Talk:Pocket PC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Microsoft / Windows (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

(Q) Help me out: is "Pocket PC" the genre or type of handheld, and Windows CE the operationg system, or what?

(A)Pocket PC is a PDA specification developed by Microsoft; it is also a Microsoft trademark. If a device is referred to as a Pocket PC, that simply indicates that it has been certified by microsoft as meeting certain hardware and software standards.
Part of the specification is the standard software package that is installed on the device, called "Windows Mobile for Pocket PC." This software package runs on top of the Windows CE OS.



Yo, dude! I thought my ViewSonic Pocket PC was running Windows CE 2002. I am on drugs, or what? -- Surfer Dude

Your ViewSonic Pocket PC is running Windows CE, but it is also loaded with additional software specified by Microsoft. This software, in conjunction with the Windows CE OS, forms the Pocket PC system.

"PocketPC" is just a fork of sorts from Windows CE. So any Windows CE code can be easily ported to PocketPC with just the correct SDK installed in your DE.

You know, that phrase sounds weird to me, like "Windows XP is a set of software that runs ontop of Windows operationg system", IMHO it's not, the operating system is defined by basic software packages too, not just the kernel or whatever it has to handle executions of those software. Gnomz007 00:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HP is not a manufacturer of Pocket PC's. In fact most popular brands just put their own brands on devices made by Taiwanese and Korean Companies. The biggest manufacturer (ODM) of Pocket PC devices is HTC (of Taiwan), also from Taiwan is Compal and Eten, LG and Samsung makes their own pocket pc's as well.

Pocket Pc is for MIPS,SH3,ARM,XSCALE. But Pocket Pc 2002 works only with ARM. Later, MS changed the name Pocket Pc 2003 to be Windows Mobile 2003.

Update needed[edit]

The article currently says A $100–$200 model is rumored to be released within 2004 or early 2005.. Please can someone with the necessary knowledge, update it? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 13:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Merger on Palm-Size PC and Palmtop[edit]

Again I say no. Palm-Size PC's are a different breed of decice as are Palmtops. To suggest a merge is like suggesting Mac should be dropped in with the IBM PC. Especially as Pocket PC's came 3 years AFTER Palm-Size PC and almost a decade after Palmtop. C:Amie 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If they are going to remain separate, then there needs to be a way to sort all of this out. History of Microsoft Embedded Software or List of commercial embedded systems running Microsoft OS or something along those lines. You shouldn't have to explain on a talk page that Palmtops were before Palm-size PC's were before Pocket PC's. What are they called today? Where do H/PC's fit in to all of this? Why do some Pocket PC's run Windows CE, while others run Windows Mobile?
I understand that the history of Windows embedded systems is a mess (hell, nowadays even Palm runs Windows Mobile), but the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a clearer understanding of all of this. I'm still trying to figure out ways to make things clearer (which resulted in the Windows CE Timeline). McNeight 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Requesting - Application development for Mobile development[edit]

If anyone working on this page can fill out the Pocket PC columns on Mobile development, that would be a huge help - someone added the column, but didn't know any details. Thanks! 24.7.66.15 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove contributions[edit]

You are more than welcome to add your own details on your own product (which you decided to remove) but do not remove others contributions. Timeshift 06:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Best Handheld[edit]

Guys, can you tell me what's the best handheld for value. The handheld needs t have WiFi though.  Demonblade   (talk)  06:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed[edit]

Firstly the last paragraph recently added is POV in parts, second there is no evidence I am aware of to suggest that the market has "abandoned" them, as most people are still purchasing GPS add-ons which allows for best positioning and view to pick up satellites better, and the choice of GPS add-on also allows for choice of GPS specs instead of being stuck with the often sub-standard sensitivity of built-in GPS devices. Timeshift 04:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Market Trends[edit]

Those are mostly irrelevant details, the matter is that the market trends are clear by now. On the GPS details you are mentioning, I would say that because of their high sensitivity, for example the SiRF Star III based GPS receivers are designed to work very well inside of a car. There is a list of dissadavantages of GPS add-ons; neither Garmin, Brunton nor Magellan GPS devices are usually sold in pieces.

Market Trends are showing decline in demand for pure pocket PC devices. I can provide evidence for that, if you do not know much about. I can also provide evidence that converged devices have better demand than pure pocket PC's.

At least five recently launched devices from different brands have an integrated GPS. On the other side, it's important to notice that Toshiba and Viewsonic have abandoned the pocket PC market. Sony has abandoned the palm compatible market too. Palm and HP have clearly their focus on communicators. So does HTC, the manufacturer of the Dell X51v.

HP and Dell still sell pure pocket PC devices, but their "new" devices, are basically renamed last year products with little more ROM and Microsoft Windows Mobile 5 OS. There is very small difference between the Dell X50 and X51 series. And it's exactly the same with the HP iPAQ hx2000 series devices. The VGA 4" TFT hx4700 model was abandoned. Something that one could call new on the pure pocket pc market could be perhaps the Acer n300, and only because it combines entry level price with an VGA 3.7" TFT screen.

