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.
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.
The operating system is officially released on the 23rd. However there have been several models of handhelds out for a little while that come with 2003. I've got a Toshiba like you that I got 3 days ago that came with it. It's an e355.
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.