iPAQ 1940 or 2210 for pda navigation?

jlw

I want a GOOD, stabale pocket pc that I can use with my fortuna gps. Is HP iPAQ 1930 good? Or should I take a look at the ipaq 2210?

Have a nice day everyone

Dave · Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 9:13 am Post subject:

There's no such thing as a stable Pocket PC, just like there's no such thing as a stable PC. All PDA's will give you problems from time to time, connection glitches, BT drops. If you want a near perfect solution then you want to look at a dedicated unit or dedicated removable unit like the Navman iCN range, or Garmin Street Pilot range.

jlw · Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 12:09 pm Post subject:

DavidW · Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 2:25 pm Post subject:

The problem is that you can wait forever. If the information that's around is correct, it looks like the next two iPAQs out will both be high end machines. One will be the long awaited iPAQ with a built in GSM/GPRS phone (as well as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi if the rumours are correct), the other will be a new very high end machine (built in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, VGA screen, SDIO and CompactFlash slots, 600MHz processor, 128MB memory).

Assuming the price isn't horrendous, I'm fairly likely to buy the latter of these two machines to replace my iPAQ 3970 based setup, but I am definitely a Pocket PC power user. I have CompactFlash and Wi-Fi capabilities on my 3970 and use that system right to its limit.

However, both these are going to be expensive machines, and the newer mid-range units won't be available until towards the end of the year. If you're buying something just for navigation use, a 2210 or 4150 is more than adequate - even a 1940 will do (1930 is not recommended - you have to use an IR GPS with it as it has no Bluetooth, serial port or CompactFlash capabilities). The 4150 is supposedly so new that it's not slated for replacement any time soon.

You can always wait for the next thing. I nearly did that with DVD writers - hanging on until dual layer came out. I realised, though, that waiting was a mistake - I needed a DVD writer, and it was becoming increasingly clear that dual layer at launch (which is happening now) is slow and uses expensive media that will be in very short supply - also the compatibility of the written discs is very poor. If I want dual layer, I'll upgrade again when the technology is mature.

I bought my 3970 to meet the needs I had when I bought it. At the time (just under two years ago) it was the top of the range iPAQ. It has worn pretty well because I thought carefully about my needs. There have been newer top end iPAQs - the 5450 and 5550, but neither has had enough new features to make it worth my while upgrading.

The big new feature coming in the upper middle range machines and above will be VGA screens - the imminent release of Pocket PC 2003 Second Edition has full VGA screen support (previously the OS has only properly supported quarter VGA portrait screens). However, there will still be a market for the small, light and relatively inexpensive QVGA machines for some time to come. If you would be happy buying a low end machine like a 1940, I can't think waiting can be recommended, as that area of the market has seen a lot of activity recently, with some very good products now available. I think the next six months of development will be at the upper end of the market.

If you want to buy a system (and all the questions you've asked indicates that you do), you simply have to jump at some point and accept that newer, better hardware will come out within a few months, particularly in fast moving high-volume market segments. The PC I'm using to write to you now is a case in point - it's an expensive dual Xeon workstation. As this is a relatively slow moving marketplace, I can buy the same machine from Dell today as this one, which is ten months old - the only difference is that the price is less. There'll only be a new generation of Xeon workstations when Intel finally make the jump to a faster FSB speed on the Xeon processors (currently the Xeon is stuck at 533MHz).

However, consumer desktop PCs have gone through a couple of generations at least in the last year.

My iPAQ 3970 was one of the first machines with the specification that is standard now in the mid-range - 64MB RAM, 400MHz XScale processor. Such machines are still incredibly capable - there's few users that really need more RAM or processor power for the current range of applications. The biggest impetus behind my likely upgrade is that another family member wants a navigation system, and it makes more sense to give her my 3970 and me to have a new iPAQ than for me to buy her a low end machine like a 1940. I'd also like a lighter setup than my current one as, unfortunately, my muscle problems are getting worse and the weight of the 3970 / expansion pack combination I use is becoming a problem.

David

jlw · Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 2:35 pm Post subject:

David....

Thank you for the story. Took me a lifetime to read. Smile

Is qvga the standard today?

