Will an E-125 cradle work with a Casio E-115?
KenBuzz
have been the JK-512CR Serial cradle. What the shipped instead was an
E-125 cradle, the JK-516CR USB cradle. Should I send it back for
replacement, or will the USB cradle work with my E-115?
Jason Dunn, MS-MVP/CE
They're identical - you should have no problems.
Jason Dunn
Microsoft MVP - Windows CE
--
Daily news, ponderings, and Pocket PC Info
Pocket PC Thoughts - http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com
--
Microsoft's Pocket PC Resource Site
PocketPC.com: http://www.pocketpc.com
"KenBuzz" <kenbu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8bb8e7a3.01081...@posting.google.com...
Marlof Bregonje, MS-MVP/CE
newsgroup)> wrote:
>They're identical - you should have no problems.
No. The E115 lacks USB hardware. Even if you put a E115 in a E125 USB
cradle nothing will happen.
--
Marlof Bregonje
Microsoft MVP - Windows CE www.pocketpc.com
What is an MVP? - http://support.microsoft.com/support/mvp
Ricardo M....
USB cradle for my E-100 :-)
Regards,
Richard M....
"KenBuzz" <kenbu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8bb8e7a3.01081...@posting.google.com...
SC
CPU.
It took about 10 minutes to transfer a 3MB file to my E100 (131Mhz) @ 115k
With my new Jornada 720 (206Mhz) also @ 115k, I can transer the same file in
a few seconds, this proves that the slow CPU in the E100 series is the cause
of slow transfer rates.
Sorry
"Ricardo M...." <rme...@sjaccounting.com> wrote in message
news:eWfiobzJBHA.1384@tkmsftngp07...
ElecConnec
questions here in the newsgroup)> writes:
>
>They're identical - you should have no problems.
>
A thousand pardons, sir! While a relative newbie like myself hates to disagree
with someone as knowledgeable as you, Jason, the original poster needs to send
the E125 cradle back. The E-115 will not recognize the USB connection (unless
Casio has included some kind of USB-to-serial dongle on the end of the cradle's
cable maybe if they no longer make the old serial one?) While E125s will work
with either the USB or serial cradles, the E115 is serial only, AFAIK.
Ironically, the USB cradle is no faster I'm told- the "USB enabled" E125 only
transfers data at the same 115K as the the serial only E-115.
--
Todd Allcock, DISH/DirecTV Dealer
Electronic Connection, Lee's Summit, MO
"People say the Internet brings a library to your doorstep... only if the
librarian is a Nazi pedophile, that is." Bill Maher 1/19/2001
ElecConnec
writes:
>It took about 10 minutes to transfer a 3MB file to my E100 (131Mhz) @ 115k
>With my new Jornada 720 (206Mhz) also @ 115k, I can transer the same file in
>a few seconds, this proves that the slow CPU in the E100 series is the cause
>of slow transfer rates.
Not to pick on you, but at 115Kbps it's not possible to transfer a 3MB file in
"a few seconds", unless you are using some strange definition of "few" I wasn't
previously familiar with. Correct my math if I'm wrong, but 115Kb(its) per
second=roughly 14 KB(ytes) per second. 3MB is 3000 KB, so a 3MB file on it's
best day will transfer in roughly 214 seconds, or 3-1/2 minutes. Methinks are
you are exaggerating your speeds a bit, in opposite directions, for both
devices!
Unless your Jornada is USB and actually can trasfer at "true" USB speeds, which
is a lot higher than 115K. (The USB Casios, like the E125 for example, still
only transfer at 115K even with USB. I have no experience with HP's units.)
With either my Casio E-100 or E-115, I generally figure about 1-1/2 minutes a
MB as a rule of thumb for 115K transfers, which explains why I own a USB CF
card reader. Dragging a 16MB Audible file directly into my CF card in two
minutes or so beats hell out of the half hour or so it used to take me
serially!
SC
@ 131Mhz (115k).
My HP takes 1:40 to copy 1MB @ 115k or 5 seconds to copy the same 1MB file
using USB connection.
I cant test my E115 because it's packed because I am selling it.
