Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
The Mitac 168 - an excellent pocket/pc PDA, very cheap, excellent
display, excellent battery life, the GPS is better than any separate
GPS receiver I have ever used. Highly recommended.
I just wish they did a 640x480 VGA version (e.g. like a HP 4700). I
use the 4700 with a Sysonchip GPS receiver and the perf is nothing
like the Mitac.
Peter.
--
Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
E-mail replies to peter1234@peter2000XY.co.uk but remove the X and the Y.
Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
Just to add one thought to this... while "built in" gps has value, the
current bluetooth gps receivers are small, coming down in price, don't
draw on the ppc's battery, can be used with other laptops and are still
there when the ppc is replaced.
Finally, the receiver can be placed where the reception is best rather
finding a compromise position for viewing and receiving, so, it should
be considered.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] wrote:
> Just to add one thought to this... while "built in" gps has value, the
> current bluetooth gps receivers are small, coming down in price, don't
> draw on the ppc's battery, can be used with other laptops and are still
> there when the ppc is replaced.
>
> Finally, the receiver can be placed where the reception is best rather
> finding a compromise position for viewing and receiving, so, it should
> be considered.
>
> Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]
Also,
I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but the SiRF Star III
chipset based GPS receivers are vastly superior to any other current
consumer grade technology. These receivers were available late Spring
2005. The Globalsat BT-338 was the first and it is an outstanding GPS.
As far as I know, this technology has not yet been incorporated in the
PDAs which have integral GPS receivers.
Robbie
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
"Robbie" <robbiex@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:%ksHe.1644$pp.20@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] wrote:
> Also,
> I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but the SiRF Star III
> chipset based GPS receivers are vastly superior to any other current
> consumer grade technology. These receivers were available late Spring
> 2005. The Globalsat BT-338 was the first and it is an outstanding GPS. As
> far as I know, this technology has not yet been incorporated in the PDAs
> which have integral GPS receivers.
> Robbie
How do these chipsets compare to the SiRF starIIe/LP (low power) chipsets?
I wonder if they are more sensitive. Currently denser tree cover, while
problematic even for the best units, is better with the IIe chipset (and
external ant.) but it still has issues. I had read at one point that the
III would be more sensitive but have not found any new details, at least not
from actual users.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
"Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote
>Just to add one thought to this... while "built in" gps has value, the
>current bluetooth gps receivers are small, coming down in price, don't
>draw on the ppc's battery, can be used with other laptops and are still
>there when the ppc is replaced.
>
>Finally, the receiver can be placed where the reception is best rather
>finding a compromise position for viewing and receiving, so, it should
>be considered.
That *should* all be a plus, but I have found that it isn't. If the
separate GPS receiver is anywhere near the PDA, it's sensitivity will
be affected by the radiation from the PDA. I've seen this with several
units, and most strongly with a Sysonchip compactflash GPS which
barely works in several different PDAs.
The GPS built into the Mitac 168 is better than *any* separate GPS
receiver I have ever played with - except the very expensive IFR setup
I have in my aircraft.
Peter.
--
Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
E-mail replies to peter1234@peter2000XY.co.uk but remove the X and the Y.
Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
Peter wrote:
> That *should* all be a plus, but I have found that it isn't. If the
> separate GPS receiver is anywhere near the PDA, it's sensitivity will
> be affected by the radiation from the PDA. I've seen this with several
> units, and most strongly with a Sysonchip compactflash GPS which
> barely works in several different PDAs.
>
> The GPS built into the Mitac 168 is better than *any* separate GPS
> receiver I have ever played with - except the very expensive IFR setup
> I have in my aircraft.
Sorry but you haven't played with many then! The great majority of BT GPS
receivers are better than a built-in GPS and the SiRFStarIII BT units are
the best by a mile.
A SysOnchip CF GPS can hardley be described as being a seperate GPS anyway,
its directly connected to the host PPC by its CF Slot!
