The IIIxe ‘vs’ H3950
Introduction
During the third quarter of 2002, my trusty Palm IIIxe started running out of memory. I knew that I would eventually run out of
RAM, but I was hoping to extend my useful time with the device for just a
little bit longer.
And so the process of researching into a replacement
started.
I concentrated most of my research on an inexpensive
replacement - as in, up to £200 - that had both more memory than the IIIxe, and
had at least one expansion slot.
Generally, this meant a mid-range PalmOS device.
My Requirements
I really don’t need all that much from a PDA. My primary requirements are for Personal
Information Management - that is, it needs to be able to handle my
Appointments, Contacts, Tasks and Notes.
It also needs to be able to handle my secondary requirements - namely,
reading eBooks, some basic spreadsheet work, word processing, and
entertainment.
An important consideration is that my Calendar database is
growing by approximately 150 - 200 Kb a (working) week.
So when the iPAQ was offered to me, I decided to try it.
Introducing the iPAQ
One look at the box of the iPAQ reveals that is has an
Intel X-Scale processor, clocked at 400 MHz, and 64 Mb of internal memory. In addition, the iPAQ also comes with a SD /
MMC slot and the Compaq propriety jacket expansion system, which uses the
device’s serial port. That compares
with a 16 MHz processor on the Palm, and 8 Mb of memory, and no memory slot,
although there are a range of accessories available that use the serial
connection, and it is possible to add a Compact Flash memory expansion slot.
Thus, one may speculate that the iPAQ should be a lot
faster and be able to contain a lot more information, right? Yes, to both, but only in theory. I’ll discuss this in detail later on.
In addition to this fast-sounding processor, the iPAQ also
features a very crisp, very bright and colourful (16-bit) screen, with a resolution
of 240 by 320. It is capable of
producing rather stunning images. It’s
the best screen I’ve ever seen on a handheld device, and superior to many
laptops, too. All colours are rich and
vibrant, and it’s so bright that it could be used as a runway landing light!
So lets see how the two compare!
Form Factor
The IIIxe is looking rather dated these days - it has an
angular, functional look, not dissimilar to the original Palm Pilots. All buttons are arranged along the bottom of
the device, which is dominated by the screen, with the “silkscreen” between the
main screen and the buttons. Palm
supply the IIIxe with a black plastic cover, which is a little flimsy, and a
cheap, lightweight stylus (but at least it’s comfortable to use, even for
extended periods). However, the
IIIxe is shirt pocket sized, and reasonably comfortable to use in the
hand. So whilst it doesn’t score any
points for looking good, it’s small and light enough to be reasonably discrete.
The iPAQ’s looks are rather more modern - a silver metal
case, and a large screen on the front.
At the bottom, there are the four buttons, plus the four way directional
pad. The device ships with a smart
case, which the iPAQ slips into, and comes with an opaque plastic cover for the
screen. The stylus clicks into place at
the back, and is longer and heavier - it feels better in the hand. However, the tip is somewhat tougher (almost
certainly because the iPAQ has a glass screen) whereas the IIIxe’s tip is
rather softer.
It’s both larger and heavier than the IIIxe, but still
fits into a shirt pocket (albeit only just). It’s not as discrete as the Palm - with the backlight switched
on, the device has a bright screen.
However, the main difference between the two is weight - in isolation,
the iPAQ doesn’t feel too bad, but when compared with the Palm IIIxe, it feels
significantly heavier, especially in a shirt pocket. In fairness, this is not too much of a bother to me: but if you
want a small, light colour PDA, the iPAQ H3950 is not the best choice.
Screen
These two have very different screens. The Palm ships with a monochrome (4-bit,
or sixteen shades of grey) 160 by 160 pixel screen, which whilst it is a
little blocky, is useable in most lighting either with or without the
backlight. The backlight is of the
“reversing” type, which can make it difficult to use in certain lighting
conditions. However, for the PDA’s
primary purposes, the screen is certainly satisfactory: you don’t really need
anything over and above what you have.
The iPAQ comes with one of the best colour screens on the
market. As I’ve written above, it’s
bright, crisp, and very colourful. The
screen is capable of displaying over 65,000 colours (it’s a 16-bit display)
and it is transflective - in other words, it reflects some of the
light. This means that the PDA is
useable in all lighting, from strong sunlight to complete darkness. In this respect, the PDA is as useable as
the Palm, where some colour devices are inferior. Indeed, it is probably more useable, because the backlight is
very variable and can be adjusted to suit the conditions.