"ElecConnec" <elecc...@aol.comyadayada> wrote in message
news:20010817180951...@nso-mj.aol.com...
John Cody
the E-125 has a faster CPU, so it is able to handle it's end of the
handshaking faster and return control to active sync faster then the E-115
can.
So, even though the serial port speed stays the same 115K, the E-125 will
xfer stuff about twice as fast as the E-115.
-John Cody
"ElecConnec" <elecc...@aol.comyadayada> wrote in message
news:20010817145412...@nso-mo.aol.com...
Chris De Herrera, MVP - Pocket PC
--
Chris De Herrera
Microsoft MVP - Pocket PC
http://www.cewindows.net - Most Complete set of FAQs on Windows CE
http://www.purece.com - Pocket PC and Windows CE Discussions
"SC" <sachac...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:enOPNJ3JBHA.460@tkmsftngp07...
ElecConnec
writes:
>My HP takes 1:40 to copy 1MB @ 115k
Right around my estime of 1-1/2 minutes per meg. My E-115 can do that.
>or 5 seconds to copy the same 1MB file using USB connection.
Yeah, my E-115 certainly CAN'T do that! Nor can the USB-enabled E125!
KenBuzz
am sending it back.
-Ken
"Ricardo M...." <rme...@sjaccounting.com> wrote in message news:<eWfiobzJBHA.1384@tkmsftngp07>...
KenBuzz
"Ricardo M...." <rme...@sjaccounting.com> wrote in message news:<eWfiobzJBHA.1384@tkmsftngp07>...
John Cody
>19MHz, or a 14.5% increase wouldn't account for a 100% increase in speed.
Actually I have both a E-115 and a E-125 in front of me now, so I kinda know
what I am talking about here (did you forget about the E-125's cpu cache,.
that gives it an extra boost over just the 19Mhz difference?) A USB
controller/circuit is more complex then a simple serial UART, so if
anything, a USB circuit could actually run a little slower then a straight
serial circuit if the clock speeds of both are identical (which they are if
both of them operate at 115k baud). Think about it, if both a serial port
and USB port operate at 115K baud, but the USB port xfers faster, then it
has to be the in-between-each-byte delay that is making the difference.
Because the E-125 runs faster then the E-115, it can obtain transfer speeds
closer to the maximum possible speed of 115K baud. And since the ipaq runs
even faster, it can get even closer to that maximum 115k baud (assuming that
the casio and ipaq's USB ports really operate at 115k baud).
>Remember the E-115 is nothing more than the E-105 with a new ROM, which was
designed with WinCE 2.1 in mind.
Yeah, and if you think about it, the ipaq is basically nothing more then an
E-105 with a faster CPU ;) The Pocket PC OS doesn't support or require any
hardware that the E-105 doesn't have, and just as you said, the simple fact
that a ROM upgrade is all that is needed to turn an E-105 into a full-fledge
Pocket PC proves it. So, besides the obvious benefits of a faster CPU, how
is the ipaq better "designed with the Pocket PC in mind" then an E-115 is?
-John Cody
"Ed Hansberry, MS-MVP/CE" <pock...@att.spambegone.net> wrote in message
news:qo8untclmilc7h8vh...@4ax.com...
> "John Cody" <newsg...@noospammmax-soft.com> wrote:
>
> >The E-125 working at 115k will transfer faster then an E-115 at 115k
because
> >the E-125 has a faster CPU, so it is able to handle it's end of the
> >handshaking faster and return control to active sync faster then the
E-115
> >can.
>
> 19MHz does not make that much difference.
>
> >So, even though the serial port speed stays the same 115K, the E-125 will
> >xfer stuff about twice as fast as the E-115.
>
> 19MHz, or a 14.5% increase wouldn't account for a 100% increase in
> speed. I'd say it is far more likely that the 125 got some hardware
> upgrades in that USB connection, which is really USB over serial, thus
> the 115K limit, than the processor having much to do with it.
> Remember the E-115 is nothing more than the E-105 with a new ROM,
> which was designed with WinCE 2.1 in mind, which wasn't designed for
> large data transfers like multimedia files. The E-125 got a good
> working over, though still not a ground up redesign.