--
Darren Griffin
PocketGPSWorld - www.PocketGPSWorld.com The Premier GPS Resource for News, Reviews and Forums
Creators of the free UK Safety Camera POI
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
Don't know how you can make a generalization about independent GPSs based on
one CF device that apparently wasn't very good. It's even less relevant to
BT GPS receivers as the CF device is attached to the PPC similar to the
Mitac. I have a couple of BT GPS receivers and a couple of CF ones, any of
which compare quite favorably with dedicated GPSs I have from Garmin and
Magellan.
--
Sven
MVP - Mobile Devices
"Peter" <nobody@n0where1205.com> wrote in message
news:c012f1pnnm2faufssluckf3nhv7jr4od04@4ax.com...
>
> "Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote
>
>>Just to add one thought to this... while "built in" gps has value, the
>>current bluetooth gps receivers are small, coming down in price, don't
>>draw on the ppc's battery, can be used with other laptops and are still
>>there when the ppc is replaced.
>>
>>Finally, the receiver can be placed where the reception is best rather
>>finding a compromise position for viewing and receiving, so, it should
>>be considered.
>
> That *should* all be a plus, but I have found that it isn't. If the
> separate GPS receiver is anywhere near the PDA, it's sensitivity will
> be affected by the radiation from the PDA. I've seen this with several
> units, and most strongly with a Sysonchip compactflash GPS which
> barely works in several different PDAs.
>
> The GPS built into the Mitac 168 is better than *any* separate GPS
> receiver I have ever played with - except the very expensive IFR setup
> I have in my aircraft.
>
>
> Peter.
> --
> Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
> E-mail replies to peter1234@peter2000XY.co.uk but remove the X and the Y.
> Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] wrote:
> Just to add one thought to this... while "built in" gps has value, the
> current bluetooth gps receivers are small, coming down in price, don't
> draw on the ppc's battery, can be used with other laptops and are still
> there when the ppc is replaced.
>
> Finally, the receiver can be placed where the reception is best rather
> finding a compromise position for viewing and receiving, so, it should
> be considered.
>
> Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]
Check the Mobile Crossing WayPoint 200 which has the software built in
to the ROM of the unit but uses a Bluetooth device for the actual GPS.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
"Sven" <sejohannsen@hotmail.com> wrote
>Don't know how you can make a generalization about independent GPSs based on
>one CF device that apparently wasn't very good. It's even less relevant to
>BT GPS receivers as the CF device is attached to the PPC similar to the
>Mitac. I have a couple of BT GPS receivers and a couple of CF ones, any of
>which compare quite favorably with dedicated GPSs I have from Garmin and
>Magellan.
Fair enough - however I tried three of the Sysonchip units, plus about
four different bluetooth units. The Mitac GPS beats all of them on
reliable reception under various conditions.
Which isn't to say there isn't a CF GPS or a BT GPS out there which is
even better. I would certainly hope so, because the handheld Garmin
moving-map navigation products (I am a pilot and have seen various
handhelds used) are better than *any* of the aforementioned units when
it comes to reception, and most of them are very old designs.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
Acer N35 works fine for me
regards
Chris
"Dale DePriest" <Dale@gpsinformation.het> wrote in message
news:11f48aff1bsvjb4@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] wrote:
>
>> Just to add one thought to this... while "built in" gps has value, the
>> current bluetooth gps receivers are small, coming down in price, don't
>> draw on the ppc's battery, can be used with other laptops and are still
>> there when the ppc is replaced.
>>
>> Finally, the receiver can be placed where the reception is best rather
>> finding a compromise position for viewing and receiving, so, it should be
>> considered.
>>
>> Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]
>
> Check the Mobile Crossing WayPoint 200 which has the software built in to
> the ROM of the unit but uses a Bluetooth device for the actual GPS.