The Compaq also has a clever little feature that adapts
the backlight to suit the lighting, by means of a photoelectric cell set into
the front of the device. Whilst this
typically sets the brightness to be slightly higher than I can use, on occasion
the ambient lighting levels can confuse the sensor, and the iPAQ’s backlight
either switches off, or becomes very bright.
The iPAQ range is the only PocketPC-powered handheld that
allows the user to run the device with the backlight switched off. And whilst the device is good enough to use
in such conditions, there is a slight flaw in that if you’ve turned the
backlight off by holding the power button, there no built-in way to re-activate
the backlight unless you go into Settings or you press and hold down the power
button again. Fortunately, this quirk
only becomes an issue if you use a little Freeware application that adjusts the
backlight between off, the lowest setting, and a brighter mode - and I’ve
mapped the record button to this application, too.
If, however, you have the backlight switched on, you can
turn it off (and on again) by holding the power button down for a few
seconds. Whilst this is effective, it
does not appear to be documented within the iPAQ’s help facility.
Sound
There’s no contest here in terms of sound quality. The Palm ships with simple audio abilities:
you can produce a range of notes from the speaker, but they’re just beeps,
really. The iPAQ is capable of playing
MP3s, WMVs and WAVs out of the box, and despite the small size of the speaker,
the quality is surprisingly good. It
also comes with a headphone socket, so you don’t have to disturb people around
you with your music collection. MP3s
playing through the headphones benefit from a simple, but effective, graphic
equaliser.
It is possible to buy additional software to play MODs,
thus I’m able to listen to all of my old Amiga tunes using the Compaq!
As to which one is more useable for my purposes, the iPAQ
squeezes in front, but only because it can produce much louder beeps. And whilst neither have a vibrate function
for silent notification, it’s easier to turn the speaker down using PocketPC
rather than PalmOS.
Storage
In straightforward terms, the Palm IIIxe has 8 Mb of RAM
and the iPAQ H3950 carried 64 Mb of RAM.
However, each device (and operating system) carries its own
peculiarities, such that it would be wholly inappropriate to make the assumption
that the iPAQ has eight times the effective memory of the Palm.
Both PalmOS and PocketPC 2002 require memory (the
“stack”) for running applications.
However, the PalmOS requirements for this are much below the
PocketPC. Indeed, it is difficult to quantify
precisely how much space PalmOS 4·1 requires, since the device will work with
no free bytes of memory! However, many
16 Mb PalmOS devices are quoted as needing approximately 1 Mb for the program
stack.
The PocketPC solution is to divide the machine’s memory
into “Storage” and “Program” sections, and this process is automatically
handled by the device (it splits free memory into equal halves). The more applications running, the greater
the program memory requirements, and it is not unusual for the device to have
some 10 to 15 Mb effectively locked away in the Program section. Therefore, and depending on what
applications are running, the iPAQ’s storage memory is approximately 50 Mb.
With just 7 Mb of storage memory, rather than
approximately 50 Mb, you may be forgiven for thinking that the IIIxe would be
simply outclassed by the iPAQ. It is
not so clear cut. In fairness, the
Palm’s weakness is that it needs to use storage memory for a word processor and
spreadsheet application. QuickOffice
uses around 3 Mb of space - which cuts down the free memory to just 4 Mb. It is in this respect that PalmOS lags
PocketPC.
Where the Palm scores points against PocketPC is in the
size of imported records from Outlook.
PocketPC records tend to be approximately 25% larger than the PalmOS
equivalent. In other words, for every
Mb of appointments that you have on the Palm, the Pocket PC requires 1¼
Mb. Therefore, should the user just wish
to store PIM, the 7 Mb of available space on the IIIxe becomes the equivalent
of approximately 8¾ Mb on a PocketPC device.
You can store a huge amount of Outlook data in 7 Mb.
Another area where the Palm scores is in the size of
applications, which do tend to be much smaller for PalmOS.