>
> And unfortunately, no PPC has true USB, though the iPAQ is 3-4X faster
> than the rest on the USB cradle.
>
> --
> _____________________________________
> Ed Hansberry
> Microsoft MVP - Windows CE www.pocketpc.com
> What is an MVP? - http://support.microsoft.com/support/mvp
> ActiveSync problems? -
http://www.microsoft.com/mobile/pocketpc/howdoi/activesync.asp
Will wants to know...
async protocol where extra bits are transmitted to sync each character
(start bit, stop bit). USB uses a synchronous protocol where sync bits are
sent at the end of each packet. This alone can make USB up to 20% more
efficient.
"Ed Hansberry, MS-MVP/CE" <pock...@att.spambegone.net> wrote in message
news:21hvntcn38vla0hmg...@4ax.com...
> "John Cody" <newsg...@noospammmax-soft.com> wrote:
>
> >Hey Ed,
> >
> >>19MHz, or a 14.5% increase wouldn't account for a 100% increase in
speed.
> >
> >Actually I have both a E-115 and a E-125 in front of me now, so I kinda
know
> >what I am talking about here (did you forget about the E-125's cpu
cache,.
> >that gives it an extra boost over just the 19Mhz difference?)
>
> I also fail to see how CPU MHz has much to do with it. Using a 10Mb
> or 100Mb ethernet card, it would come into play. I understand the
> Handspring Visor's are limited to 700Kbps with the 802.11b Springboard
> module because of the 33MHz processor. I am sure there is some
> transfer speed limit on the PPC's, but even the Jornada with its
> 133MHz processor could easily handle most if not all of the bandwidth
> of a 10Mb ethernet card.
John Cody
> battery of a Casio will keep your data for 5 years. You had an E-115
> in front of you then too, so while possession is 9/10th of the law, it
> isn't anything in technical expertise.
Hey, I admit, I believed casio's spec to be accurate. When they stated a
5-year life for the backup battery, I sorta figured the RAM in the casio was
some type of ultra-low power static ram like that used in a their watches
that allows them to run for up to five years on a single coin battery. After
all, I had the main battery pulled from an E-105 for over a month and it
still retained its memory - so this supported casio's claim. For a
manufacturer to mention a battery's life based upon it NOT BEING USED is
totally nuts. So, in the end you are probably right, it probably won't last
5-years. But even the 30+ days of backup power gives me great peace of mind
knowing that my data wont get hosed if I misplace my unit for a couple of
days, or go on vacation for a couple of weeks and can't charge it. And, even
if it did last 5 years, that would have been such overkill ;)
> I just transferred a 2,143,458 .ZIP file to my iPAQ via the Windows
> Explorer (not using ActiveSync in a \my documents folder) in 21.07
> seconds. Kind of early, but I think that works out to 794Kbps, which
> actually surprised me a bit, enough that I did it again with another
> 2MB file, an MP3 file. Same thing. I was expecting something in the
> 400kbps range. Wonder if AS3.5 has anything to do with it?
I don't know a quick way to find out the USB speed. But, based on your
figures, the USB port is obviously either not operating at 115K baud, or
that it is operating at 115k baud but activesync is using compression to
compress the data before sending it over the relatively slow USB/Serial port
to the device and visa-versa, thus increasing the perceived over-all speed.
And if compression is being used, then it just supports my statement that a
faster CPU can play a significant role in apparent xfer speed because a
faster CPU can reduce the in-between-each-byte delay by performing the
compression/decomp more rapidly. Think about it, the 115 thousand bps (rough
translation of baud rate) of the serial port is such a slow bottleneck in
speed compared to the millions of bits that the CPU can process per second.
So, to double the perceived xfer rate of the E-115, all the E-125's CPU
needs
to do is reduce the in-between-each-byte delay by 1/2 (as compared to that
of the E-115). So, even a modest 19Mhz (19,000,000 cps) increase in
CPU speed could easily process 115,000 more bits per second.
