Why bother with the iPaq 36xx?
XpensivG4
slick, it was slylish, and it was fast. But...the Jornada 548 is almost as
small, the E-125 has a better screen...and neither have the litany of
debilitating problems that have been plaguing the Compaq units. Compaq's
official line (I heard it myself) on the dust problem is that they can NEVER
prevent it from occurring (or recurring). No field repair can prevent it.
Despite all this, they can't make 'em fast enough. Why do we bother with
this unit?
Alex Kac
think Compaq is getting better in their QOS - but 6 months late. I have one
of the very first ones. I got one speck of dust a month ago that is now gone
(not sure why). Other than that - perfect.
For me, the screen, the speed, and the promise (and past good history on the
part of Compaq) of FlashROM.
--
The ultimate in Personal and Business Information Management.
http://www.pocketinformant.com/
"XpensivG4" <futc...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:xug%5.392$l2.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Belgarath
they have been preaching 'how great ipaq is'. it is a misrepresentation. normal
users (we must admit most users are not techinical enough to solve all ipaq
problems by themselves) who bought ipaq based on this misrepresenation will end
up suffering from lack of support from compaq.
.
Tom Sellers
very content with it (I use to to listen to MP3's outside which of course is
OK), but it would be almost useless for real world field applications that
occur outside.
"XpensivG4" <futc...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:xug%5.392$l2.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Andrew Farkas
only had one prolem with one, which was the screen inverting. I have been
using my Ipaq since August. I recieved my PC Card sleeve in September. I
have been happy since.
Go buy a differnt product if you want. We won't hold it against you.
Andrew
"Tom Sellers" <tsel...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:01h%5.12118$uK6.1...@news1.telusplanet.net...
Rob Borek, MS-MVP/CE
<54d501c068af$2d9c08e0$1e83300a@cpmsftngxa03>:
>it is becauseif most mvp's here are ipaq owners.
>
>they have been preaching 'how great ipaq is'. it is a misrepresentation.
>normal users (we must admit most users are not techinical enough to
>solve all ipaq problems by themselves) who bought ipaq based on this
>misrepresenation will end up suffering from lack of support from compaq.
No MVPs are preaching high and low about the iPAQ. We have been answering
questions about the iPAQ, assisting others, etc. but don't wade into the
"iPAQ versus E-125" (or whatever) debates because we don't really want to
be nailed for favouring one device over another.
Believe me, we know about the problems (especially the USB problems). They
have been communicated to Microsoft and Compaq. They are working on a
solution to the USB problems (I can't give you a timeframe). Later batches
of the iPAQ have many of the problems fixed (including the stylus). Are
they perfect? No.
Do I own an iPAQ? Yes. I also own a Jornada 540 and an EM500. I use all
three - it helps me to help others in here with device specific problems.
Lately I have been using the iPAQ the most - because I have been reviewing
software, and I like the speed. The EM500 has a great screen and is great
for games. The Jornada is one sturdy workhorse - I love it for when I'm
going to be in areas where protecting the screen is essential. Do I
recommend one over the other? No. It's a personal choice. It depends on
your needs, your intended usage, and other factors.
We have never misrepresented the iPAQ. I resent the fact that you think we
have. We freely admit bugs, problems, etc. with all units - Chris De
Herrera has a bug list page. We don't work for Microsoft, so we can freely
express our views, likes, dislikes, etc. We are here to help you out, and
facilitate the wishes of users on to Microsoft.
--
Rob Borek
Microsoft MVP - Windows CE
Visit http://www.pocketpc.com for helpful hints, tips, and reviews
What is an MVP? http://support.microsoft.com/support/mvp/
ActiveSync problems?
http://support.microsoft.com/support/tshoot/pocketpcsync.asp
Greg Heywood
MADE you buy it. Is that what you are trying to say???
I have had an iPaq since June with no problems. Then again, maybe I look
after mine a little more than most..
XpensivG4 wrote in message ...
Markos Berndt
out side so that makes it the best choice for myself. BTW it is surviving
Wisonsin's winter :) (with help of the AquaPaq).
Markos
"Alex Kac" <al...@webis.net> wrote in message
news:uVnxT5KaAHA.936@tkmsftngp03...
Markos Berndt
Markos
"Rob Borek, MS-MVP/CE" <rbo...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:Xns900E...@207.46.230.185...
Markos Berndt
based on those pluses and minus'. I still would have gotten the iPaq
though, only cause I am loyal to Compaq since I owned a Aero before it and
was completly happy with it.
Markos
"Tom Sellers" <tsel...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:01h%5.12118$uK6.1...@news1.telusplanet.net...
Markos Berndt
toilet adventures I do take it in the shower via AquaPaq to listen to
Audible and/or Media player files.
Markos
"Greg Heywood" <nos...@thanks.anyway> wrote in message
news:OkqLAFNaAHA.1860@tkmsftngp03...
