Explaining Disappointing XScale Performance In Pocket PCs

JYD writes: "I found this new article on a Pocket PC web site where Microsoft talks about why XScale Pocket PCs aren't as fast as people thought they would be. Is it the OS? The CPU not supporting ARM4 properly? I wonder if the Linux port would run faster on 400 Mhz ... or did Intel screw up the CPU?"

Comments

Re:Pocket PC hw spec lockdown

[RevAaron]

I believe the spec for PocketPC calls for a 320x240 screen. However, you can get WinCE machines that run at any resolution, far beyond any silly PalmOS device.

Sure, you can get a Sony Clie with a 480x320 screen. But why would you want to, you'd have to put up with that sad excuse of an OS. Makes a pretty kickass (and damned expensive) oraganizer, I'm sure. What good is a 480x320 screen if it's about the same size (in cm by cm) as the other options *and* there's no real handwriting recognition?

Personally, I still carry around a 5 year old Newton 2100u most of the time. I have an iPAQ as well, for development mostly. It has a 480x320 (lower DPI than the Clie, which means more space to write!) screen and a 162 MHz StrongARM. And a real OS, with the facilities to develop first-class apps while never touching a desktop. Seems like a no-brainer to me too. But we're on Slashdot, and it doesn't run Linux, so I'll just kick back and wait for the on-slaught of "h3y j00 st00p1d mac lover fsck u && UR pee-pee-pda!!!1"

Have fun at your parade! :)