Since the serial port is limited to 115k baud, this doubling of the internal
throughput results in the reduction of the in-between-each-byte delay by
half, resulting in the doubling of the perceived speed over that of the
E-115.
We have to compare apples with apples. Its kinda hard to make any statement
that a USB port works at 115k baud. So, when I made my statement about the
E-125 xfering twice as fast as the E-115, I was using the E-115's *serial*
cradle with both devices. Making it *impossible* for the E-125 to be using a
baud rate higher then 115k baud. Thus, the doubling in speed can *only* be
explained by the increased CPU speed that the E-125 has over the E-115.
-John Cody
"Ed Hansberry, MS-MVP/CE" <pock...@att.spambegone.net> wrote in message
news:21hvntcn38vla0hmg...@4ax.com...
> "John Cody" <newsg...@noospammmax-soft.com> wrote:
>
> >Hey Ed,
> >
> >>19MHz, or a 14.5% increase wouldn't account for a 100% increase in
speed.
> >
> >Actually I have both a E-115 and a E-125 in front of me now, so I kinda
know
> >what I am talking about here (did you forget about the E-125's cpu
cache,.
> >that gives it an extra boost over just the 19Mhz difference?)
>
> I also fail to see how CPU MHz has much to do with it. Using a 10Mb
> or 100Mb ethernet card, it would come into play. I understand the
> Handspring Visor's are limited to 700Kbps with the 802.11b Springboard
> module because of the 33MHz processor. I am sure there is some
> transfer speed limit on the PPC's, but even the Jornada with its
> 133MHz processor could easily handle most if not all of the bandwidth
> of a 10Mb ethernet card.
John Cody
cancelled out somewhat by the extra bits that the USB protocol needs to add
to the data so that the data gets routed to the proper device when more then
one device is sharing the same USB port?
-John Cody
"Will wants to know..." <_myl...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:QwQf7.14803$MM.94...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
Jeff
After using it for a short period of time, I gave it to my wife.
She used it regularly for a couple of years, until I gave her my Palm III.
Then the Zoomer went missing for over a year. Finally we found it in a
drawer a few months ago. We assumed the worst. But after replacing the dead
AA's, we were amazed to find her data intact. It was retained in memory by
the almost exhausted (original) button cells.
Jeff
"John Cody" <newsg...@noospammmax-soft.com> wrote in message
news:ufTYqJMKBHA.1240@tkmsftngp04...
John Cody
-JC
"Jeff" <to...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ZxRf7.2150$Nc3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Will wants to know...
bits to data bits. Assuming that transmission occurs in bulk-data mode, we
could send multiple data packet consisting of up to 8192 data bits plus 24
bits for header/trailer => efficiency of 99.7%. You are right that some
traffic would be needed to set-up the transmission, however I would suspect
that this would only need to be done once for each bulk-data transfer.
Something similar would need to be done for any type of comm system.
I don't know if the pocket-pcs are using bulk-data transfers, but I would be
surprised if they weren't.
Will.
"John Cody" <newsg...@noospammmax-soft.com> wrote in message
news:OVrAnMMKBHA.1340@tkmsftngp02...
John Cody
meant that the in-between-each-byte delay of the handshaking was the
bottleneck, and that a faster CPU could have a significant effect on the
overall perceived speed of data xfers. If the speed of a serial port was
only limited by the speed of the CPU, then its true, a 19Mhz increase in CPU
speed would only have a 1-to-1 corresponding effect on the serial port
speed, and the resulting serial port speed would only increase 19Mhz. But
the serial port I used for my test setup is fixed at 115k baud. So, if an
E-125 has a two-fold increase in transfer speed over the E-115, yet both of
them are communicating over the same 115K baud port, then the only
explanation must be that the E-125 is doing something twice as fast as the
E-115 can - and this "something" is the in-between-each-byte handshaking
processing that the E-125 is apparently perform twice as fast as the E-115.
When your desktop PC is talking to you Pocket PC though the usb or serial
port, it is performing some type of handshaking (and this handshaking
probably includes compression and decompression of packets). This
handshaking requires a certain amount of CPU time to perform. Your desktop
PC will probably perform it's side of the handshaking virtually instantly.
