Slashdot Mirror
PocketPC 2003 Reviewed
Sander Sassen writes "Prior to the official launch of the Microsoft PocketPC 2003 platform next Monday, Hardware Analysis puts an Asus MyPal a620 PocketPC to the test and details what new features PocketPC 2003 brings to the table and whether it is worth it to upgrade from 2002."
Power intensive yes, but you need to put your ear up to an iPod hard drive to hear it during normal play.
Yes it is, but no benchmark has been published yet so I have no idea how good the optimization is. Developers must rewrite their applications for Pocket PC 2003 in order to take advantage of the optimizations. The review kinda sucks because it tells us nothing about the performance.
During normal play, it's far more likely the hard drive is not on. The ipod plays music from its 32mb cache.
If it can do DVD decoding, it can do SVCD. They are both MPEG-2. SVCD is lower quality though so it is even EASIER to decode. Plus, you don't have to deal with decryption of the DVD data.
Just use familiar with opie. You'll be happier, and have more spare change to buy things that matter.
Huh I thought Pocket PC 2003 has been out for awhile because at work we've been selling a Toshiba E760 (which looks to be a E755 running Pocket PC 2003) for over a week now... I hadn't been keeping up on Pocket PC OS stuff very much so I didn't think anything of it when they came in... Of course once I saw the article I went to Toshiba's website & realized they don't even mention it... Huh, I wonder how fast I'd be fired if I wrote a review of it for the slashdot crowd & posted it tomorrow..
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
to upgrade the os on an older pocket pc? I just bought a new Dell Axim and would very much like to install Pocket PC 2003. Also, I would settle on just being able to install the updated version of IE, cause the one on there now sucks.
SIGFAULT
I'll bite :-)
:-)
IE isn't standards compliant because it breaks several W3C standards and doesn't support many of the standards it implements properly. That's a fact I'm afraid. Whether or not the behaviour in IE should be standard is up for debate (though I choose Moz).
IE isn't too bad, outstanding issues which make it a pain in the arse include:
1) Bollocks PNG support. Alpha channel support needs a custom tag (DXImage filter or something similar).
2) CSS box model, width includes margins/padding size.
3) Doesn't support absolute positioning without width/height size: e.g.
top: 100px;
bottom: 100px;
width: 100%;
will result in a box 0px (unless there's content in which case it's the content height) and 100% wide. In mozilla and compliant broswers it is a box 100px from the top of the window to 100px from the bottom.
4) Background positioning from a origin doesn't work (see CSS/Edge for a demo, link is on mozilla.org/start/1.0).
5) CSS 2 content generation support is nonexistant. CSS 2 support in general is hit and miss.
6) No support for W3C event system.
7) Lots of other small issues which slip my mind at present
Lists of CSS support/bugs tend to be fairly easy to find on the net though many are a little out of date.
Opacity is in the upcoming CSS3 standard, which Mozilla is helping test. Thus, it was prefixed with moz- to specify that it wasn't in a full-fledged standard.
Actually, a bug was found in CSS2 because of Mozilla's strict standards support (see Netscape's development documents on images in a table for more info).
The nice thing about Mozilla is that its extensions tend to be obvious. TMK, all Mozilla off-standard stuff is recognizable as such, as you have so aptly demonstated (note the "moz-" prefix). Unlike Other Browsers which implement their extensions in unrecognizable fashion (e.g. MARQUEE tag).
Anyhow, you're not talking about not supporting standards, you're talking of adding to the stuff out there (and note that I've shown that Mozilla is being a good citizen in this respect!). For supporting existing W3C standards, nothing is better than Mozilla, and IE falls far short. Example: DOM level 2 compliance, esp. wrt. event handling.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
IE5/Mac Supports all of these, and it supports them well.
All I was saying is that the parent poster should distinguish IE/Mac and IE/Win, since they are different products and they have wildly different levels of standards support.
Pardon the typos, I'm extremely drunk.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Actually Microsoft has gone to great lengths in order to not break compatability with many products. This has also made many products (eg Windows) weaker. Thats why you can still run 10 year old windows software on windows xp.
ummmm RTFA? last paragraph of the summary and conclusion here:
"Overall, the Asus MyPal a620 proved to be an excellent PocketPC, with great battery life, easily making it through a full day of extensive use and hours of multimedia playback. On average we clocked between 10 till 12 hours on the battery, which is a little more than weâ(TM)ve seen from popular PocketPC 2002 devices. If youâ(TM)re in the market for an affordable, yet powerful and versatile, PocketPC be sure to give the Asus MyPal a620 a serious consideration."
Can it run non-Microsoft apps?
.NET there are now other possibllities too.
I've run Perl under pocketpc OS. I've heard that Apache, and Python will also run there. There's a java VM for pocketpc. With mono and
Although I agree with you in general about IE and standards, moving from pocketPC 2002 to pocketPC 2003 is moving from IE 3.0 to IE 6.0 and by any measure, there is a huge improvement in standards support between those two versions. Try writing an ECMAscript or DOM app with Jscript (not even JavaScript) and you'll know what I mean.