Marlof Bregonje
Markos Berndt <mar...@earthlink.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
O0Dh64NaAHA.2108@tkmsftngp05...
Markos Berndt
It floats. You can take it with you on camping trips etc... They make the
same things for cell phones and other electronic devices. The iPaq fits
comfortably in side (the Casio and HP units wouldn't fit). It doesn't work
with the CF sleeves. .
Before I use it I check it for holes by having nothing in it and sealing it
then holding it under water in the sink. Its pretty durable.
I don't work or am afiilitated with the company, I just use and think highly
of it.
Markos
"Marlof Bregonje" <askf...@thenewsgroup.nl> wrote in message
news:ObSRc#NaAHA.952@tkmsftngp05...
Marlof Bregonje
& r>
Markos Berndt <mar...@earthlink.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
uPqUTEOaAHA.952@tkmsftngp05...
Markos Berndt
Markos
"Marlof Bregonje" <askf...@thenewsgroup.nl> wrote in message
news:uGZDuFOaAHA.936@tkmsftngp03...
Helmuth Schutzeich
In article <01h%5.12118$uK6.1...@news1.telusplanet.net>, Tom Sellers wrote:
> but it would be almost useless for real world field applications that
> occur outside.
>
I just had the real world field application of reading an ebook on my E-125
while waiting for my bus. Despite a clear blue sky and a bright winter sunshine
I had no problems at all.
I'm really glad nature built me so specially that my E-125 serves me outside
too.
Regards, Helmuth
--
Home page: http://www.schutzeich.de
Virtual Access 5.50 build 311, Windows 2000 build 2195
Casio Cassiopeia E-125G
Replies in NG only please.
Helmuth Schutzeich
In article <xug%5.392$l2.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, XpensivG4
wrote:
> Why do we bother with
> this unit?
>
My neighbor has a dachshund. It's not as strong as a sheepdog, not nearly as
fast, and doesn't follow commands. Why does he bother with this unit?
Marlof Bregonje
outdoors. ;-)
Marlof
BTW: with fell for *it*, it was not the Aquapaq ofcourse, but this little
setup to share your toilet experience with us once more...
How's the latest iPAQ holding out BTW? I see no complaints, so I think this
one might be for keeps?
Markos Berndt <mar...@earthlink.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
OdXKRWOaAHA.952@tkmsftngp05...
Ruairi
credit it gets on my website discussion board at www.pocketpcheaven.com
Come along and have your say!
Ruairi
pocketpcheaven.com
"Don't bother asking. Your Palm can't do it."
"XpensivG4" <futc...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:xug%5.392$l2.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Helmuth Schutzeich
In article <q00s3ts41p1ukr895...@4ax.com>, MS-MVP/CE Ed Hansberry
wrote:
> Do you cast a large shadow or something? :-)
>
I cast a shadow John Wayne would envy me for ;-)
Ed, it surely nerves me how people who supposedly never looked at an E-125
still repeat this nonsense from somewhere. Prejudices die hard.
David W. Swager
"XpensivG4" <futc...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:xug%5.392$l2.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
The combination of fast processor, outdoor viewable screen and expansion via
PC Cards! The Trick looking design is a bonus for the consumer market, but
the first 3 are what are driving the business market for the iPaq. There is
absolutely no excuse for HP and Casio using the wimpy processors (especially
since I own Intel stock). BTW, I use my iPaq while doing nature photography
outdoors and while a lot of my shooting is done in dim conditions at dawn
and dusk, I wouldn't even consider the backlit screens. I use a digital
camera on occasion and know first hand how useless these screens are in
daylight.
I actually like the HP design better, but they crippled it with slow
processor, Type I CF and a crummy screen. Give me a Jornada with the
StrongARM, iPaq screen, Type II CF for the Microdrive and 64 MB of RAM and
I'd be in love.
Jason Dunn, MS-MVP/CE
> well.... prejudices die hard. :-)
Touche! ;-)
Jason Dunn, MS-MVP/CE
>'how great ipaq is'. it is a misrepresentation
You know Belgarath, you're certainly not living up to your namesake! I'm sorry to hear
that you think that we "misrepresent" the iPAQ - I'm keenly aware of it's flaws, but no
other Pocket PC is perfect either.
Helmuth Schutzeich
Life isn't easy with all those MVPs going after you <sigh>.
I've never claimed "totally acceptable outdoor visibility" for the E-125. I've
never denied that the iPAQ has the best outdoor screen.
But the E-125 can be read outdoors quite ok, and I think it's simply unfair to
use terms like "unreadable", "almost useless" or anything similar. This could
prevent possible buyers from choosing it. Not that I have shares in Casio, but
everyone here should try to make statements which match reality so that readers
can judge where their needs are matched best.
Correct statements are, to help someone make a buying decision:
No screen does match the iPAQ's in bright sunlight. The Casio's are readable
and useable, but you have to choose contrast and brightness carefully and
sometimes need to shade it. The Jornadas are difficult to read, even if shaded,
but it can be done - if the outdoor use is only frequently, it won't hurt too
much.
I just vote against that "black and white" view so often found here.
Craig Maxim
That's an important distinction Helmuth. I have read in several reviews that
the E-125 was easier to read outdoors than the other Casios and the Jornada.
It is important to point this out (if true, which you confirm it is) because
for some people, this would be an acceptable compromise, when choosing which
device is best for them.
As to your charge that the MVPs live in a black and white world with no room
for gray......didn't you realize that MVP sometimes stands for:
M-y
V-iew is
P-reeminent
Just kidding. :-) Where would we be without them?
Helmuth Schutzeich wrote in message ...
Marlof Bregonje
outdoor setting, it's not difficult to read to me. But add direct sunlight
to the screen, and it becomes difficult to read.
I don't want to interfere in this discussion, but it all comes down to your
perception of 'easy to read' or 'difficult to read'. I don't think too much
about it. If people want to use their Pocket PC a lot outdoors, I only
advise to go iPAQ, even when I think the Jornada and Casio can be read.
There's just too much difference between 'can be read' and 'is easy to
read'. ;-)
Helmuth Schutzeich <busi...@schutzeich.de> schreef in berichtnieuws
VA.0000088...@schutzeich.de...
Helmuth Schutzeich
In article <ehjA4YSaAHA.1656@tkmsftngp04>, Craig Maxim wrote:
> I have read in several reviews that
> the E-125 was easier to read outdoors than the other Casios and the Jornada.
>
I've owned them all - the E-105, E-115 and E-125. I've worked with all of them
outdoors (GPS Moving Map). On a scale where the E-125 is 100, I would judge the
E-105 60 and the E-115 70. Looks like Casio is constantly improving its screen.
Yes, I know, I have to give ratings for the others too. But these are from
"having a look at", not constant use, where it might be different.
Jornada: 40/50
iPAQ: 150
Note that this is for bright sunlight. With a cloudy sky or in the woods, it
differs. Here I would see the E-125 on the first place, nearly equaled by the
iPAQ, and the HP following up much closer.
And when it comes to in-house, only the E-125 counts. iPAQ and HP are both
second choice then.
Helmuth Schutzeich
In article <6qps3tgoh7f4rsfle...@4ax.com>, MS-MVP/CE Ed Hansberry
wrote:
> No problems
> at all to me means it works beautifully. I just took an EM-500
> outside on a partially overcast (meaning overcast but lots of holes in
> the clouds with bright sunshine) day and had to wait a few seconds for
> my eyes to adjust to the screen and play with the brightness/contrast
> settings to get it to where it was workable, and it was indeed
> workable. But I wouldn't call it "problems at all.]
>
I've given my rating earlier, and I think it's pretty close.
The ideal settings for outdoor are 60% contrast and 100% brightness. You should
also allow the backlight to fully come up, which can take 5 to 10 seconds.
Given that all, I can say there are no problems at all. But there's always
something better.
I'm quite satisfied when the screen is judged usably. I go crazy when it's
called unusable or not readable, because that's simply not true.
Guess we're not so far from each other in our assessment.
Markos Berndt
Markos
"Marlof Bregonje" <askf...@thenewsgroup.nl> wrote in message
news:eVvcyZOaAHA.2108@tkmsftngp05...
Markos Berndt
Markos
"Ed Hansberry, MS-MVP/CE" <pock...@att.spambegone.net> wrote in message
news:6vvr3t054dast8i8i...@4ax.com...
> "Markos Berndt" <mar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Ed H doesn't use an iPaq <Grin>.
>
> A what?
> --
> _____________________________________
> Ed Hansberry
> Microsoft MVP - Windows CE www.pocketpc.com
> What is an MVP? - http://support.microsoft.com/support/mvp
> ActiveSync problems? -
http://support.microsoft.com/support/tshoot/pocketpcsync.asp
David Burns
without problems. However, you clearly seem to be in the minority. If you
refer to all of the various newgroups, discussion forums, etc., I think it's
impossible to overlook the iPAQ's widely reported problems, or diminish
their significance by reporting on the rare trouble-free unit such as the
one that you own.
My 6 week old iPAQ suffers from the digitizer problem, which for me is the
show stopper. I use Character Recognizer a lot, and the digitizer problem
has a big impact on accuracy. I'll never get even close to the level of
accuracy that I get with my E-115 until that's fixed. And to me, that makes
the iPAQ significantly less useful than my Casio, despite its speed and
flash ROM.
I also have the dust problem and crackling audio... although it would be
nice to have those fixed, I could live with them. However, the digitizer
has to be fixed. I consider myself lucky that I haven't yet experienced the
only problem more significant than the digitizer problem... the screen
reversal problem. The digitizer and reversed diplay problems are not simple
annoyances... they are, as I said before, show stoppers.
Someone said elsewhere that none of the Pocket PCs are perfect. Well, with
any product, perfection is relative. You simply don't see the widespread
report of common problems with the Casio and HP units as are seen with the
iPAQ. So I contend that the Casio and HP units are as close to perfection
as you can reasonably expect with a consumer electronic product. (My E-115
has been trouble-free since day one). By comparison, the iPAQ seems to be
most problematic.
So, in the face of the constant barrage of complaints about the iPAQ's
problems, I don't think that the occasional report of a trouble-free iPAQ
proves anything. Statistically, Compaq should be able to produce at least
*some* trouble-free ones. And clearly, these problems are real, since
Compaq is attempting to address them.
"Alex Kac" <al...@webis.net> wrote in message
news:uVnxT5KaAHA.936@tkmsftngp03...
> Because there are some of us who have a unit without the problems. I do
> think Compaq is getting better in their QOS - but 6 months late. I have
one
> of the very first ones. I got one speck of dust a month ago that is now
gone
> (not sure why). Other than that - perfect.
>
> For me, the screen, the speed, and the promise (and past good history on
the
> part of Compaq) of FlashROM.
>
> --
> The ultimate in Personal and Business Information Management.
> http://www.pocketinformant.com/
>
>
Stanislav Meduna
>Well, Alex, I think it's great that you're lucky enough to have an iPAQ
>without problems. However, you clearly seem to be in the minority.
May I ask what your definition of minority is?
>If you refer to all of the various newgroups, discussion forums, etc.,
>I think it's impossible to overlook the iPAQ's widely reported problems,
Well - if you search the forums, you'll find (I guess - I have not
counted them, but I did the search) 50, maybe 100 unique
reports of reversed screen. Without knowing what percentage
of users having as well as not having the problems (they are
not the same) actually write about that in some newsgroup, you
have no idea of what the actual failure rate is.
>You simply don't see the widespread report of common problems
>with the Casio and HP units as are seen with the iPAQ.
Again - I have no idea what the relative numbers of units sold is.
At least here in Europe the iPAQ (and Compaq generally) is much
more agressively marketed and companies having another
Compaq hardware (nearly 50% of servers here are Compaq)
are also more likely to buy Compaq again.
>Statistically, Compaq should be able to produce at least *some*
>trouble-free ones.
Please, don't argument with statistics, if you don't have
all the input data.
>And clearly, these problems are real, since Compaq is attempting
>to address them.
Sure, there are systemic problems that must be resolved. It is well
possible that Compaq really has the biggest percentage
of showstopper-type problems. I don't know and if the percentage
is comparable to industry standards, I actually don't care.
Regards
--
Stano
David Burns
those hard facts that you demand.
If skirting the issues with nonsense questions and demands for facts that
nobody short of Compaq has helps you to delude yourself into thinking that
there are no significant problems with iPAQs, knock yourself out.
Those of us who have a shred of common sense are capable of deducing,
without requiring reams of hard facts, that problems do indeed exist...
enough of them for Compaq to send an open letter to Brighthand admitting to
them and promising some solutions. For Compaq to go to those lengths, the
problems must be severe enough to warrant such actions. You, however, can
write to Compaq demanding exact figures... after all, they too may be
mistaken about the problems with their own products. When you don't get
these hard facts, you can delude yourself once again and conclude that all
is fine in iPAQ-land.
"Stanislav Meduna" <sta...@etm.at> wrote in message
news:97722384...@newsmaster-04.atnet.at...
Stanislav Meduna
>If skirting the issues with nonsense questions and demands for facts that
>nobody short of Compaq has helps you to delude yourself into thinking that
>there are no significant problems with iPAQs, knock yourself out.
Where in my post did I say that there are no significant problems?
I even did say that they might have the biggest percentage of
of showstopper-type problems - simply read my post to the end.
But I think that you are simply wrong in stating that only a minority
of iPAQ users has no problems with their units.
E.g. I did not comment on the "Had anyone not to return..." thread -
I have no problems, but I own the unit not long enough, so my
comment would not be very relevant.
>For Compaq to go to those lengths, the problems must be severe
>enough to warrant such actions.
Maybe they are just more open to their customers than other
companies? Maybe they are doing a damage control after reading
that article? I don't know.
>Those of us who have a shred of common sense are capable of deducing,
>without requiring reams of hard facts
I have a theory, please, don't disturb me with facts :-)))
Every device that is new enough has its share of problems and
Compaq is not different. You get these resolved when you have
user base big enough and using the things long enough to be able
to identify the systemic problems. This is something that no QA can
do with 100% reliability. The choice is yours - either older device
with less issues, or a new device where _you_ are the beta-tester.
It is unfortunate for customers, but that's how this industry works.
What interests me is how probable is that _I_ get serious problems
(and then if I do, whether I can get things resolved by contacting
the company, or whether I must go through the shop where
I bought it etc.). Guessing the former from the newsgroups
is not going to give reliable answers for that and deducing
without further data can lead to results that are plain wrong.