But because the CPU in the Pocket PC is much slower, your desktop computer
will actually be waiting on your Pocket PC to perform it's end of the
handshaking most of the time.
If the xfer rate had only a 1-to-1 relationship to xfer speed (as you
suggest), then an ipaq should only be 27% faster at xferring data then an
E-125 (206Mhz vs 150Mhz). But, from what I remember, the 3670 I had was
significantly faster then that in transfers vs. my E-125 using a USB port.
So, the only explanations for this would be that either the ipaq's USB port
is operating at a much faster rate then the E-125's USB port, or that the
ipaq's
faster CPU is playing a significant higher [then 27%] role in the efficiency
of the data transfer. I heard the ipaq has a built-in FP processor, so maybe
its the FP's unit's ability to compress/decompress the data much faster then
simply the 27% increase in CPU speed.
Until the actual raw data rate of a USB port (and not the overall/resulting
datarate) can be determined, we are all just making educated guesses :)
-John Cody
"Ed Hansberry, MS-MVP/CE" <pock...@att.spambegone.net> wrote in message
news:8orvntcnvfodvg1ik...@4ax.com...
> "John Cody" <newsg...@noospammmax-soft.com> wrote:
>
> >compression/decomp more rapidly. Think about it, the 115 thousand bps
(rough
> >translation of baud rate) of the serial port is such a slow bottleneck in
> >speed compared to the millions of bits that the CPU can process per
second.
> >So, to double the perceived xfer rate of the E-115, all the E-125's CPU
> >needs
> >to do is reduce the in-between-each-byte delay by 1/2 (as compared to
that
> >of the E-115). So, even a modest 19Mhz (19,000,000 cps) increase in
> >CPU speed could easily process 115,000 more bits per second.
> >Since the serial port is limited to 115k baud, this doubling of the
internal
> >throughput results in the reduction of the in-between-each-byte delay by
> >half, resulting in the doubling of the perceived speed over that of the
> >E-115.
>
> Makes no sense John. If the E-115 is at 131MHz already the extra 19
> is not going to add significantly (14.5% to be exact) *IF* the CPU was
> the transfer bottleneck. And it isn't since the E-115 will support
> major data transfers with ethernet.
John Cody
That's such a minor issue, I thought maybe you knew of some significant
hardware feature that only the Pocket PC OS supported (that wince 2.11
didn't) and that the ipaq was specifically designed to take advantage of,
but the the E-115 didn't have it.
If you think about it, even though the E-115 was designed *before* the
Pocket PC "hardware spec", it actually has a few significant hardware design
advantages over the ipaq that is still to this day desirable to many current
Pocket PC user's:
-Built-in Standard CF expansion slot (for Bluetooth, 802.11b, 56k modem,
memory cards) (makes it thicker then a naked ipaq, but about the same size
of an ipaq with a cf sleeve, and smaller then an ipaq with a pc-card sleeve)
-Replaceable main battery (you don't need to return the whole unit to the
factory if the main battery goes bad)
-Can use joypad and buttons at same time (needed for many games)
-True 16-bit color display (and no dust problem :) (but has poor outdoor
readability)
-30+ day battery data backup
Don't get me wrong, the iPaq does have the below hardware advantages over
the E-115, but none of them required the design process to have "the Pocket
PC in mind". The Pocket PC OS is really just Win CE 2.11 bundled with a
bunch of good applications. It doesn't support any major new hardware that
Win CE 2.11 couldn't support. All of the hardware features of the ipaq could
have just as been easily implemented on a Win CE 2.11 device - they are just
different design choices that the engineers of the ipaq chose for their
particular PDA. If Win CE 2.11 was still around, I bet you the Compaq
engineers would have still implement the below features:
-A faster CPU (a hands-down advantage over the E-115)
-A sunlight-viewable display (at the cost of a lower color-depth/milky image
with annoying dust problem)
-Thinner then the E-115 (at the cost of no built-in expansion slot)
-Louder audio
I actually won an Ipaq 3670 in a bet, but returned it because of the lousy
display quality - I was so use to Casio's rich and sharp display quality,
and since I use the display 100% of the time when I'm using my Pocket PC, I
wanted the best possible image. So, I ended up getting an E-125 which is
slower then the ipaq, but significantly faster then my E-115, so for me, I'm
getting the best of both worlds.
Ed, I'm just saying all this because I think your comment that the ipaq is
better designed for the Pocket PC OS then an E-115, is as silly as what you
thought of my 5-year backup comment :) And I was big enough to admit that
it probably won't last 5-years. So, are you big enough to admit that nothing
of the ipaq really requires the Pocket PC OS and that any design differences
between the two are simply personal engineering/marketing preferences of
each respective company?
I thought all of this non-sense was behind us, but practically calling me a
liar about my E-125 doing syncs twice as fast as my E-115, when I don't
think you even own either of those devices is absurd and totally
inappropriate behavior for a MS-MVP :(
-John Cody
John Cody
-JC
"Will wants to know..." <_myl...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:%ZSf7.15133$MM.97...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
John Cody
I apologize and take my negative comments to you back, I don't want this to
escalate any further.
I was just trying to help the person with my personal observations of the
speed difference.
-JC
SC
download from web sites with the USB connection I get 200k/sec transfer rate
and transfering a 1MB file with active sync takes about 5 seconds.
ElecConnec
writes:
>The USB speed is obviously not 115k because on my jornada 720 when I
>download from web sites with the USB connection I get 200k/sec transfer rate
>and transfering a 1MB file with active sync takes about 5 seconds.
We're discussing the E125, specifically- Casio, it seems, didn't really create
full USB support in the E125, but essentially reworked their serial port to
connect to a USB connector. The E125 doesn't pick up much speed with USB v.
serial.
The Jornadas, iPaqs, etc. are different beasts.
Daniel Mohabir
>I just ordered a second cradle for my Cassiopeia E-115, which should
>have been the JK-512CR Serial cradle. What the shipped instead was an
>E-125 cradle, the JK-516CR USB cradle. Should I send it back for
>replacement, or will the USB cradle work with my E-115?
I have a follow-up question to this. I have a Cassiopeia E-125 with
the USB cradle. I would like to get a Serial cradle so I can use the
E-125 with a GPS receiver. Will the Serial port cradle for the E-115
or the EM500 work with the E-125?
Thanks.
Helmuth Schutzeich
You (Daniel Mohabir) wrote:
> Will the Serial port cradle for the E-115
> or the EM500 work with the E-125?
>
Don't know about the EM500, but the E-115 cradle will.
Regards, Helmuth
--
Home page: http://www.schutzeich.de/index.htm
Virtual Access 5.51 build 315, Windows 2000 build 2195
Casio Cassiopeia E-125G
Replies in NG only please.
Marc Zimmermann [Microsoft MVP - Mobile Devices]
> with the E-125?
The EM-500 cradle won't because it has a different design. The E-115 and
E-125 accessories are compatible, though.
Marc Zimmermann
Microsoft MVP - Mobile Devices
--
MVP Information - http://support.microsoft.com/support/mvp
Pocket PC Tips, Reviews, Downloads - http://www.pocketpc.com
Pocket PC Info, Works FAQ and Software - http://www.zimac.de
Pocket PC Users Ruhr, Germany - http://www.pocketpc-users.de
ElecConnec
<dmoh...@eng.mc.xerox.com> writes:
>I have a follow-up question to this. I have a Cassiopeia E-125 with
>the USB cradle. I would like to get a Serial cradle so I can use the
>E-125 with a GPS receiver. Will the Serial port cradle for the E-115
>or the EM500 work with the E-125?
The 115 serial cradle works fine with the 125, but the 125 USB cradle won't
work on a 115. (I know you didn't ask about the latter, but I wanted to
clarify for E115 owners eavesdropping on our conversation.)
Personally, however, I wonder if you should look at the serial CABLE rather
than cradle. The connection just seems more secure that the cradle that might
momentarily disconnect if jostled. Since you are using it with a GPS, I assume
you'll be on the move. GPS units are far less useful at fixed locations! ;-)