS.
>


PocketPC was a platform. That much Microsoft has already gotten in hand
(read trademarked, etc.). The concept is a very recognizeable one, and I
doubt if any manufacturer can now touch it (the name).
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 8:55:29 PM

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

In article <OruMmjsaFHA.2444@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
xTennREmoveThisPart@tds.net says...
>
> "Stephen K. Gielda" <steve@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d0e618e661cd1a8989a5f@38.144.126.106...
> > In article <uu9X2qqaFHA.1044@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> > xTennREmoveThisPart@tds.net says...
> >>
> >>
> >> The nomenclature "Pocket PC" seems so natural in concept that I can't
> >> understand Microsoft moving away from that name, yet they are. In so
> >> many
> >> ways it seems they are missing the boat here, unless there is something
> >> else
> >> coming down the pike that has Microsoft's interest.
> >
> > That's because the concept of a Pocket PC refers to the device not the
> > OS.
> >
>
>
> PocketPC was a platform. That much Microsoft has already gotten in hand
> (read trademarked, etc.). The concept is a very recognizeable one, and I
> doubt if any manufacturer can now touch it (the name).

Maybe so, but I side with MS, it wasn't an ideal identifier because
people think of pocket pc as the device. Windows Mobile is a better
name for the OS, because it covers many devices, not just a pocket PC.
It really didn't fit to call it pocketpc when it's installed on a cell
phone and it would fragment the brand even more if they had "pocketPC",
"PocketCellPhone", etc.

/steve
--
Free Privacy Resources
http://www.cotse.net/resources.html
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 9:08:18 PM

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

"Stephen K. Gielda" <steve@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d0e82466deb1df4989a60@38.144.126.106...
> In article <OruMmjsaFHA.2444@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
>
> Maybe so, but I side with MS, it wasn't an ideal identifier because
> people think of pocket pc as the device. Windows Mobile is a better
> name for the OS, because it covers many devices, not just a pocket PC.
> It really didn't fit to call it pocketpc when it's installed on a cell
> phone and it would fragment the brand even more if they had "pocketPC",
> "PocketCellPhone", etc.
>


I would be foolish to argue with that logic, you do have a point from that
perspective.

I was thinking that, instead of a cell phone having a Pocket PC OS, as time
went by Pocket PCs would include phone functionality along with GPS,
extended wireless, 300 meter bluetooth and more wonderful built-in
capabilities. It would continue to grow until a PocketPC was like a
tricoder that had a multitude of capabilities and had many interface
possilbities, including rollout and projection screens, functioning voice
control, projected keyboards, etc. to counter for the pocket aspect of its
portability.

Well, I am being a bit facetious about the tricorder part... maybe... :) 
June 6, 2005 9:32:39 PM

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

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:55:29 -0400, Stephen K. Gielda wrote:

>it would fragment the brand even more if they had "pocketPC",
>"PocketCellPhone", etc.

Besides, "PCP" is already taken.

--
"I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
- Slartibartfast
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 12:02:49 AM

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

There are PPC's with buildt-in phones and GPS-ready (if not buildt-in).
I would say that the first and most significant design flaw is that the
OS was buildt by MicroSoft.

David H

xTenn wrote:
> "Stephen K. Gielda" <steve@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d0e82466deb1df4989a60@38.144.126.106...
>
>>In article <OruMmjsaFHA.2444@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
>>
>>Maybe so, but I side with MS, it wasn't an ideal identifier because
>>people think of pocket pc as the device. Windows Mobile is a better
>>name for the OS, because it covers many devices, not just a pocket PC.
>>It really didn't fit to call it pocketpc when it's installed on a cell
>>phone and it would fragment the brand even more if they had "pocketPC",
>>"PocketCellPhone", etc.
>>
>
>
>
> I would be foolish to argue with that logic, you do have a point from that
> perspective.
>
> I was thinking that, instead of a cell phone having a Pocket PC OS, as time
> went by Pocket PCs would include phone functionality along with GPS,
> extended wireless, 300 meter bluetooth and more wonderful built-in
> capabilities. It would continue to grow until a PocketPC was like a
> tricoder that had a multitude of capabilities and had many interface
> possilbities, including rollout and projection screens, functioning voice
> control, projected keyboards, etc. to counter for the pocket aspect of its
> portability.
>
> Well, I am being a bit facetious about the tricorder part... maybe... :) 
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 12:11:57 PM

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

Reply to message from Marc <see@signature.url> (Thu, 02 Jun 2005 18:06:37)
about "Re: horrible design flaws in pocketpc":

M> Still however, the PocketPC does do a lot of things well, which is why
M> we all use them in this group, although I must admit I nearly thew mine
M> out the window today when I had to reset it and I lost about 1000
M> words, carefully typed on the HP!Dodgy-space-bar keyboard :-/- auto
M> recovery please ? :-)

Learn to save your documents as you work on them. That way, you would only
lose what was created since the previous save

JPinOH
Jon Porter <jporterDropthis@netwalk.com> Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:03:58 -0400

=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 2.2.0.8
!