Regards
--
Stano
Helmuth Schutzeich
In article <97730082...@newsmaster-04.atnet.at>, Stanislav Meduna wrote:
> Every device that is new enough has its share of problems and
> Compaq is not different. You get these resolved when you have
> user base big enough and using the things long enough to be able
> to identify the systemic problems. This is something that no QA can
> do with 100% reliability. The choice is yours - either older device
> with less issues, or a new device where _you_ are the beta-tester.
> It is unfortunate for customers, but that's how this industry works.
>
This simply is wrong. A company does have a working QA or it doesn't, and
Compaq didn't have one when iPAQ production started. HP and Casio are good
examples for a working QA. I was among the first buyers of the E-105, and it
never had problems (there were no QA problems reported in the newsgroups
either).
Hans Fehlow
You want to know about problems take a look at the class action suit against
HP for their earlier palms.
Hans ....
"Helmuth Schutzeich" <busi...@schutzeich.de> wrote in message
news:VA.0000089...@schutzeich.de...
David Burns
> Where in my post did I say that there are no significant problems?
> I even did say that they might have the biggest percentage of
> of showstopper-type problems - simply read my post to the end.
> But I think that you are simply wrong in stating that only a minority
> of iPAQ users has no problems with their units.
>
Frankly, it was somewhat difficult to figure out exactly what you were
saying in your first post... its most apparent purpose was to disagree with
everything in my post. And I *did* read it to the end. However, with the
tone of the post and the wording of your half-hearted "concession" about
show-stopper problems, my perception was that you *really* were saying "It's
possible that iPAQs have the biggest percentage of show-stopper problems,
but I doubt it".
Anyway, you disagree with my conclusions because they're based on the only
available information (owner feedback in newsgroups and website forums) and
that isn't enough for meet your standards. Yes, it is a matter of
interpretation. No, there are no statistics available from Compaq to the
general public. So tell me, since you're holding me to this high personal
standard regarding facts, precisely where are *your* hard facts? An endless
stream of "maybes" and "perhaps" ending with “I don’t know” don't lend much
credibility to your positions, and you haven't provided anything else
fact-wise so far.
> E.g. I did not comment on the "Had anyone not to return..." thread -
> I have no problems, but I own the unit not long enough, so my
> comment would not be very relevant.
>
> >For Compaq to go to those lengths, the problems must be severe
> >enough to warrant such actions.
>
> Maybe they are just more open to their customers than other
> companies? Maybe they are doing a damage control after reading
> that article? I don't know.
>
Interesting spin... certainly plausible. However, I don’t buy it… excuse me
if I have a different take, based on the context of other evidence.
> >Those of us who have a shred of common sense are capable of deducing,
> >without requiring reams of hard facts
>
> I have a theory, please, don't disturb me with facts :-)))
As soon as you provide any real facts beyond your conjecture and
spin-doctoring, I'll be happy to let my theory be disturbed.
Excuse me, but you're hardly in a position to criticize someone else about
lack of facts. Your positions have been strictly conjecture... you haven't
provided a single "hard fact" to support anything you've said. Your fertile
imagination has been quite effective at spinning available information and
events for your benefit and manufacturing scenarios that "support" your
conclusions. But hard facts are conspicuous by their absence.
> What interests me is how probable is that _I_ get serious problems
> (and then if I do, whether I can get things resolved by contacting
> the company, or whether I must go through the shop where
> I bought it etc.). Guessing the former from the newsgroups
> is not going to give reliable answers for that and deducing
> without further data can lead to results that are plain wrong.
And how do you propose we acquire this data? Companies rarely publish
detailed defect numbers, so I doubt that this information will be
forthcoming from Compaq. So your decision is to make no attempt to draw any
conclusions because the available facts don't support your standards for
scientific accuracy? Standards that are so impossibly high that a lack of
further information precludes the possibility of ever drawing *any*
conclusions (except possibly in hindsight?)
Sorry, but that's just plain naive. The reality is that conclusions are
drawn and decisions are made all the time based on available information,
even if it's not complete. Many things are not as black and white as you
seem to think they should be. Take court decisions, for example. Verdicts
are always based on available evidence... if the courts required irrefutable
scientific evidence in every case, we wouldn't need juries. What about
trend analysis by marketing people? These people can't have reams of facts
about the events they're making decisions regarding, because they haven't
happened yet. They're predicting the future based on available facts from
the past.
Can decisions and conclusions by juries and market analysts be wrong? Sure,
but that doesn't give them the luxury of not drawing a conclusion while they
wait for hard facts that could lead to an infallible decision. They go with
the information that they have. That's because history and experience show
that decisions can be and are made with an acceptable degree of accuracy
based on available information, and this information doesn't have to be
complete.
I consider my conclusions to be a form of trend analysis. The available
information suggests a trend toward significant problems with iPAQs that
affect a number of people. They have been repeatedly reported by a wide
spectrum of owners through newgroups and web site forums. Are these
statistically perfect samples? Of course not. Do these samples provide any
specific facts regarding the percentage of units that are affected? Again,
no. However, if you review the number of posts reporting problems against
the number of posts reporting problem-free units, one interpretation is that
the majority of people reporting about iPAQ problems indicate that they have
them. And yes, I know that another interpretation is that people who have
problem units may be more likely to post than those who have trouble-free
units.
However, there are other indicators of the scope of these problems.
Articles are common on tech web sites and in magazines that outline staff
experiences with iPAQ problems. Some of the most prominent people in Pocket
PC press and support, such as Frank McPherson, have reported the problems
that they have experienced themselves, and also reference the large number
of messages that they have received regarding them. I've yet to see any
articles that claim that the conclusion that the majority of iPAQs have
problems is inaccurate. The iPAQ is so press-worthy that someone would
certainly write such an article if they felt the facts supported it... it
would be a BIG headline. Finally, Compaq has "come out" with comments about
these problems and assurances that they will be addressed (your spin on that
fact notwithstanding).
I’m sure that rebuttals regarding samples and statistical validity are
literally bursting from your brain right now. However, there was an
interesting post on the Brighthand support forum that I believe puts a whole
new light on the scope of the iPAQ problems. Here’s the link:
http://www.brighthand.com/ubb/Forum33/HTML/005907-2.html
The message is about halfway down the page, by a member named cisco_kid.
Here’s his message:
“i help setup wireless networks at tradeshows and convention centers and we
purchased close to 35 units during the past 4 months and sorry to say, all
of them now have dust and about 4 or 5 of them had the stylus shoved in the
wrong way. i don't understand how anyone could do this in a non-malicious
way, but nonetheless, it happened. i guess we were just unlucky with the
stylus that doesn't stay in the silo in about 1/3 of our inventory, dust in
all of them, hairline fracture under the tft screen in two of them (out of
the box, new), sticking power button (only 1!), and faulty digitizer in
almost all of them.
you just have to be there to understand. it's even more difficult if none of
these problems applies to you. but please understand, we're not making all
this up.”
Wow… nearly 35 units, and all of them have one or more of the reported
problems. Almost all have the digitizer problem. I think this speaks
volumes about the magnitude of the problems… I don’t think it’s sheer
coincidence that this member has experienced a nearly 100% defect rate on
almost 35 units.
Yeah, go ahead and spin that, too… apparently that’s what you do. I don’t
really care anymore, because this has taken more of my time and energy than
it deserves. However, I’m satisfied that I have sufficient facts to draw
the conclusion that I have. And it’s not as if I’m the only one who has
come to this conclusion. If you have any doubts, ask cisco_kid.
This is my last post on this matter. If you still stand firm on your
assertion that I have no basis for my conclusion, so be it. If you can
still deny the magnitude of the problem after seeing the clear evidence
shown in the Brighthand post, then I can only conclude that you're
hopelessly deluded. In any case, further debate would be pointless.
Michael Lynch
course it is!). I have little desire to throw fuel on this fire, but I will
address a few points. Before beginning, if we want facts, the fact is that
Compaq is selling iPAQs faster than they can make 'em. No question about it.
In fact, they have stated they will not catch up with demand until sometime
in 2001. I'm not going to pass judgment, but these are indeed facts.
What can you draw from them?
1.) All of these buyers are idiots.
2.) People love the iPAQ, despite some flaws.
3.) Not everyone is *bothered* by the flaws much (dust, for instance, seems
to be quite subjective).
4.) A large percentage are not defective.
5.) All of the above.
The iPAQ took-off via a mostly grass-roots campaign. There were no
multi-billion dollar ad campaigns to boost sales. It was mainly satisfied
buyers telling others how much they liked it (this is conjecture, on my
part).
As for your main problem, the digitizer, I believe that will indeed be fixed
with the upcoming ROM upgrade. I know it seems unlikely, but I do believe it
can be fixed via software. Here's a thread on Brighthand where I discussed
this with Inaki--and he threw together a crude hack that supposedly did fix
the digitizer. I suspect Compaq will do much better with the ROM upgrade.
Here's the thread:
http://www.brighthand.com/ubb/Forum33/HTML/005907-3.html
Here's a quote:
"TinMan,
today I have been able to remove the so called digitizer problem by patching
iPaq touch screen driver.
It is a dirty patch but it proves that this problem may be fixed by a simple
software patch.
Inaki."
>
> Wow… nearly 35 units, and all of them have one or more of the reported
> problems. Almost all have the digitizer problem. I think this speaks
> volumes about the magnitude of the problems… I don’t think it’s sheer
> coincidence that this member has experienced a nearly 100% defect rate on
> almost 35 units.
>
As for this issue, I would think a bad batch of units off the line could
indeed be lumped together -- meaning 35 units might not represent a true
random sample (again, conjecture, and I'm probably reaching--definitely
reaching). OTOH, look at the problems: dust and digitizer comprise the
lion's share. As previously mentioned, the digitizer issue (which I find to
be the most troublesome) looks like it will be fixed (fingers crossed). As
I've said before, the dust is a problem, but it is one where it can be a
subjective opinion on just how bad it is. My original iPAQ -- from June --
was filled with dust, yet it really didn't get in the way of my day-to-day
use (and I treated the poor thing to absolutely no dust-prevention methods:
I used to take it along on my motorcycle, for MP3s, with the stylus out!).
Still, I do believe the dust problems have been minimized, with the newer
units (not eliminated, just minimized).
However, the important thing is that the person who wrote about those 35
iPAQs, is still an active iPAQ user. It doesn't mean he's happy with
problems, but at least he's hanging around. Here's another quote from the
same person, made after he already had those 35 units:
"i think i read that a sears in atlanta, ga has a few in stock now.
cumberland mall sears. they will ship via ups if you call them and if they
have it in stock.
good luck!
cisco_kid"
Wouldn't you think he'd be telling everyone to stay *away* from the iPAQ?
(Oh, and Cisco, don't even think about jumping in here! <g>)
Finally, I do think Compaq is trying to improve things, as my new unit is
definitely better than the old. A few pics:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=34365&a=10343076
Anyway, I hope the ROM update helps your digitizer problem, because I know
that was the thing that bothered me the most (mine was replaced under a
Carepaq, and it was the digitizer that caused me to use it).
Regards,
Mike "TinMan" Lynch
=====================================
mly...@PocketPCwriter.com
Visit my Digital Camera Page:
http://www.ctaz.com/~mlynch
=====================================
Stanislav Meduna
>Excuse me, but you're hardly in a position to criticize someone else about
>lack of facts. Your positions have been strictly conjecture... you haven't
>provided a single "hard fact" to support anything you've said.
Well, there is a difference between saying that a theory (that
only a minority of iPAQ users have no problems) is right
and pointing that it could be possibly wrong, listing some
_possible_ interpretations of the limited data we have.
An interesting link: http://www.gumbopages.com/fridge/logic.txt
>This is my last post on this matter.
Ditto - I normally don't engage in flame wars, so I'm sorry
that I did it this time.
Regards
--
Stano
randalllewis
because we use newsgroups and post issues, everyone else does so too. To
conjecture that because many people who post here and elsewhere on the
internet about problems with their iPAQs means that a majority of iPAQs have
the similar problems is not valid. It is like voting in those on-line polls
(which I do too). They are fun but not valid as any type of measure.
I will admit that more iPAQ problems are discussed than are from users of
the other Pocket PCs, and my unit had the famous sliding door issue (but
none of the others), and I also want Compaq to do a better job of quality
control. Let's not extrapoltate our frustrations to the entire universe of
iPAQ users. Without some type of objective measure of satisfaction and/or
units returned, we can't know what the real situation is.
So, let's help those who post their problems here and lets keep the pressure
on Compaq to fix things, and on Microsoft to fix a few things too, but keep
it all in perspective.
David Burns
> David Burns schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >This is my last post on this matter.
>
> Ditto - I normally don't engage in flame wars, so I'm sorry
> that I did it this time.
I know I said that my last post was indeed the last, but your response
evoked one last reaction. Since it doesn't deal with our debate, I don't
feel as if I'm breaking my word.
The reason that I posted again is that I must commend you on the dignity
shown in your last post. I too try not to get involved in flame wars, but
sometimes my emotions get the better of me. At any rate, please accept my
apology for my combative tone.
Hopefully, we can agree to disagree and leave it like that. After all, we
don't disagree about the problem, just the magnitude. If I can add a
positive spin to our exchange, it's probably a promising sign for the Pocket
PC that there are people like us who are so passionate for these addictive
"big kid's toys"... <g> (I don't think there's a symbol for a sheepish
grin...)
Regards to you as well...
David B.
>
> Regards
> --
> Stano
>
>
>
David Burns
"Michael Lynch" <mly...@ctaz.com> wrote in message
news:OUDO3wvaAHA.2076@tkmsftngp02...
> Yikes, slow it down a bit -- this ain't life-or-death (who am I kidding,
of
> course it is!).
Yeah, right... I've seen a few posts by you on Brighthand that are right up
there with mine... <g>
>I have little desire to throw fuel on this fire, but I will
> address a few points. Before beginning, if we want facts, the fact is that
> Compaq is selling iPAQs faster than they can make 'em. No question about
it.
> In fact, they have stated they will not catch up with demand until
sometime
> in 2001. I'm not going to pass judgment, but these are indeed facts.
>
> What can you draw from them?
>
> 1.) All of these buyers are idiots.
>
> 2.) People love the iPAQ, despite some flaws.