>
> Dale
>
> --
> _ _ Dale DePriest
> /`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede > o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
try Garmin
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 11:55:03 +0100, "Chris Hughes"
<REMOVETHISchrhughes@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Acer N35 works fine for me
>
>regards
>Chris
>
>"Dale DePriest" <Dale@gpsinformation.het> wrote in message
>news:11f48aff1bsvjb4@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>> Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] wrote:
>>
>>> Just to add one thought to this... while "built in" gps has value, the
>>> current bluetooth gps receivers are small, coming down in price, don't
>>> draw on the ppc's battery, can be used with other laptops and are still
>>> there when the ppc is replaced.
>>>
>>> Finally, the receiver can be placed where the reception is best rather
>>> finding a compromise position for viewing and receiving, so, it should be
>>> considered.
>>>
>>> Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]
>>
>> Check the Mobile Crossing WayPoint 200 which has the software built in to
>> the ROM of the unit but uses a Bluetooth device for the actual GPS.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> --
>> _ _ Dale DePriest
>> /`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede >> o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs
>
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
mg@woh.rr.com wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 11:55:03 +0100, "Chris Hughes" wrote:
>> "Dale DePriest" <Dale@gpsinformation.het> wrote
>>> Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just to add one thought to this... while "built in" gps has value,
>>>> the current bluetooth gps receivers are small, coming down in
>>>> price, don't draw on the ppc's battery, can be used with other
>>>> laptops and are still there when the ppc is replaced.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, the receiver can be placed where the reception is best
>>>> rather finding a compromise position for viewing and receiving,
>>>> so, it should be considered.
>>>>
>>>> Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]
>>>
>>> Check the Mobile Crossing WayPoint 200 which has the software built
>>> in to the ROM of the unit but uses a Bluetooth device for the
>>> actual GPS.
>>>
>
>> Acer N35 works fine for me
>>
> try Garmin
Why should Chris do that?!
He allready has a fine working Acer N35 :-)
--
Regards
Søren C. Fischer
Fiat Seicento Sporting Abarth
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
In message <er5klFrlFHA.3312@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote:
> Just to add one thought to this... while "built in" gps has value, the
> current bluetooth gps receivers are small, coming down in price, don't
> draw on the ppc's battery,
[snip]
The GPS receiver may not draw on the PDA's battery, but Bluetooth does,
and I keep reading that all these wireless technologies consume a lot
of power. Does anyone know how much power Bluetooth consumes, and how
much would be consumed by a GPS receiver in the CF slot?
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
Chris <no.one@nowhere.invalid> wrote
>The GPS receiver may not draw on the PDA's battery, but Bluetooth does,
>and I keep reading that all these wireless technologies consume a lot
>of power. Does anyone know how much power Bluetooth consumes, and how
>much would be consumed by a GPS receiver in the CF slot?
I am very sure that a CF GPS will draw a lot more power than a
separate BT GPS.
However, a CF GPS avoids the major problem with a BT GPS which is that
if the PDA is put into standby (i.e. turned OFF with the power button)
the BT protocol doesn't recover when it comes back on. A soft reset is
required. This isn't the case for all of them but it is true for most
I have played with. Even WinXP doesn't always recover the BT protocol
after hibernation.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)
Hi
I have the Acer N35, really pleased with it and gives no problems
Regards
Chris
"Chris" <no.one@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:4D983DB9C9%no.one@nowhere.invalid...
> In message <er5klFrlFHA.3312@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
> Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote:
>
>> Just to add one thought to this... while "built in" gps has value, the
>> current bluetooth gps receivers are small, coming down in price, don't
>> draw on the ppc's battery,
>
> [snip]
>
> The GPS receiver may not draw on the PDA's battery, but Bluetooth does,
> and I keep reading that all these wireless technologies consume a lot
> of power. Does anyone know how much power Bluetooth consumes, and how
> much would be consumed by a GPS receiver in the CF slot?
>
>
>
> Chris
