Ext User(Graeme Willox)
10-08-2007, 12:57 AM
Marts wrote:
> Just got a Palm Treo 750 (sourced off Ebay). So far, so good. I've been
> used to using a Palm Zire 71 PDA for the past 3 or so years and a Palm
> IIIxe before that. So, PDA-wise there are a few things that I have to get
> used to, including using Outlook for its contacts and calendar functions,
> and its email, as opposed to using Eudora, my email client of choice since
> 1996 or thereabouts.
>
> I've got to learn or understand what happens when a continual data
> connection is present. Does this rack up data charges even though I don't
> have a browser open and am not sending or receiving email through the
> wireless component.
>
> Screen quality is OK, touchscreen reasonably sensitive with the plastic
> protective coating on it.
>
> As a phone it's not as straightforward as a dedicated phone to use. But
> then, it's something to get used to, I s'pose. My preference for phones
> has been Nokia, but when my retired a 2280 CDMA for a Samsung A501 NextG
> last year, it didn' take long to work out how to operate it. Just have to
> do the same for the Palm.
>
> Ergonomics-wise, the keyboard seems easy enough to use, and again,
> something to get used to before I can fire off rapid fire text messages,
> etc. using it.
>
> Its size isn't too bad as far as holding it for a call, etc. goes. It's
> footprint is a bit smaller than the Palm Zire, and that also means that it
> has a smaller screen, but not by much. The quality of the display makes up
> for it, compared to the Zire.
>
> The camera's reasonably good, but I didn't buy it for that reason.
>
> Is it worth the $1,199 retail. No. I wouldn't buy one for retail, nor
> would I get into a $80 plan in order to get one "for free", either. Not
> when I don't make that many calls a month from the mobile as it is. I
> prefer to use VOIP on the landline.
>
> But for a PDA which I needed, and with a phone thrown in, for under $600
> purchase price it ain't too shabby.
>
> I've yet to test its phone reception capabilities, or its performance when
> accessing the 'net. But that'll come in due course.
>
> There are probably better smartphones out there. But I chose this because
> of the ability to sync with Outlook and because of the brand name, I
> s'pose.
>
> Time will tell whether I've wasted my dough or not. Whatever, what I can
> claim back on tax next year will offset most of the cost, anyway.
>
I thought about getting one. The only thing that put me off is the
screen resolution. They're apparently different from a standard Pocket
PC resolution, which can upset some programmes. That was the only thing
that put me off.
> Just got a Palm Treo 750 (sourced off Ebay). So far, so good. I've been
> used to using a Palm Zire 71 PDA for the past 3 or so years and a Palm
> IIIxe before that. So, PDA-wise there are a few things that I have to get
> used to, including using Outlook for its contacts and calendar functions,
> and its email, as opposed to using Eudora, my email client of choice since
> 1996 or thereabouts.
>
> I've got to learn or understand what happens when a continual data
> connection is present. Does this rack up data charges even though I don't
> have a browser open and am not sending or receiving email through the
> wireless component.
>
> Screen quality is OK, touchscreen reasonably sensitive with the plastic
> protective coating on it.
>
> As a phone it's not as straightforward as a dedicated phone to use. But
> then, it's something to get used to, I s'pose. My preference for phones
> has been Nokia, but when my retired a 2280 CDMA for a Samsung A501 NextG
> last year, it didn' take long to work out how to operate it. Just have to
> do the same for the Palm.
>
> Ergonomics-wise, the keyboard seems easy enough to use, and again,
> something to get used to before I can fire off rapid fire text messages,
> etc. using it.
>
> Its size isn't too bad as far as holding it for a call, etc. goes. It's
> footprint is a bit smaller than the Palm Zire, and that also means that it
> has a smaller screen, but not by much. The quality of the display makes up
> for it, compared to the Zire.
>
> The camera's reasonably good, but I didn't buy it for that reason.
>
> Is it worth the $1,199 retail. No. I wouldn't buy one for retail, nor
> would I get into a $80 plan in order to get one "for free", either. Not
> when I don't make that many calls a month from the mobile as it is. I
> prefer to use VOIP on the landline.
>
> But for a PDA which I needed, and with a phone thrown in, for under $600
> purchase price it ain't too shabby.
>
> I've yet to test its phone reception capabilities, or its performance when
> accessing the 'net. But that'll come in due course.
>
> There are probably better smartphones out there. But I chose this because
> of the ability to sync with Outlook and because of the brand name, I
> s'pose.
>
> Time will tell whether I've wasted my dough or not. Whatever, what I can
> claim back on tax next year will offset most of the cost, anyway.
>
I thought about getting one. The only thing that put me off is the
screen resolution. They're apparently different from a standard Pocket
PC resolution, which can upset some programmes. That was the only thing
that put me off.