Please provide evidence that the market has abandoned PocketPC devices with external GPS devices as opposed to PocketPCs with in-built GPS. Also please ensure you sign your talk contributions with four tildes so the following occurs: Timeshift 10:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence #1: Can be seen the demand for Pocket PC's, excluding Smartphones [1] "Q2 2006 saw the worldwide handheld devices market experience its tenth consecutive quarter of YTY decline" Source: IDC

Evidence #2: Gives an general idea of the demand for GPS integrated devices [2] YTY Rise by 96% Source: IDC

Maybe it's my eyes this late at night but I cannot see any evidence to show that market demand for PocketPC with non-integrated GPS is in decline in comparison to PocketPC with integrated GPS. Timeshift 12:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The evidence #2 gives an general idea, it's not irrefutable, but with that information it's very raisonable to assume that my POV was correct. There are various conclusions that serve as circumstantial evidences:

- Some of the brands listed on the table inside the link "Evidence #2", sell GPS devices based on pocket PC's. - The typical customer looking for a GPS solution does not have preference for a Pocket PC and GPS add-on combination, but for an integrated product. - There are various new and anounced pocket PC devices with integrated GPS. Since it's safe to assume that the companies that sell Pocket PC's make market research, that would be Evidence #3.

As you are unable to show that PocketPC with non integrated GPS sales are in decline in comparison to PocketPC with integrated GPS, I am removing your incorrect claims and will request a block to be put on you if you continue to revert your incorrect contribution without providing evidence to the contrary. Timeshift 13:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence 4: Interpetation of the IDC Analyst [3] "The inclusion of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and GPS have kept handheld devices relevant, particularly for core users." Source: IDC

Nothing there refers to GPS on it's own. The x51v has BT and Wi-Fi. On top of the fact it does not refer to GPS on it's own, it does not say or even infer that the non-integrated GPS PocketPC market is declining in comparison to the integreated GPS PocketPC market. Timeshift 13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have more than proved that you are wrong[edit]

Why are you vandalizing my contributions? I have proved that you are wrong, and found sound backup for anything I said. I didn't touch the crazy things you have composed.

Nowhere does it show that the non-integrated GPS PocketPC market is declining in comparison to the integreated GPS PocketPC market. Nowhere. You cannot point me to any quote which shows this to be the case. Timeshift 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
And by all means, please tell me ONE crazy thing I have composed, and why that is the case. Put simply, you cannot :-) Timeshift 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't lie, the circumstantial evidence I provided was more than enough. And let me quote you: "...a GPS that can be based on the Windows Mobile Phone Edition." How old are you?

Circumstantial evidence? HAHA. Yeah right. I'll repeat again. Nowhere does it show that the non-integrated GPS PocketPC market is declining in comparison to the integreated GPS PocketPC market. Nowhere. And again, please tell me ONE crazy thing I have composed, and why that is the case. Put simply, you cannot. It is obvious you are trying to discredit me from that accusation and also stooping so low as to ask me my age in pre-empting that I am a child. (btw look at your contribution - shocking spelling and grammar) I am not, perhaps you care to look at my contributions, especially election articles. I will continue reverting and will also see about getting a block put on you for your continual POV and incorrect assertion reverts. Timeshift 14:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been defeated in the argumentation, you have no any credibility.

Saying it doesn't make it true. I'll repeat again. Nowhere does it show that the non-integrated GPS PocketPC market is declining in comparison to the integreated GPS PocketPC market. Nowhere. Reverting due to continual POV and incorrect assertion reverts. Timeshift 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this conflictive "person" allowed to act that way?[edit]

I wanted to write some things, but the simpleton started to bother with his wide array of pretexts, all without a reason. And it's not the first time that happens. He's not even able to follow his own rules.

And I have let you keep most of the things you have written, apart from the following - I'll repeat again. Nowhere does it show that the non-integrated GPS PocketPC market is declining in comparison to the integreated GPS PocketPC market. Nowhere. Reverting due to continual POV and incorrect assertion reverts. Timeshift 15:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He/she already asked for evidence and I provided some from IDC. There is no need for any idiotic repeating.

Yet you continue to be unable to provide a quote where it shows that the non-integrated GPS PocketPC market is declining in comparison to the integreated GPS PocketPC market. Providing a link is not sufficient. Provide a link, with a quote to back up your incorrect assertions. You have consistently been unable to do this and only serves to degrade your position. Timeshift 16:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He/she is pushing the things to an absurd, good explanation has already been given, however he/she has poor intellectual capability, combined with bad attitude. I'm wondering who can I complain in Wikipedia about this? I quoted the opinion of an professional consultant from IDC, which is coincident with mine. He/she insists that I'm wrong and gives no any proves about his/shes crazy POV's.