>
> 3.) Not everyone is *bothered* by the flaws much (dust, for instance,
seems
> to be quite subjective).
>
> 4.) A large percentage are not defective.
>
> 5.) All of the above.
>
4.5) If it's hip and trendy, they will come, problems notwithstanding
I should know... that's one of the factors that motivated me <g>. Yet I'm
writing this on my "unhip, untrendy, size-weight-and-form-factor challenged"
E-115 because my iPAQ's digitizer problem makes text entry an exercise in
frustration. The E-115 may be somewhat of a brick (and frankly, I think
more is made of that “fact” than it deserves), but it's been as reliable as
one as well, which is much more than I can say about my iPAQ.
>
> The iPAQ took-off via a mostly grass-roots campaign. There were no
> multi-billion dollar ad campaigns to boost sales. It was mainly satisfied
> buyers telling others how much they liked it (this is conjecture, on my
> part).
>
Yes, I agree that what you stated was probably a major factor. Again, I
would contend that the iPAQ also became somewhat of a status symbol. It
became uncool to have the "slow, bricklike" Cassiopeia or the "slow,
less-than-great display" Jornada. Everyone who was anyone had to have the
sleek, fast iPAQ. The limited availability also enhanced the exclusivity
factor, as suggested by the frequent “I finally got my iPAQ!” posts.
> As for your main problem, the digitizer, I believe that will indeed be
fixed
> with the upcoming ROM upgrade.
I will also keep my fingers crossed regarding the digitizer fix... it's a
"must-have" for me.
>
>
> >
> > Wow… nearly 35 units, and all of them have one or more of the reported
> > problems. Almost all have the digitizer problem. I think this speaks
> > volumes about the magnitude of the problems… I don’t think it’s sheer
> > coincidence that this member has experienced a nearly 100% defect rate
on
> > almost 35 units.
> >
>
> As for this issue, I would think a bad batch of units off the line could
> indeed be lumped together -- meaning 35 units might not represent a true
> random sample (again, conjecture, and I'm probably reaching--definitely
> reaching).
That occurred to me as well... however, Cisco's post spoke of acquiring the
units over 4 month's time, which in my mind made the single bad batch
scenario seem somewhat unlikely.
>
> However, the important thing is that the person who wrote about those 35
> iPAQs, is still an active iPAQ user. It doesn't mean he's happy with
> problems, but at least he's hanging around. Here's another quote from the
> same person, made after he already had those 35 units:
>
> "i think i read that a sears in atlanta, ga has a few in stock now.
> cumberland mall sears. they will ship via ups if you call them and if they
> have it in stock.
> good luck!
>
> cisco_kid"
>
> Wouldn't you think he'd be telling everyone to stay *away* from the iPAQ?
> (Oh, and Cisco, don't even think about jumping in here! <g>)
>
Please understand that I'm of the same frame of mind as Cisco... despite the
problems that I've had, I still have my iPAQ and I'm anxiously awaiting the
ROM update. I'm not discouraging people from buying iPAQs, and I’m very
enthusiastic about its unique features and speed. But if someone asks me,
I'm candid about the problems and upcoming solutions as well. And I do
understand the appeal, although I think that many people immediately choose
the iPAQ because of the buzz factor without even considering the Casio and
HP alternatives. I think that’s a mistake, since those models have
compelling features of their own.
Anyway, my posts were a reaction to another post that I interpreted as
saying "I don't know why people are making such a big deal about these iPAQ
problems. I have one and I haven't had any problems at all!"
I'm sorry, but I'm find it disrespectful when someone tries to dismiss or
downplay a real problem just because they haven't personally experienced it.
What do these people think? That all of us are hallucinating? That we're
bored or highly imaginative or both, so we're making all this up to amuse
ourselves? That we're just a bunch of whiners overreacting about nothing?
In my first post, I implied that a majority of iPAQs suffered from these
problems. Stanislav took issue with that conclusion, and we had quite an
exchange, as you've seen. After all that, I hope that we've respectfully
agreed to disagree. I’m beginning to think that the truth about the
magnitude of the problems probably lies somewhere in between the low level
suggested by Stanislav and the high level suggested by me. Based on the
volume of posts in newsgroups, on Brighthand, on PureCE, etc., I find it a
bit hard to believe that only a small percentage of units are affected,
despite Compaq’s claims. I’ll admit that it’s hard to say with any degree
of certainty that the majority have problems, although if Cisco’s problems
are NOT due to a single bad batch (which I think is a reasonable assumption
since the units were acquired over time), that may suggest that the problem
is fairly widespread. It’s all subject to interpretation, and I think it’s
likely that we’ll never know for sure.
Hopefully, Compaq will make all of this moot with their updates and fixes.
I’m hopeful about the ROM update… the digitizer problem is huge for me. At
any rate, I’d rather be enjoying a “problem-free” iPAQ than debating about
the problems.