The Palm IIIxe has very limited expansion capabilities. It is possible to engineer a Compact Flash
expansion slot for the IIIxe, however this solution is a rather expensive one,
and not as effective a upgrading to a 16 Mb (or greater) PalmOS device. The iPAQ has a SD / MMC expansion slot, plus
the ability to add an inexpensive (approximately £30) Compact Flash jacket,
thus allowing two memory cards to be in use at any one time.
Getting Around the Operating System
It’s at this juncture that we see main differences between
PalmOS and Pocket PC. These are “ground
up” differences are typical of all PalmOS and PocketPC devices.
To navigate around PalmOS, simply tap the application that
you wish to load. You can navigate
through tabs by switching between categories (or menus), or accessing the toolbar
icon. It’s very simple, it’s very
clean, and it’s remarkably easy to pick up.
Furthermore, the Palm IIIxe also has four application buttons to access
the Datebook, To-Do, Contacts and Notes applications, together with a power
switch (that also doubles as a toggle for the backlight) and an up / down
button, for scrolling.
The iPAQ, too, has various hardware buttons. It has a directional “joy pad” in the
centre, which actually has five functions (you may depress the centre of the
switch as an “action button”).
Either side, there are four buttons, which are by default (from left
to right) Calendar, Contacts, Inbox and iTask (which activates the iPAQ
Task Manager software). The power
button is at the top of the device (which as detailed above, can also act as a
toggle for the backlight), and at the top of the left hand side of the case,
there is another button, which comes mapped as the microphone switch by
default.
PocketPC, however, uses a Start button (similar in some
respects to the Windows 9x interface, except the Start button is located at the
top left rather than at the bottom right).
From here, you access applications from either the drop down menu, or
from the “Applications” choice from this menu (which brings up a new window
with the applications on this).
You’re restricted to just nine user choices from this menu. The Start menu remembers the last five
accessed applications, but this is of limited use, because it makes sense to
put your most frequently applications on the start bar anyway!
PalmOS uses a comparatively simple operating system. It does not multitask in the same sense that
Pocket PC does - you can only have one application running at any one time,
although you are interrupted with reminders.
However, this approach certainly simplifies things and maintains the
running speed of the device. It always
takes the same amount of time to switch from the Datebook to the To-Do
application, and then into the Mail, perhaps via the Address application.
Trying the same operation on Pocket PC is a little bit
different, because of the multitasking operating system. In other words, when you open a new
application, it keeps the old one open, too.
Open enough applications, and the operating system starts shutting
previous applications down - but not before you can feel it decelerating. Thus, when you’re using the device sometimes
it feels quick and sometimes it feels rather sluggish. Whilst this is not a fault, as such, but a
feature, it is the inconsistency of the performance of the device that is my
major dislike.
There is only one discernable benefit to having a
multitasking operating system, which I cover in the Searches section. You can continue to use the device whilst it
is synchronising with a desktop computer (although this is not really
advisable), and a background application can play MP3s. The disadvantages are that a certain amount
of user experience is a useful thing - he or she recognises that the computer
is slowing down, and compensates for it by manually closing applications. Unfortunately, sometimes the device can
decelerate even with minimal applications running, and this can be a little
frustrating. This can only be resolved
with a reset, and I believe it is caused by memory fragmentation. There appears to be no way around this:
closing running applications does not solve the problem. Still, after the requisite period, it does
not appear to get much slower. The
problem is caused by memory fragmentation, and can be reduced by not closing
applications, but by leaving them running (this trick worked quite well with
my Windows CE device).
Unfortunately, PocketPC 2002’s memory management system closes
applications for you.
Overall, the Palm is an easier device to navigate. I have further improved the IIIxe’s
functionality by the use of SlowLaunch, a hack that modifies how the hardware
buttons are used. By pressing and
holding a button, it will launch a different application - so in effect, the
four buttons can launch eight applications.
In comparison, PocketPC works like a scaled-down desktop computer. In due course, I will probably find a
similar application to SlowLaunch, which should improve matters. Meanwhile, matters are improved thanks to iTask
- some propriety iPAQ software. iTask
is activated by pressing one of the hardware buttons, and it has a number of
features. First, it shows all running
applications and it can be used to close any or all of these. It can also be used to access various
settings and system functions, including the backlight, memory, power, and similar. Finally, it can be used to launch a limited
number of applications. iTask adds a
lot to the iPAQ and without it, the device would be a lot harder to use.
