Microsoft Mobil 2003 or Palm OS? - Handheld

This is a discussion on Microsoft Mobil 2003 or Palm OS? - Handheld ; I am having trouble to decide which OS I should select with a PDA. I am interested in a PDA with a camera. Sony has a few models running Palm OS with cameras. Since I am a Windows user, I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Microsoft Mobil 2003 or Palm OS?

  1. Microsoft Mobil 2003 or Palm OS?

    I am having trouble to decide which OS I should select with a PDA.
    I am interested in a PDA with a camera. Sony has a few models running
    Palm OS with cameras. Since I am a Windows user, I think it may be better to
    use a pocket PC with Microsoft Mobil 2003. However, I checked the major
    pocket pc manufacturers, such as HP and Toshiba, and none of their models
    has a camera. I am wondering what I lose if I use Palm OS instead of
    Microsoft Mobil 2003. Another thing I don't like about the Sony products
    is that they only accept memory stick cards and cannot take CF or SD cards.
    Thank you for your inputs.

    Paul.

  2. Re: Microsoft Mobil 2003 or Palm OS?

    paulaugust2003@yahoo.com (Paul) wrote in message news:...
    > I am having trouble to decide which OS I should select with a PDA.


    PalmOS for stability, Pocket PC for fun and breadth of applications
    (although PalmOS is getting there - again).
    I have a Pocket PC (a Fujitsu-Siemens Pocket LOOX 600) and I like it -
    but on the average it needs a soft reset daily to get it back on
    track. It is not quite a ctrl-alt-del as you normally don't lose any
    data doing a soft reset but it is a bit annoying nonetheless. The
    price of running a Windows OS, I suppose...

    > I am interested in a PDA with a camera. Sony has a few models running
    > Palm OS with cameras.


    How about this one:

    http://www.palmone.com/us/products/handhelds/zire71/

    > Since I am a Windows user, I think it may be better to
    > use a pocket PC with Microsoft Mobil 2003.


    There is virtually no difference between PalmOS and Pocket PC units
    w.r.t. inter-operability with Windows.

    > However, I checked the major
    > pocket pc manufacturers, such as HP and Toshiba, and none of their models
    > has a camera. I am wondering what I lose if I use Palm OS instead of
    > Microsoft Mobil 2003.


    Not much. And as mentioned ebove, you gain a more stable PDA.

    > Another thing I don't like about the Sony products
    > is that they only accept memory stick cards and cannot take CF or SD cards.
    > Thank you for your inputs.


    The Zire71 uses SD-cards. Its SD-slot is SDIO compatible which means
    that it will accept e.g. WiFi SD-cards.

    Ebbe

  3. Re: Microsoft Mobil 2003 or Palm OS?

    Good day,

    > PalmOS for stability, Pocket PC for fun and breadth of applications
    > (although PalmOS is getting there - again).
    > I have a Pocket PC (a Fujitsu-Siemens Pocket LOOX 600) and I like it -
    > but on the average it needs a soft reset daily to get it back on
    > track. It is not quite a ctrl-alt-del as you normally don't lose any
    > data doing a soft reset but it is a bit annoying nonetheless. The
    > price of running a Windows OS, I suppose...


    As for PalmOS stability, I don't know about that one. I have a Sony
    Clie (running PalmOS 4) and I have had a few inexplicable system hangs
    (i.e., requiring reset -- potential loss of info) with even the included
    software. If you have a look a third party software reviews, quite a
    few of them can cause crashes or hangs as well.

    Memory management on the Windows CE devices is sometimes problematic,
    but I rarely have a system crash.

    > There is virtually no difference between PalmOS and Pocket PC units
    > w.r.t. inter-operability with Windows.


    There are small but important differences. Because of how the PalmOS is
    designed (for applications and databases), in general, you need to
    convert everything to a Palm specific format (usually during the sync
    process) before you can use it. Often, this process is quite refined
    but still necessary.

    As Pocket PCs (i.e., Windows CE devices) use a more traditional
    filesystem, you can often/usually use the standard PC file formats and
    files with no conversion needed.

    > The Zire71 uses SD-cards. Its SD-slot is SDIO compatible which means
    > that it will accept e.g. WiFi SD-cards.


    You should remember that SDIO products are both more uncommon and more
    expensive than their CF counterparts.

    Regards,
    Michael Tam

    --
    -------------------------------------
    Michael Tam
    e-mail: vitualis (at) michaeltam.com
    website: http://www.michaeltam.com

  4. Re: Microsoft Mobil 2003 or Palm OS?

    On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:58:12 +1100, Michael Tam
    wrote:

    >Memory management on the Windows CE devices is sometimes problematic,
    >but I rarely have a system crash.


    Do they still require that you distribute memory between system
    and ram disk, or is that dynamically changed now?

    >As Pocket PCs (i.e., Windows CE devices) use a more traditional
    >filesystem, you can often/usually use the standard PC file formats and
    >files with no conversion needed.


    Using FAT format file system and standard file contents is great.
    Means you can pull a CF (with phtos in jpg) from a camera, stick
    it in a PDA, add a few text files describing the photos, or maybe
    a voice note, pull it again and stick it in a PC, and just read
    it. And then put it back into the camera. None of them need
    conversions.

    >You should remember that SDIO products are both more uncommon and more
    >expensive than their CF counterparts.


    I've been very happy with the use of CF. You do need to ensure
    all your gadgets use it, but you always have to look at
    interoperability of various gadgets these days.

    --
    Eric Lindsay http://www.ericlindsay.com/airlie
    Airlie Beach Qld Australia - Great Barrier Reef entry
    Psion & Epoc site http://www.ericlindsay.com/epoc
    Bait for spammers: root@localhost postmaster@localhost
    admin@localhost abuse@localhost postmaster@127.0.0.1

+ Reply to Thread