Yet you continue to be unable to provide a quote where it shows that the non-integrated GPS PocketPC market is declining in comparison to the integreated GPS PocketPC market. Providing a link is not sufficient. Provide a link, with a quote to back up your incorrect assertions. You have consistently been unable to do this and only serves to degrade your position. Timeshift 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He/she is telling those non true things with the intention, I guess, to frustrate, discouraging to participate. I provided 4 evidences, for what he/she questioned with bad intentions. I provided back up for my opinion, that took me time and effort to collect, which he/she doesn't respect as I respected his/her questionings, and asks once and again to keep giving him/her data that he/she ignores. IDC is an well known market research firm, the credibility is out of question. I can undestand his/shes "LOVE" for some specific product, however while writing articles of an encyclopedia, I think that one has to be objective, have some knowledge and criterium. I mean, how can the Axim pictures be everywhere? That product was very late to the pocket PC market. Something so categoric as "the most powerfull consumer-market product" simply can't be said about the X51v. There are many other products with similar characteristics, and better in some aspects. The Axim is tremendously behind iPAQ in sells, that without considering iPAQ communicators (which are on a sharp rise). I have nothing against any company, but that article is misleading. He/she doesn't allow anything he/she wrote to be touched, he/she invites to write, and later vandalizes the articles. That is an totally unacceptable behavior, something should be done about.--Igor Sotelo 09:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

circumstantial evidence does not equal evidence. See WP:Reliable sources. HighInBC 17:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

More than one does, your sentence is an oxymoron. Please provide evidence that the Dell Axim X51v, is "the most powerfull consumer-market product".--Igor Sotelo 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The X51v has a 624mhz processor and 16mb of dedicated video memory via an Intel 2700G accellerator. Do the devices you mention come with dedicated graphics, placing less demand on the CPU therefore freeing it up for other tasks? Look at the benchmarks. I will keep reverting, and I am a dedicated wikipedian, so your struggle is futile. BTW I am yet to find one person agreeing with your position. Timeshift 18:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As market figures and software support show, that specification is not of much importance. The Qtek 9000, FS Loox N560 and the HP iPAQ hx2790, to name a few are as good if not better than the Dell. Does the X51v has the largest TFT screen of any PPC? No. Better microprocessor speed than some other devices? No. Has it any telephony features or broadband capabilities? No. Does it has an integrated GPS? No. Does it has the largest battery capacity? No. Advanced security? No. Fastest Wi-Fi? No. Perhaps, the fastest BT? No. Integrated keyboard? No. USB host capability? No. Is the X51v the lightest and smallest device? No. Most RAM? No. Most ROM? No.

There are many opinions, it depends on the source of the information. --Igor Sotelo 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say most advanced. I said most powerful - in terms of raw power. None of what you mentioned contributes to raw power. I am sick of having to explain myself, so from now on unless anyone brings up anything useful, I will not continue this discussion here and will continue to revert. Timeshift 18:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Has the X51v the fastest ROM? No. Is the X51v the fastest PPC? No, the QVGA PPC's run faster than the VGA devices. You have not much idea what are you talking about. However, since you a fanatic, you are causing trouble. Can this be considered as evidence: "I am yet to find one person agreeing with your position". You may see soon how silly is your POV.--Igor Sotelo 18:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

POV is not allowed in articles. POV is allowed in discussion. If you cannot even follow wikipedia convention, then I suggest you learn. Timeshift 18:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Some fanatism can be noted, since you don't mind about evidences in other more questionable issues. What you have composed is not a fact, as you think, but you are sick of giving explanations (you didn't have given much, btw) and you don't mind. You asked for evidence and I provided them. Therefore, it's clear that you are the one that can't follow the rules. If I understand correctly, you think differently about the integrated GPS issue, because so far you have failed to "find one person agreeing with my position".--Igor Sotelo 19:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So is Pocket PC like a computer but small and portable?[edit]

If so will the Motorola MPx300 be a good one? Willie512 23:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)willie512

Yes, the Pocket PC has a powerfull hardware and an very capable multitasking operating system. I didn't tested personally the Motorola MPx (MPx300), however reading it's specifications, it's somewhat limited by having only 32 MB of RAM. Other than that, it's specifications are typical of other communicators based on the Windows Mobile Phone Edition.

Hello. An opinion was requested on the WP:3O page.[edit]

Hello. I am responding to a request on the Third Opinion page, which asked that a third opinion be given on the dispute between Igor Sotelo and Timeshift.

Having read the article, compared the two versions of the article, and read the discussion here; I think I see the problem.

Igor Sotelo says that sales of Pocket PCs without integrated GPS technology are declining in relation to sales of Pocket PCs with GPS technology. Timeshift says this is a point of view, and asks for sources. Igor Sotelo cites as sources a couple of charts, and an article about handheld devices having declining sales. Igor Sotelo then asks how Timeshift can maintain their position in the face of this circumstantial evidence.

Note that I bolded the word circumstantial. Igor Sotelo admits that this evidence is circumstantial.

Looking at Igor Sotelo's contribution history I see Igor Sotelo is rather new to Wikipedia. This seems to be the only article Igor has contributed to.

Igor, you seem to have the general idea of Wikipedia down, but I wonder if you have read and understood all of the many (often confusing) policies Wikipedia has? If not, that's fine. It takes time to read and learn to understand all the silly little rules, and the spirit and intention of Wikipedia is that anyone can and should just jump in and edit any article they desire.

Anyway, I think it would really help in this situation, if Igor would read and understand the No original research policy. Specifically this part:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

(emphasis mine)

In other words, cirucmstantial evidence is not enough for wikipedia; no matter how strong or convincing that circumstantial evidence may be. You need to find someone who has actually published something saying "Sales of non-GPS integrated Pocket PCs have declined in relation to sales of GPS inegrated ones". A pain, I know, especially when anyone can look at the circumstantial evidence you provided and reach that conclusion on their own, but as with all rules there is a good reason for this rule.

While we're talking about rules, may I also remind Timeshift of WP:Civil, WP:Bite and, of course WP:3RR. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello ONUunicorn,
re-post of the Evidence 4: Interpetation of the IDC Consultant
[4]
"The inclusion of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and GPS have kept handheld devices relevant, particularly for core users."
Source: IDC
Evidence 5: Another 2005 Market Report
This was in 2005, in 2006 the advantage is clear for GPS integraded PDAs.
"In the meantime PDAs and other devices, known in marketing terms as 'unconnected handhelds', declined worldwide, although there was some growth in the EU, driven by the demand for PDAs with integrated GPS navigation. In the second quarter of 2005 almost half the number of PDAs sold had GPS included."
[5]
Source: Canalys and JISC
I think that the Dell Axim X51v is a fine Pocket PC device, but I doubt the comments the other poster has made about that product would sustain the same legal rigour applied to my contributions.
I use wikipedia often, it's one of the best web sites on the Internet. I'm sure, I would have contributed more, however the discussion was time consuming.
--Igor Sotelo 21:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I still fail to see the evidence where it shows that integrated GPS devices increasingly sell over non-integrated. As the x51v comes with bluetooth and wi-fi, two out of the three, your circumstantial evidence is not valid. Two wikipedians have said this now. Nobody is agreeing with you Igor. Timeshift 23:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I wont, like him/her, speak for another wikipedians. Neither will pretend to suggest others what to think. The referece he/she says to be ignored doesn't say OR, it says AND. Also, most Pocket PC's already have BT and Wi-Fi. "Two of three" is not the same. Both quoted references say what I had put, with another words. Different people write differently. It's not a C conclusion from A and B references. Those are A/B/C statements, all telling the same with different words.--Igor Sotelo 00:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The two people who have commented say your references are not sufficient. Accept it. Timeshift 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Here goes another one. Evidence #6: Gartner Market Analysis Q1 2006
[6]
"Mio Technology has taken the lead in PDAs with integrated GPS capabilities and is faring especially well"
"The bulk of Dell's sales were its flagship model X51v"
1Q05- 1Q06 Growth (%) Mio Technology +81.2
1Q05- 1Q06 Growth (%) Dell -34.0
Source: Gartnet Report transcribed by Palm Infocenter.
Gartner defines the PDA's somewhat different than IDS. Gartner is well known independent market research company.
--Igor Sotelo 00:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You still don't understand the concept of circumstantial evidence do you? Timeshift 01:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
My sources ware: Gartner, IDC and Canalys.--Igor Sotelo 03:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Cir-cum-stan-tial evidence. Three people including me have said your sources are not valid. Nobody has said otherwise. Please follow wikipedia convention. Timeshift 03:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Not all the evidence I provided was circumstantial, a term you one would think by your reaction that you have heard from me, some is quite direct. You are un-able to under-stand. And my sources are: Gartner, IDC and Canalys.--Igor Sotelo 03:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Cir-cum-stan-tial evidence. Three people including me have said your sources are not valid. Nobody has said otherwise. Please follow wikipedia convention. Timeshift 03:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
HighInBC said: "circumstantial evidence does not equal evidence", he never said that my sources are not valid. You are concluding something that the poster never said explicitly.
ONUunicorn said: "Igor Sotelo admits that this evidence is circumstantial", I never said that all the evidence I provided is so, some of it is actually direct. This poster misses to comment on the quote I provided, that more or less says what he wished me to find to prove my point.
I repeated that quote, and added another very similar based on a report from a different market research organization. Note that the example of the second wikipedian, that back up's you, doesn't apply, since more or less the two quotes and the part of my statement, that you choosed for bothering, say the same with different words.
No figuring out, no conclusions. Direct.
And I found additional information (Evidence #6) to fully support my point.
--Igor Sotelo 04:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Circumstantial evidence does not equal evidence. How much more simple do they need to get for you? Timeshift 04:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Not all circumstantial, some is direct, how much simple do you need to be told?--Igor Sotelo 04:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If you were correct then people would side with you and not with me. I am in the right. Timeshift 04:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Gartner, IDC and Canalys organizations are the real experts in Marketing Research of PDA's with integrated GPS. Take note that if I ware really wrong and you right, those companies would be reporting that discret graphics with 3D accelerators and the X51v are on the rise and top selling items. And there would be 5/6 new PPC with discrete graphics anouncements. They would be also saying that the separate GPS receiver and PPC combination are top selling items. And we would agree. Off course, none of that is the case.--Igor Sotelo 04:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't understand what circumstantial evidence is do you? Wikipedians are not agreeing with you. How much simpler must I make it? Timeshift 05:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Unlike Gartner, IDC and Canalis, those wikipedians and you are not "for real" in Market Research of PDA's with integrated GPS. HighInBC actually doesn't seem sure what evidence is. And I told you that not all evidence I provided is circumstantial, some is direct. Do you know what direct evidence is?--Igor Sotelo 05:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians have reviewed the evidence, and it is not valid. Wikipedians know what is and isn't allowed as a source, and this is not. How many more times does it need to be explained. Timeshift 05:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
They centered all their attention around the term "circumstantial" (I guess, conveniently suggested by your astute worded third opinion requests), not really reading too much about the provided information. Besides, I found two additional dumb-proof arguments. As I said, the knowledge on the subject, objectiveness and criterium are very important. None was present.--Igor Sotelo 05:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If you were in the right wikipedians would agree with you. They do not. Timeshift 06:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Should that statement be true, Wikipedia would have the same relevance of the Britannica. And that's not the case. For me, it's easy to see why.--Igor Sotelo 06:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
And that relates, how? Timeshift 06:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Directly.
FYI, criminals get convicted based on circumstantial evidence "for a very good reason".
--Igor Sotelo 07:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
FYI this is wikipedia, not a court. Timeshift 08:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the point. I'm pointing to the fact that the attack for using circumstantial evidence was fake too.--201.240.254.170 08:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not wrong when IT IS WIKIPEDIA RULES! You have seriously lost all credibility and would be in your best interests not to dig further than the gigantic hole you have already dug for yourself. Timeshift 14:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't care less about what YOU have to say, since those rules ignore basic principles, and alowed someone notoriously wrong like you, to make all the edits and put false "information" in the article. Your point of view, quotes of whatever, simply fail to reflect the state of things in the market, and have no any connection with reality. As far I'm concerned, those rules ARE worth NOTHING as is worth your opinion here or in the article.--201.240.254.170 17:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
And there we have it. Direct admission that Igor does not care to follow a) Wikipedia rules, and b) common opinion as has been expressed by others in this discussion. This discussion warrants to further input. Reverts will continue within wikipedia rules. Timeshift 17:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
As usual, he/she is missing the point. I no longer have interest to participate in Wikipedia, because that organization has lost most of it's credibility with me and I feel that I dont wont to interact with persons that I don't consider to have good intellectual level. Off course, that decision will allow me to not follow those rules, without making any offense. As he/she may have noticed, I'm not correcting my article anymore.
He/she knows well that the first of those opinions is an oxymoron and a false statement. Yet he/she continues to quote it as back up for the crank pocket PC theories.
The "third opinion" was:
(1) suggested by his/her request to concentrate on the unjustifiedly, by him/her, maligned term "circumstantial evidence", rather than the analysis of provided information, which wasn't all circumstantial,
(2) concentrated on the fact I was new to wikipedia, that this was my only (and my last, off course) participation, and that I was low on Wikipedia (which I never said, but I'm now),
(3) requested a comment that I already provided (clearly that person didn't read my evidence #4), neither did he bothered to respond the additional comments,
(4) quoting me in something I didn't explicitly said,
(5) a bad definition of the problem, missing the idea,
(6) giving a bad example, and
(7) linking to "new theory" text, when actually he/she IS presenting a new theory that has no relation with market trends or reality.
--201.240.254.170 19:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Now you're just trying to bait - and good work, because you got me to reply yet again. Firstly, I didn't concentrate on your newness to wikipedia, I said that, as part of the debate, you obviously are unaware of how wikipedia works and discussed things such as circumstantial evidence. There are plenty of new people every day to wikipedia, and as long as they learn the rules, all is good. You provided to evidence to show that PocketPC with integrated GPS was increasingly selling more than non-integrated. All you could find was circumstantial evidence; an example being one of your sources was generalising on integration such as bluetooth and wireless, which the x51v has, so is a moot point. You could not find direct proof, and that has been backed up by two other wikipedians. How much more of a case closed do you need? Timeshift 19:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what are you talking about in your first sentence. For new wikipedians: what I know for sure, is that as long as they write what he/she exactly wants (btw, he/she is promoting a product), there are no problems; the "rules" are extremely relative and there are double standards. I could have found additional information to support my point, but that was futile since he/she's in a really great hurry to close the issue, and will never admit the error.
For he/she: You have ripped me off with the two others "wikipedians" in the GPS integration issue, there are various of those links and proves. Sorry, but that shouldn't and can't be an issue. Even Dell will ship GPS integrated PDA devices or communicators, otherwise they will most likely retire from the Pocket PC market. The IDC quote that you want to discredit has reference to BT, Wi-Fi AND (directly to) GPS integration, and it's a backup from an IDC consultant, nothing less, not a backup from wikipedians that show little knowledge on the subject, lack of objectiveness and extremely poor criterium. For God, one of them seems to miss what evidence is.--201.240.254.170 19:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians always get it right. :-) Timeshift 19:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't make me laugh.

Ok, after I originally posted my 3rd opinion, Igor came up with this:

Evidence 5: Another 2005 Market Report

This was in 2005, in 2006 the advantage is clear for GPS integraded PDAs.
"In the meantime PDAs and other devices, known in marketing terms as 'unconnected handhelds', declined worldwide, although there was some growth in the EU, driven by the demand for PDAs with integrated GPS navigation. In the second quarter of 2005 almost half the number of PDAs sold had GPS included."
[7]
Source: Canalys and JISC

Which, as a direct quote, is not circumstantial evidence, and meets WP rules. Timeshift seems to have completely ignored this new piece of information. As far as I'm concerned, this new information, which specifically states that sales are declining except for models with GPS, meets WP criteria and should be included. This is what Timeshift asked for all along, and now that Igor has provided it I'm uncertian why there is still a problem, but judging from the continued heated discussion here, I take it there is. Why? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, a PDA is not a PocketPC. A PDA is a personal digital assistant. A PDA can be a palm, a PocketPC, a blackberry, pretty much any device that holds information electronically in a small form factor. Google define:pda
Secondly, unconnected handhelds, as I have already said, is a sweeping generalisation that refers to more than GPS - such as wi-fi and bluetooth.
Thirdly, the quote says that whilst PDAs sales (which again is not just PocketPC, and also mentioned unconnected, ie: refers to lack of BT and wi-fi) declined worldwide, there was PDA with integrated GPS growth in the EU. It does not state what Igor claims - he has taken selective quotes and made sweeping and incorrect generalisations. Timeshift 20:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
For me it's quite clear, since long time ago, that those are not raisonable doubts.
Canalys defines communicated device as "converged smart mobile devices". Wireless, in that conetext, obviously means integrated mobile phone capabilities, they are not talking about Bluetooth or Wi-Fi.
--201.240.254.170 22:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Please make some sense in your replies when trying to justify your unjustifyable position. Decided to start adding your nonsense to the article again eh? I mean, just as one example out of many, you conveniently happen to miss the point that a PDA does not mean a PocketPC. If you want to try and win me over, please debate logically, in a sensical way that is easy to understand, and actually debate the points I raise, rather than answer a question different to the one I asked. Timeshift 16:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You missed what "unconnected" means in the article, therefore you missed the idea in your points.
What would be the object of bringing you more information, which I could, when you are not able to understand it?
What would be the object of additional explanations for you, when what you do is confuse?
This discussion is way too complicated for you; respectfully, you should give up and concede the defeat.
"LOVE" for a product, is not a rational feeling.
You can't force people to enter your, weak, logic.
It would be better for you to search the definition of unreasonable.
What's your real name?
--201.240.254.170 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Asking for a real name is not appropriate. ONUnicorn 14:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Neither would his/hers, various reckless deceiving, efforts be appropriate.--Igor Sotelo 02:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
If I was deceiving then other wikipedians would say so. Unfortunately they do not. I have constantly disproven your circumstantial evidence, to which so far you have been able to come up with anything to prove that POCKETPCs with NON-INTEGRATED GPS (but integrated wi-fi/bluetooth) are DECLINING in sales WORLDWIDE comparated to INTEGRATED GPS. Not PDAs, not non-integrated bundling wi-fi/bluetooth/gps in terms of general integration, not in the EU. You have no basis to show that POCKETPCs with NON-INTEGRATED GPS are DECLINING in sales, let alone worldwide. Until you can come up with this evidence i'm afraid you will continue to find no backers for your side of the argument, and until such stage as you do, your unsourced additions warrant reverting. Timeshift 02:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
1) If I accept to give him/her another explanation, it wouldn't be the first time he/she ignores it.
2) This wouldn't be the first untrue thing he/she has posted here or in the article.
3) It wouldn't be either the first time he/she misses to correctly perceive the support of other wikipedians, which he/she claims to have.
4) Nor it woud be the first time he/she wasn't able and willing to understand the written information I provided to fully support my point.
5) What he/she does, I already said it before.
6) The third opinion seems to have said it was enough for Wikipedia.
--Igor Sotelo 03:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I see you fail to respond to my last post - just goes to prove that I am in the right. Check and mate :-) Timeshift 07:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It's quite indicative to notice how good he/she sees and how lax are his/hers own standards over circumstantial evidence, when he/she pretends to "prove he/she's in his right".
I would accept to discuss that issue, or others, with other wikipedian.
--201.240.254.170 22:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
But the onus is on you to prove your point. I don't need the high standard of proof - you're the one making incorrect and outlandish claims that POCKETPCs with NON-INTEGRATED GPS (but integrated wi-fi/bluetooth) are DECLINING in sales WORLDWIDE comparated to INTEGRATED GPS. Not PDAs, not non-integrated bundling wi-fi/bluetooth/gps in terms of general integration, not in the EU. You have no basis to show that POCKETPCs with NON-INTEGRATED GPS are DECLINING in sales, let alone worldwide. General claims that do not state what you are saying are not valid sources. That is the bottom line. No wikipedians have agreed with you. ONUnicorn at first thought ONE piece of your evidence proved your point, but when I told him why it wasn't valid as per above, he said "Obviously he thought he had correct information, he needed you to tell him why his information was incorrect". There is a reason why nobody else has come on to this discussion page and agreed with your point. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO POINT! How much longer is this going to go on? Timeshift 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Off course, what he/she says is false.
Unfortunately, once again I'm forced to respond to his/hers, let's call it, for keeping harmony, argumentation; and this time to say that his/hers interpretations have missed the idea on the information I have provided to fully support my point.
To discuss further details, there would be no problem from my side, however I would prefer this discussion to be done under reasonable terms, something that, under the risk of being unjust, would say wont be possible with him/her.
--201.240.254.170 02:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm opening a content Request for Comment. I don't think this is getting anywhere, and think additional eyes would be beneficial.

Request for Comment:Decline in sales[edit]

This is a disagreement over which of the two versions represented in this diff should be in the article.

User:Igor Sotelo, sometimes editing as IP 201.240.254.170 wants the article to say that "the market tendencies have already shifted, from classic pocket PC devices like the X51v, to Smartphones, newer Pocket PC's that integrate GPS or are based on the Windows Mobile Phone Edition." He has provided various bits of evidence for his assertion. At first these seemed like Original Research, but subsequent references seemed stronger. He claims he can provide more research if needed, but fears it will be ignored and discounted.

User:Timeshift9 wants the article to say, "Some Pocket PC's integrate a GPS that can be based on the Windows Mobile Phone Edition," effectively eliminating all reference to market tendancies and sales. He asks Igor Sotelo to provide references for his assertions, and has refuted most of those references as original research. More recently however, he has questioned the usefulness of a reference by saying that a PDA and a Pocket PC are not the same thing, and a reference saying PDA sales have declined cannot be applied to Pocket PCs.

References supplied by Igor Sotelo and refutations supplied by Timeshift[edit]

1. "Can be seen the demand for Pocket PC's, excluding Smartphones Global handhelds market in Q2 2006 "Q2 2006 saw the worldwide handheld devices market experience its tenth consecutive quarter of YTY decline" Source: IDC" 2. "Gives an general idea of the demand for GPS integrated devices Portable GPS navigation market statistics YTY Rise by 96% Source: IDC"

Refutation: "I cannot see any evidence to show that market demand for PocketPC with non-integrated GPS is in decline in comparison to PocketPC with integrated GPS."

3. "Interpetation of the IDC Analyst [Worldwide Handheld Market Experiences Tenth Quarter of Year-Over-Year Decline, According to IDC] "The inclusion of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and GPS have kept handheld devices relevant, particularly for core users." Source: IDC"

Refutation: "Nothing there refers to GPS on it's own ... it does not say or even infer that the non-integrated GPS PocketPC market is declining in comparison to the integreated GPS PocketPC market."

4. "Another 2005 Market Report - This was in 2005, in 2006 the advantage is clear for GPS integraded PDAs. "In the meantime PDAs and other devices, known in marketing terms as 'unconnected handhelds', declined worldwide, although there was some growth in the EU, driven by the demand for PDAs with integrated GPS navigation. In the second quarter of 2005 almost half the number of PDAs sold had GPS included." Mobile and PDA Technologies: Looking Around the Corner Source: Canalys and JISC"

Refutation: "A PDA is not a PocketPC. A PDA is a personal digital assistant. A PDA can be a palm, a PocketPC, a blackberry, pretty much any device that holds information electronically in a small form factor. Secondly, unconnected handhelds, as I have already said, is a sweeping generalisation that refers to more than GPS - such as wi-fi and bluetooth. Thirdly, the quote says that whilst PDAs sales (which again is not just PocketPC, and also mentioned unconnected, ie: refers to lack of BT and wi-fi) declined worldwide, there was PDA with integrated GPS growth in the EU. It does not state what Igor claims - he has taken selective quotes and made sweeping and incorrect generalisations."

5. :Gartner Market Analysis Q1 2006 Gartner PDA Report for Q1 2006 "Mio Technology has taken the lead in PDAs with integrated GPS capabilities and is faring especially well" "The bulk of Dell's sales were its flagship model X51v" 1Q05- 1Q06 Growth (%) Mio Technology +81.2 1Q05- 1Q06 Growth (%) Dell -34.0 Source: Gartnet Report transcribed by Palm Infocenter. Gartner defines the PDA's somewhat different than IDS. Gartner is well known independent market research company.

Refutation: You still don't understand the concept of circumstantial evidence do you?

