Treo 650

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:59:32 GMT, Guy Bannis had this to say...


> Happy now? From PalmOne message about the Treo 650. Remarks in
> parentheses are mine.
>
> 320 x320 display that can be read in sunlight
> Integrated Bluetooth
> *Removeable* battery
> Nonvolatile memory (same as in T5?)
> Digital camera captures video
> Backlit keyboard
>

They had to make the battery removable because it only lasts 1.5 hours?
Same NAND Flash RAM as the T5.

--
Hope this helps.
Jim Anderson
( 8(|) To email me just pull my_finger

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <guy-2510041700090001@192.168.1.100>,
guy@ether.net (Guy Bannis) wrote:

> Happy now? From PalmOne message about the Treo 650. Remarks in
> parentheses are mine.
>
> 320 x320 display that can be read in sunlight
> Integrated Bluetooth
> *Removeable* battery
> Nonvolatile memory (same as in T5?)
> Digital camera captures video
> Backlit keyboard

If the camera were easily removed I'd be happy. If I bring a camera to
work I could get fired. Many companies have this policy.

I suppose I could just damage the lense or something, but I'd prefer a
quick-remove/install camera.

Regards,

-Doug

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Guy Bannis wrote:

> According to the PalmOne Web site:
>
> GSM/GPRS model: Up to 6 hours talk time and up to 300 hours tandby time
> CDMA model: Up to 5 hours talk time and up to 2 weeks standby time
>
> Of course, this says nothing about the battery life as a PDA ... I'm
> probably not climbing out a long limb if I said that the video would eat
> up battery life awful quick!

I usually get 5-6 hours out of my Tungsten E even with a lot of MP3 music,
e-book reading, and a little video. And the battery on the 650 is supposed
to have twice the capacity of the TE's battery. So I'd figure that heavy
use of the 650 for MP3, some video, heavy e-book reading, plus phone,
browsing, and e-mail would yield similar battery life.
--
Wonderfalls unaired episode quote of the day:

"I was hoping this was one of those odorless cocaine cows. I've never seen
one of those before."
"Sorry."
-- an INS agent interviewing Aaron in "Crime Dog"

Roberto Castillo
robertocastillo@ameritech.net

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

<< They're supposed to have a camera-less model soon. >>

What I don't like is how they only make phones for either Verizon or Sprint. I
have ATTWS-soon-to-be-Cingular but as near as I can tell, the Treo is not
available for me. This makes as much sense as having TVs restricted to only 1
or 2 channels, cars that can only use 1 brand of gasoline, etc.


Dennis B. Swaney
remove .zz to reply

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:28:16 +0000, ROMAD wrote:

> I have ATTWS-soon-to-be-Cingular but as near as I can tell, the Treo is
> not available for me. This makes as much sense as having TVs restricted
> to only 1 or 2 channels, cars that can only use 1 brand of gasoline, etc.

Actually, it's more like a Cable Modem not working on a DSL line, or in
some extreme cases a Cable Modem not working with a different provider.

The networks use differing standards to allow communication, and the Treo
tries to do the best it can. From the press release: "The Treo 650 will be
available as either a digital dual-band CDMA/1xRTT or a GSM/GPRS/EDGE
quad-band world phone".

--
Lenroc

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On 27 Oct 2004, at 13:28:16 [GMT GMT] (23:28:16 Wednesday, 27 October 2004
where I live) "ROMAD" wrote:

> What I don't like is how they only make phones for either Verizon or Sprint. I
> have ATTWS-soon-to-be-Cingular but as near as I can tell, the Treo is not
> available for me. This makes as much sense as having TVs restricted to only 1
> or 2 channels, cars that can only use 1 brand of gasoline, etc.

Just buy the GSM model (make sure it is not locked to a service provider),
slip in your sim card, and it will work 100%.

That is the beauty of GSM.

--
Support your local medical examiner: die strangely!

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Lenroc <lenroc@NOSPAMFORYOU.hotmail.com> wrote:

> The networks use differing standards to allow communication

Do you guys still use analogue? I don't actually understand what the
non-GSM phone is for.

-z-

--
"I didn't expect the voice of karma to be called Bob."
-- Giles, uk.comp.sys.mac

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

John Phillips<flatulentdingo@deadspam.com> wrote:
>Just buy the GSM model (make sure it is not locked to a service provider),
>slip in your sim card, and it will work 100%.

In the US it's difficult and very expensive to find an unlocked GSM
phone. The carriers hate them, as it leaves you free to choose your
phone and service provider independently, and reduces your desire for
1-2 year locked in service contracts. Because of the phone subsidy
inherent in our market, the percieved value of the actual telephone
handset is approximately zero.