DavidW · Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 2:45 pm Post subject:

QVGA has been the specification for some time - at one point it was in the formal Microsoft hardware specification, though gradually a move has been towards VGA. There has been at least one VGA screen Pocket PC already (a Toshiba), but it really has needed proper OS support, which will arrive in Pocket PC 2003 Second Edition.

David

jlw · Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 3:01 pm Post subject:

DavidW · Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 12:25 pm Post subject:

VGA is twice the resolution in both directions from QVGA. For some applications, VGA (which will probably be using slightly larger screens than the latest generation of very small QVGA Pocket PCs) will hold an advantage - I'm thinking of applications like web browsing and ebooks reading, especially for those of us with good eyesight who can cope with tiny on-screen text so long as it's at a reasonable resolution.

For navigation use, I'm not sure how much difference VGA will make.

David

jlw · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 4:41 pm Post subject:

DavidW · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 8:30 pm Post subject:

I've posted a comparison of those three here.

Personally I would avoid the 1940 - it lacks a wired serial port (so the only mainstream GPS option is Bluetooth GPS), and has a slower processor than the other two. It's then down to you. If you want a small unit (the same size as the 1940) and you quite fancy built in Wi-Fi, go for the 4150. If you want a CompactFlash slot as well as an SDIO slot, then the only machine of the three with that is the 2210.

The 4150 is a newer machine than the 2210, and, if it matters to you, may well last a little longer before being superseded. The 2210 was the machine that HP introduced at the launch of Pocket PC 2003 almost exactly a year ago.

A wild-card option, if you fancy a thumb board (not my thing, but it might be yours) is the 4150 with one of those built in, called the 4350. I'm pretty sure I can use the excellent Fitaly faster than I ever could a thumb board.

David

jlw · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 8:50 pm Post subject:

jlw · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 9:18 pm Post subject:

damn, I tought i was able to edit my message afterward. Sad

1.Is not compact flash "better" and cheaper then sd memorys? And more reliable.
2. May I have a microdrive in ha sd memory slot?

DavidW · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 9:31 pm Post subject:

The feeling seems to be that the 4150 / TomTom Navigator 3 / Fortuna Clip On is a working combination. At least one person has returned a 2210 for a 4150, and found his problems with TomTom Navigator 3 disappeared. I can't guarantee it, though - I don't have that hardware combination here to test myself.

So far as memory goes, CompactFlash is potentially faster than SD, but if you buy a good SD card the storage card performance will be pretty good anyway, even if not completely on a par with CompactFlash.

By good SD card, I mean ideally one made by Panasonic, which doesn't necessarily mean a Panasonic branded card. I have an Integral 512MB bought from ValueFlash which they guaranteed would be Panasonic and is, from the markings Panasonic. Do be aware that Integral cards aren't necessarily Panasonic and, in general, probably aren't Panasonic (ValueFlash know that the particular batch of Integral 512MB SD cards they had earlier this week when I bought mine are Panasonic, but believe that if they bought a new batch from Integral they wouldn't be Panasonic).

Good SD cards do cost more than some of the junk out there, like Sandisk SD cards, but they're well worth it. I paid 102 pounds for the Integral this week, including VAT and delivery.

There are no Microdrives in other than CompactFlash format - it's going some to make a hard disk that fits in the CompactFlash type 2 form factor, and I can't think making one that fits in the much smaller SD form factor is possible (there's going to be so much space taken by the heads, spindle motor and so on that I can't see there being any space left for any platters!).

Do you really have a need for a Microdrive, especially as they can be quite fragile devices? If you want an MP3 player with plenty of storage capacity, arguably you're better off using a device like an iPod for that, as the storage capacity available in iPods and similar devices is rather larger than even the biggest Microdrives. If the need is for extra map data for GPS, arguably having several memory cards and changing to another card is a better bet, as TomTom Navigator in particular can be very slow operating from a Microdrive.

Good brand 256MB SD cards are getting pretty cheap now, too - they'll hold probably four and possibly five CDs worth of music in MP3 format at 128kbps.

David

jlw · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 10:42 pm Post subject:

Darren · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 11:08 pm Post subject:

2210, the best of a very large bunch (IMHO!)
_________________
Darren Griffin

	PocketGPS
	Web