Additional issues[edit]

Here are some excerpts from conversations not on this talk page:

"What would change if I provide, let's say another 5-6 links to support my point? It's not complicate to find additional evidence. It can be done with google. And it's only part true that PDA's are not Pocket PC's, because the majority are. I already found onther quote from IDC researcher that refers to only GPS (without mentioning BT and Wireless) and it's from the same person." (Igor Sotelo - excerpt from e-mail conversation with ONUnicorn)

"Note that he was reverting my edits after only minutes. When I first published the information, I was quite surprised, because it took him less than 2 minutes to put a discuss icon and start a bothering discussion on the pocket PC talk page. After I posted the "evidence" he asked for, it took him an extremely short time to say no and "reaccomodate" the article. And in his reaccomodation he deleted the reference I had put about smartphones and communicators too." (Igor Sotelo - excerpt from e-mail conversation with ONUnicorn)

"...a Pocket PC is a type of PDA. As common sense, market research or legal issues wouldn't follow the same logic of a programmer, where equal means that the comparative has to be 100% accurate. Not a single piece of information that he has provided would sustain the same rigour he has applied to the part of the sentence I have put." (Igor Sotelo - excerpt from e-mail conversation with ONUnicorn)

"We have exhausted all forms of communication as far as I can see. I have repeated myself many times and find myself getting nowhere. I am at a loss for what else to say to him. I can barely get an understandable response out of him as it is." (Timeshift - from ONUnicorn's talk page)

RFC Responses[edit]

86.135.232.131's edits to the article are excellent and IMHO resolves any further dispute. Timeshift 20:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

pocket pc's[edit]

what are some advantages of it?

new site[edit]

i found great site.. www.pocketpc-world.com and it has around 10 000.. if some1 can add it...

why did you remove our link?[edit]

Hello, why did you remove link to Handster.com? It is independent Pocket PC software portal, while you keep links to resellers of other portals? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Victor sh (talkcontribs) 13:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I know this is old, but I just wanted to respond as to why I believe this link was removed for future reference. Those who are unclear about this should read Wikipedia's guide to external links. The number one problem with this site is that it falls under the category: "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." Brianreading 18:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Spamlinks[edit]

Hi, to me it seems that the vast majority of the links are just spamlinks (no encyclopedic value, too much advertising, blogs, forums ...). I did a cleanup following Wikipedia:Spam Matteo 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a Microsoft trademark[edit]

"Pocket PC" is not a Microsoft trademark — whatever the existing reference (Pocket Presence AB) claims, Microsoft's own trademark list does not list it (nor anything with "pocket" or "pc"). I'm removing that reference, but does anyone know who (if anyone) does have the trademark? -- Perey 02:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pocket PC may not be owned by Microsoft, but it's unofficially theirs. --Ben414 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The use of the term "trademark" is not regulated in the US; anybody can call something their "trademark". It may not be an officially registered trademark, however. — Wenli (reply here) 03:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Pocket PC is a registered trademark held by the publishers of the former Pocket PC magazine, now named Smartphone & Pocket PC magazine. I love these gadgets. TimidGuy (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Obsolescence coming?[edit]

I have a PPC, and do check out the stores here in Milwaukee for them. I dunno if it's 'cuz we're we're smaller, but I don't see them in stores lately. Palm, yes, PPC, no. I was in Chicago recently, and don't think I saw any there either. --Ben414 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Versions Section[edit]

I renamed the "Versions" section to "Operating System Versions" to make more sense. This section specifically talks about operating system versions officially released by Microsoft, and not about versions of Pocket PC hardware. It should be noted that this article should be mainly about the hardware device, and not the operating system, as we already have a Windows Mobile article that is suited to fill that role better. Therefore, I put a link to the Windows Mobile article as the main article for this section as well. Brianreading 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Modern_Pocket_PC.png[edit]

This file belongs to HTC and can be found here http://www.htc.com/www/product/tytnii/overview.html If the person who uploaded this file truly does have any authorization to do so he or she should provide some sort of proof.Everett3 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Header: "Many" vs. "Some"[edit]

I edited a sentence in the main header which read (referring to the Pocket PC): "...It has many of the capabilities of modern desktop PCs." In the place of "Many" I have inserted "Some." So, it now reads "It has some of the capabilities of a modern desktop PC." Anyone who has ever used a Pocket PC knows that a Desktop PC and a Pocket PC are not the same thing, and the two do not share "Many" of the same features. For instance, no PocketPC I've ever seen has a mouse cursor (never mind having a mouse) unless you add one on with third-party software, and that's just one example. I could go on and on. In short, a Pocket PC simply does not have "Many" of the same features that a desktop PC does; That much should be obvious to anyone who's ever used one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talkcontribs) 00:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Should this article be merged with Windows Mobile?[edit]

Should this article be merged with Windows Mobile? If not, my suggestion would be to move all the old Pocket PC information out of the Windows Mobile article, and into this one, and replace it with a link that says something like "For earlier versions of the OS, see Pocket PC". So either define a split, and have separate information in each article, or delete this one.--Lester 07:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Both are good. Maybe do the latter. Windows Mobile has gone so far beyond Pocket PC and now has such a different identity, that it seems like all the Pocket PC info could be moved from that article into this one, per WP:SUMMARY. TimidGuy (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-order the OS section[edit]

Why do we have the newest models written first at the top and the latter ones at the bottom? That makes no chronological sense. The reader is introduced to the newest model and then mysteriously goes backwards in time. It doesn't conform to how other articles are written. 68.42.250.113 (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

File:O2xda2i.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:O2xda2i.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)