Personal Information Management
These two devices both come with competent PIM software. Whilst both integrate with Outlook, the iPAQ
has the greater abilities - but the interface is not so useful. Entering certain things into the iPAQ is a
little awkward, because the user needs to deselect the “user input” box in
order to see the lower part of the screen.
This is most annoying when entering a new appointment or task - it is
necessary to close the input box.
Dealing with the applications, both the Palm and the
Compaq allow you to select individual days, weeks or months. In all modes, both devices show the user if
there are appointments or events happening on that day, which is useful for
forward planning. However, both suffer
from a lag when selecting days, clearly as the device has to trawl through the
database to retrieve the information required, but it must be remembered that
my database contains almost 5,000 records, and occupies over 4 Mb within
Outlook 98 (2 Mb in the Palm and around 2·8 Mb on the iPAQ). There are differences in the response time
of the devices: when in the daily view, both devices are reasonably quick to
display the chosen days’ information.
However, switch to the month view, and the IIIxe redraws the appointment
notification information much quicker than the iPAQ. It takes just a couple of seconds on the IIIxe to change month,
but then four seconds to select an individual day from that month. The iPAQ can take over ten seconds to
complete the redraw of the month view, but then it is much quicker to switch to
an individual day most of the time.
The iPAQ allows the user to show the entire year at once -
but whilst this view is pretty, I have yet to find a use for it other than for
quicker date checking (“Hey, Dervy, we’ll have the next meeting on the third
Wednesday of next month, what date is that?”) where is might save a second or
so.
The IIIxe hits back with the ability to show the day’s
appointments and tasks. Although the
iPAQ does this as a matter of course using the Today screen, it only shows up
and coming appointments (not those that you’ve already completed) and
only the number of tasks, not the individual ones. I’ve found this particular display mode rather slow on the IIIxe,
and I rarely use it, but it’s there if I need to. It’s also entirely possible to “patch” PocketPC to show rather
more information, but again, performance becomes an issue.
Whereas the Palm simply has appointments, PocketPC allows
the user to differentiate between “Free,” “Busy,” Tentative” and “Out of
Office” appointments, and colour-codes them respectively. I did use this useful facility with my
previous Windows CE device, and had forgotten how useful it was. I can now start to use this facility once
more, although noting that the benefit is rather limited.
An important difference between the two devices is the
notes field in all Personal Information applications. PalmOS is restricted to 4,096 characters - and PocketPC does not
have such a low limitation. In fact, it
appears entirely possible to produce a very long note for any individual item,
and Pocket Outlook can cope with it!
This is quite important for me since many of my research articles can
exceed this 4 Kb limit, and until now, I had split up the entries to
accommodate all text.
One irritant with the iPAQ is that the device speed is not
very consistent. There are occasions
when, for no apparent reason, the device slows down. This can happen when you are running just one or two lightweight
applications as well as when you are running eight or so.
Searching
One of the most useful features of a PDA is the ability to
search through your records for specific data.
I have used the search facility a lot on the Palm IIIxe, and found it to
be surprisingly quick, although obviously as my databases have grown, so the
search speed has dropped. To this end,
I typically accelerate the search operation by overclocking it to 20 MHz, and
using full CPU optimisation. Almost all
other applications on the Palm are clocked at an optimised 13 MHz (which
equates to around and about 107% of the speed of the unadjusted, and therefore
not optimised, Palm IIIxe clocked at 16 MHz). However, even when the device is clocked at the original speed,
searches are performed surprisingly quickly: proving that you don’t necessarily
require powerful hardware for rapid searches.
To use the PalmOS search facility, simply tap the “Search”
(or “Find”) button on the silkscreen.
This facility is relatively simple and, by default, checks all
application databases. This does slow
it down quite significantly, and I have “tweaked” it with a hack, which
excludes certain databases from the search.
I have also noted that it searches whatever application you are in
first, then moves to other applications - for example, if you instigate a
search in the Datebook application, it will search the Datebook records
first. This can be a useful time saving
tip.
PocketPC’s search facility is a little harder to reach,
requiring the user to navigate into the Start bar, then select on “Find” at the
bottom. However, it is a little bit
more sophisticated than the PalmOS equivalent, offering the ability to search
in individual applications (or all applications), and to look for files
of a certain size, type, or date.
Whilst there may be occasions where this is useful, the reason for this
appears to be because PocketPC requires this level of sophistication, since the
operating system is designed this way.
In terms of search performance and usability, the
differences between the two operating systems are minor, but it’s easy to see
how one could infuriate an individual!
PalmOS shows results as it finds them, so on occasion, you can see the
record you want to read within a few seconds, select it, and it takes you to
it. However, it also closes the Find
application, so if the first record you select is not the one you need, you do
need to re-run the search once more. It
also stops after it has filled the one page of results - you have to hit “Find
More” to continue the search. This means
that if you are looking for a reasonably common occurrence within the database
(perhaps searching for “Ka” within my data!) you may have to move
through several screens to find what you are looking for, and you cannot tap
“OK” and leave it be. It requires
attention.
PocketPC’s search returns all results at once, and allows
you to scroll through the findings and cherry pick the data you wish to
view. This has the advantage that you
can see all search results at once.
There is also another important advantage in that when you select an
item, and it takes you there, it also keeps the Find application running. Therefore, if this is not the data you are
looking for, you don’t have to re-run the search. This is perhaps the biggest advantage of the multitasking
environment.
In terms of search engine performance, and using the PIM
data that I have on both devices (approximately, 4,500 appointments, 600
tasks, 100 notes and 2,000 contacts) the iPAQ has a small (and
insignificant) advantage. A few
seconds really doesn’t make much difference to me when the entire search takes
thirty or so.
On balance, both systems have advantages and
disadvantages. If the user knows
precisely what he or she is looking for - a certain text string, for example -
then the PalmOS search facility is better suited. However, if the user cannot be so specific, then the PocketPC’s
search facility has certain important advantages. It would be handy to have both engines on both devices!
Synchronisation
The Palm IIIxe ships with PalmOS’ Hotsync and Chapura
PocketMirror 2·0 to communicate with the desktop machine running Microsoft
Outlook. I’ve found this combination to
be remarkably consistent and reliable: it does exactly what it promises.
The iPAQ uses Microsoft ActiveSync 3·5 by default, which
has the promise of greater capabilities - but is also less reliable. ActiveSync is prone to duplicating your
data, which is very annoying. Part of
the problem may well be that I have upgraded ActiveSync to 3·6 at my home
machine (and have been struggling!) but have retained 3·5 at my office
machine (and have not had many problems at all).
Both Hotsync and ActiveSync can synchronise the Calendar,
Tasks, Notes and Contacts databases between the desktop computer and the
PDA. Both can communicate via either
the serial, USB or infrared ports, both have backup and restore facilities, and
both support remote synchronisation via either a modem or Ethernet.
Hotsync allows the desktop to overwrite the Palm, the two
databases to be synchronised, or the Palm to overwrite the desktop. ActiveSync is similar, but lacks this last
feature: you cannot have Outlook overwritten by the iPAQ. This is a serious omission - there are times
(especially when synchronising between two desktop computers) when you know
that your PDA has the most up to date data.
The backup options offered by the Hotsync software is
rather simple: at the end of a Hotsync, it automatically backs the data
up. ActiveSync can also do this, but
the arrangement takes much longer, and is not set by default.
Whilst it is impossible to compare the synchronisation
times between the two devices on a scientific basis, I can make the following
observations:
For a straightforward data sync, the iPAQ is quicker. It can synchronise a few changed items in a
handful of seconds.
For backups, Hotsync is much quicker. ActiveSync’s backup facility is painfully
slow, even with a high speed USB connection, and is best contemplated when the
power supply is available. Although it
must be noted that ActiveSync must backup 64 Mb rather than Hotsync’s 8 Mb.
For more complicated duties - such as transferring Word
files - the iPAQ has a definite speed advantage. It also has another important advantage in that ActiveSync will
convert files as necessary, and that Pocket PC applications can read typical
files such as GIFs and JPEGs “straight from the box.” This makes it easier to do certain things for the novice user -
such as copying a map.
Battery Performance
The battery performance of a PDA is important to me - I
know of colleagues who have had to put their (PocketPC powered) PDA away
half way through a meeting because it was running low on power. I was expecting this to be the iPAQ’s
primary weakness, especially given that the Palm IIIxe is very power efficient
- even when using rechargeable AAA batteries (which contain around half the
power of alkaline AAA cells), I would typically expect to get between five
and ten days use from a set. This
includes Hotsyncing it every day, use of the keyboard, and some intensive
sessions. All in all, I can expect to
get around eighteen hours use from a set of (rechargeable)
batteries. This is doubled when using a
set of alkaline batteries.
In a typical low usage profile, and on a set of high power
rechargeable batteries, the IIIxe typically lasts for a month (and between six to
seven hours of usage) between needing a fresh set of rechargeables.
It is true that the iPAQ cannot match the IIIxe’s power
efficiency and I was expecting it to peter out after only a few hours use (somewhere
between three and four hours).
However, I’m pleased to report that I was pleasantly surprised with the
results: with the backlight set on the lowest setting, the iPAQ typically lasts
for around eight hours of use. This
matches my first PDA - a monochrome Philips Velo 500 running Windows CE 2 device
- but is easier to see. With the
backlight set on “Auto,” this drops to around five hours, although this does
depend on ambient lighting. With the
backlight off, the device would probably be able to last for the full fifteen
hours that Compaq quote on the packaging.
With light usage - that is, minimal use of the backlight,
synchronising twice a day, and no processor-intensive games - the iPAQ should
last for around eleven hours of use, spread across four days. After a day at the office, with reasonable
use of the device, some synchronisation, but admittedly most of the time with
the backlight switched off, the battery was down to around 85%. That’s not bad going!
When it comes to standby, the IIIxe has a “shelf life” of
a quoted six months on a set of alkaline batteries. The iPAQ’s “shelf life” is significantly shorter. For every day spend in standby mode, the
iPAQ seems to use approximately 5% of the battery charge. Compaq don’t quote a shelf life, but I would
speculate that it is under three weeks.
Thanks to Compaq using a Lithium Ion battery, the iPAQ
does not suffer from battery fade and in my everyday use, I’ve not found it necessary to leave the
device on recharge overnight to ensure I have adequate power for the next day -
depending on usage, it is quite possible to use the iPAQ for long periods with
just “top up” charges, especially if you back up the device once or twice a
week. Quite how this will change when
or if I get a satellite navigation system for the iPAQ remains to be seen!
Overall, I’m impressed with how power efficient the iPAQ
is, especially compared to my expectations.
It’s quite possible to take it away for a weekend, use it, and it still
be going when you get home. However, it
is a device that requires regular recharging: if it runs out of all power, you
will lose all of your data. Compaq have
not given any iPAQ a backup battery, but instead, the operating system reserves
between 25 and 100 hours of emergency stand-by time for when the battery is
getting low. With the IIIxe, I could go
away for a fortnight and leave it on the desk, knowing that even if it turns
itself on to remind me of something, it will still have power upon my return,
or still have retained its memory. It
is not quite to clear cut with the iPAQ and I would not want to risk it.
Inputting Data
Both of these devices offer the Graffiti language, which
is good news since it very much reduces the learning curve for me. They both offer an on-screen keyboard, too.
However, the iPAQ offers character recognition software,
which is similar to Graffiti. It also
goes one better and offers handwriting recognition, which is surprisingly
accurate (if not perfect).
One major difference between the two devices is that the
iPAQ has an on-screen “silk-screen” for the purposes of Graffiti and character
recognition. This provides instant
feedback, and can help the user understand why the device is unable to
understand their writing!
Whilst I do have a portable keyboard for the Palm, these
are also available for the iPAQ. The
Palm’s portable keyboard is a very impressive piece of design, and also very
functional. I do miss it! The keyboard integrates seamlessly and
perfectly with the Palm, and makes it an idea machine for taking large
quantities of notes, or writing. I am
unable to comment on the iPAQ’s equivalent at this stage.
With regard to the performance of Graffiti, the IIIxe is
very consistent. The PalmOS device is
perfectly capable of keeping up with my Graffiti, and I am a competent user of
the language, but the iPAQ is snappier for the most part. However, there are occasions when the iPAQ
suffers from a rather sluggish response time.
It’s no slower than the Palm, but it is not as consistent. I would add that this is a minor irritant,
and I suspect that most users wouldn’t notice it.
As a final point, the version of Graffiti that ships with
the iPAQ is probably the “pure” version of the language. It does not have all of the little shortcuts
that the genuine IIIxe has, and thus, is a little harder to use than the
IIIxe. The on-screen feedback does go
some way into helping the situation!
On a related topic, one annoying limitation of PalmOS is
the small clipboard - of just 1,000 characters - which meant that copying a
large chunk of text required much to-ing and fro-ing between applications. PocketPC does not have such a tight
limitation and the clipboard appears to be somewhere in the region of 30,000
characters. This is a major benefit,
and in fairness, I had forgotten how useful this is.
Stability
Both PocketPC 2002 and PalmOS 4·1 are stable operating
systems, much more so than all desktop operating systems that I have used (with
the possible exception of Windows NT 3·51). Although it is true that they do require resetting, most resets
are by choice or because of an application installation.
Trying to differentiate between the two is difficult. On balance and to my surprise, the iPAQ is
slightly more reliable, however when it does crash, it has an annoying habit to
drain the battery rather significantly (as though the processor were working
extremely hard). If the device
crashes whilst on standby, which it can, it can be several hours until you
notice that it has crashed, and by this time it is entirely possible that the
machine will have completely drained the batteries.
I have eliminated this problem with the Palm by installing
a hack designed to reset the Palm when it crashes. However, the Palm only seems to crash when you are using it.
Given that any crash is annoying, I’d rather take the more
stable device, however the iPAQ’s ability to lock up when not in use is
annoying. I’d say they were level
pegging it for this one.
Summary
I’m disappointed to report that the iPAQ is actually
rather good, and has exceeded all of my expectations, with the exception of
synchronisation.
I was expecting to dislike the clunky interface and the
battery performance, and would wish to be using a PalmOS device instead.
However, for the most part, the Palm IIIxe and the iPAQ
are very close - for what I need a PDA for.
In some respects, the IIIxe is easier to live with. Despite the huge increase in battery
performance from the PocketPC device compared to slightly older devices, you
must maintain the iPAQ’s battery. This
is not a problem with the IIIxe: you can just forget about it! However, to my surprise, looking after the
iPAQ hasn’t been all a problem for me - I can leave it on the cradle to
recharge overnight, or plug it in for a couple of hours as and when needed. Indeed, the iPAQ needs recharging about as
frequently as my mobile ‘phone does, and I’ve not really had a problem with
keeping my mobile’s battery topped up.
Furthermore, the lithium ion battery in the iPAQ does not suffer from
the “memory” associated with other rechargeable battery types. If I only partially recharge the battery, it
does not “forget” about previous stored energy. Thus, if the battery is down to 60% and I give it around 30%
additional charge, I have 90%, rather than 30% power. This is a definite plus for a busy lifestyle!
Overall, I know that both devices will do what I need them
to do, and the additional benefit of the colour screen is almost completely
wasted on me. It doesn’t help
legibility for most of the time, but it looks pretty.
I find myself comparing the iPAQ with my original PDA, the
Philips Velo 500, just as much as the Palm.
Whilst the hardware has come a long way since the days of Windows CE 2 (for
the better), Pocket Outlook has barely progressed. The iPAQ is much quicker than the Velo (when
I use the Velo, I’m surprised at how sluggish it feels), but the larger
screen of the Velo makes it easier to use - and the layout of Pocket Outlook is
close to desktop Outlook.
To conclude, either device will satisfy my basic PDA needs
- personal information management. Of
the two, and ignoring everything else, the Palm IIIxe is easier to use and
lasts for a lot longer on a single charge.
It is also significantly cheaper than the iPAQ.
However, the iPAQ is a more complete device, and it is
slightly easier to use some of the more advanced features - at least, it’s
easier to set up. Therefore, if cost
were no issue, I’d take the iPAQ. But
as it stands, you do pay a hefty premium for the Compaq, even if it is an
excellent product, and so the Palm IIIxe is much better value. Unfortunately, for my purposes, I cannot fit
everything that I need on to the IIIxe - so
ultimately I would take the iPAQ.
/since
writing this article, I’ve changed how I use my PDA and no longer use it for storing
masses of data, so I would take the Palm IIIxe!/