>That is the beauty of GSM.

That's the beauty of GSM as it's practiced in the rest of the world.
GSM is only starting to take off in the US because the {TDMA,CDMA}
systems are full, and they are indistinguishable from each other to
the consumer. Imagine a conversation with a CSR who insists he must
know the EMEA (serial) number of the GSM phone that I want to use on
their network....

And then of course you have different firmware for different GSM
networks, because we couldn't all go with the same standard...

Don't get me started. Oh, wait, you already did. 8*}

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <clo1o01r75197hkq86erspr3s937avgdsk@4ax.com>, William P.N.
Smith wrote:

> me3@privacy.net (zoara) wrote:
> >Lenroc <lenroc@NOSPAMFORYOU.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> The networks use differing standards to allow communication
>
> >Do you guys still use analogue? I don't actually understand what the
> >non-GSM phone is for.
>
> The US uses multiple digital phone standards (GSM, Time Domain
> Multiple Access, Code Division Multiple Access, etc) instead of
> standardizing on one. Just a different paradigm, GSM's inherent
> security and easy portability is A Bad Thing on this side of the pond.

The British TV series, Absolutely Fabulous, had this saying: "I don't want
more choices. I want better things."

The U.S. believes in more choices and forgets that they don't always lead
to better things.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, at 08:25:09 [GMT -0400] (22:25:09 Thursday, 28 October
2004 where I live) "WilliamP.N.Smith" wrote:

> And then of course you have different firmware for different GSM
> networks, because we couldn't all go with the same standard...

I don't think that is correct. With GSM and roaming enabled, you can roam
all over the world on different networks.

The firmware may be just tweaks for the original provider, but will not stop
you using the Treo on other networks (providing again that the 'phone/Treo
is unlocked, of course). For instance Optarse in Australia tweak the
firmware for what they call "Optus Zoo" (strange name?) which provides
streaming video, etc, but I have used one of these tweaked phones on the
Tel$tra network.

There are some web sites that provide )free) codes for unlocking, not sure
if they support the Treo at all.

--
(A)bort, (R)etry, (S)mack the friggin thing

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:56:57 GMT, guy@ether.net (Guy Bannis) wrote:

>In article <clo1o01r75197hkq86erspr3s937avgdsk@4ax.com>, William P.N.
>Smith wrote:

>> me3@privacy.net (zoara) wrote:
>> >Lenroc <lenroc@NOSPAMFORYOU.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The networks use differing standards to allow communication

>> >Do you guys still use analogue? I don't actually understand what the
>> >non-GSM phone is for.

>> The US uses multiple digital phone standards (GSM, Time Domain
>> Multiple Access, Code Division Multiple Access, etc) instead of
>> standardizing on one. Just a different paradigm, GSM's inherent
>> security and easy portability is A Bad Thing on this side of the pond.

Actually, TDMA seems to by dying its final death. In Canada, the only
TDMA monger (Rogers AT&T) began the switch to GSM/GPRS a couple of
years ago. I expect most TDMA services in the US will switch to
either GSM/GPRS or CDMA as well.

>The British TV series, Absolutely Fabulous, had this saying: "I don't want
>more choices. I want better things."

>The U.S. believes in more choices and forgets that they don't always lead
>to better things.

Well, the reality is that the "more choice" in North America *has*
lead to "better things." I tested CDMA and GSM when they were fairly
new and CDMA was clearly better. The GSM services I tested had
glitchiness resulting in frequent squawks and drops outs (at times,
an obviously audible error more than once per second). And that was
in multiple locations all showing *good* reception strength. I
tested more than one handset (one of which was a top of line Nokia)
and that made no difference. I chose the Clearnet service at that
time and felt that it was well named.

Years later I have found no significant improvement. It is possible
that things have improved by now since the last time I tested was over
2 years ago. I will not be writing a formal article on the subject
again in the near future, so I do not have an excuse to borrow a phone
from one of the service providers (or anyone else). I will have to
buy new phone and service on my own if I decide to run a test within
the coming year. I might just do that. . . .

I conclude that Europeans think GSM is great because they have not
tried anything better. "Not my problem."

--
The Moving Target: mobile information technology
http://www.pathcom.com/~jimomura/

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004, at 18:41:21 [GMT -0500] (10:41:21 Thursday, 4 November
2004 where I live) "jimomuraNOSPAM@pathcom.com" wrote:

> I conclude that Europeans think GSM is great because they have not
> tried anything better. "Not my problem."

I agree GSM had technical problems in the early days, now mostly ironed out.
The newer phones as well seem to have superior reception.

Here in Australia we have both GSM and CDMA; CDMA is the least popular by
a country mile or two.

--
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes