The Latest Incarnation of a Proud Line (2/4)
Hewlett Packard's Jornada 568 Pocket PC
Jump to: PAGE 1 | PAGE 2 | PAGE 3 | PAGE 4
THE DISPLAY
Your Pocket PC's screen
is its window into another world. Without an excellent
screen, a Pocket PC is more or less useless. All applications
now support color in at least a limited respect, so
you demand a colorful, rich display on which 65,536
colors can proudly be shown at any given time. The
old Jornada was plagued with a CSTN (Color Super-Twist
Nematic) passive matrix display that was dull and
difficult to use outdoors. In addition, HP promised
that the display did in fact display 16-bit color,
as advertised on the box and in product material,
but soon after the 540 series' release, HP retracted
their claim and agreed that it only displayed 12-bit
color, due to a driver issue. Thankfully, the 560
series promises a 16-bit color, TFT (Thin Film Transistor)
active matrix display. The jump from 12-bit (iPAQ)
to 16-bit (568) is a huge improvement, and makes nearly
all images and rich websites display in much richer
color. For a little demonstration, below you can see
several comparisons of 12-bit images to 16-bit images.
Your monitor will need to display at least 16-bit
for you to notice any difference. Because the screens
on PDAs are very sensitive LCDs, slight changes in
resolution yield big overall presentation changes.
 |
 |
|
16-bit
image displaying on Jornada 568
|
16-bit
image displaying on iPAQ H3650
|
 |
 |
|
16-bit
image displaying on Jornada 568
|
16-bit
image displaying on iPAQ H3650
|
 |
 |
|
16-bit
image displaying on Jornada 568
|
16-bit
image displaying on iPAQ H3650
|
All of these screen shots were taken from HP's Camera Image Viewer, running on the iPAQ and 568. 16-bit greatly minimizes color banding and helps to enhance deep hues. I'm no image expert, but the colors exhibited by the 568 definitely beat those of the iPAQ. However, the story isn't quite done yet! Senior News Editor Elad Yakobowicz and I have been discussing this unit off and on, and we're a bit disappointed by the sharpness and richness of the Jornada's color. Hands down, the 568 beats the iPAQ in terms of color quality, but the 568's screen has some issues. It was impossible to properly photograph this, but the Jornada 568 has a border of purple (not black, as with all other PDAs I've ever encountered) which cuts a little into the active screen, slightly distorting colors at the very top (more towards the upper left) of the screen. More importantly, the top of the screen has a shadow cast on it (seen from any angle!), which I was able to document. Below is a photo of the 568 and iPAQ, side-by-side.
Notice how the upper portion of the 568 (left) screen
is left dark, almost without proper lighting, while
the iPAQ holds a perfectly uniform glow throughout.
Elad and I have speculated that perhaps the side
light comes from only three of the four sides, but
other than that, we are baffled! To picture what
this might look like, imagine seeing the top half
of the Start icon 
being almost green! The phenomenon is bizarre, but
even several Brighthand
users noticed this. Check out this thread
for the beginnings of some complaints. The colors
aren't as bold and rich as those of the Casio
E-115 and E-125, and I think that has to do
with the intent to save space and weight. Colors
are a bit washed out, even when compared to the
iPAQ H3650. Technically, I believe the 568's screen
is a bit brighter (and is equally as impressive
outside as the iPAQ, thankfully), but for indoor
use, I actually prefer the screen of the 3650, unless
I am looking at a friend's photo album. I am very
curious to see how the new
iPAQ's screen stacks up. Also bear in mind that
the screen size of the 560 Series is smaller than
the iPAQ line: it's about a quarter of an inch smaller
diagonally. However, because both run at 240 x 320
resolution, the 568 will have smaller pixels, so
the result is a more detailed screen (.216 versus
.24 dot pitch). I found this to be the case.
Think your dust problems have disappeared with the 568? They have--kind of. I have been assured by HP representatives that the TFT screen is fully sealed and enclosed, unlike the dusty iPAQs, but still, due to the TFT LCD display creation process, some super fine pieces of dust fall beneath "tolerable limits." Thus, while you won't see any inch-long pieces of hair under your screen, expect to see a few pixel-size flecks of white.
In terms of the screen surface, it's very high quality. Unlike the iPAQ screen, which "caves" a tiny bit (some people have called it "milky," the 568's screen does not give and feels like writing on a firm surface. There is sufficient texture to make it feel almost like writing on paper, but this is a little difficult to gather since the nearly weightless stylus creates little friction between stylus tip and screen. I can't wait until the first 568 stylus replacements hit the market.
BUILD QUALITY
I've owned several Hewlett
Packard products in the past, and I have never complained
about their quality. Components fit well together
(no creaking of plastic like with early iPAQs), few
hardware issues have popped up (like the multi-key-pressing-lack-of-support
on the iPAQ), and for the most part, HP single purchasers
usually come back in the future. As a result of this
HP quality, I am confident that I won't be reading
reports of major problems with the 560 series. However,
that's not to say that the 568 is perfect.
First and foremost, the screen is a bit of a concern. While a huge improvement over previous Jornada Pocket PCs, the 568 doesn't have the industry's finest screen, and it might not ever. I don't like the issue of top-screen shadowing, and I think the colors could be a bit deeper and full. Secondly, holding the 568 in your hand brings one exclamation immediately to mind: "Wow this thing is light!" Believe it or not, I like the weight of my H3650! It's kind of like why I'll exert great effort to find and use my Waterman ball-point pen over an equally usable, but much more plastic-y Bic ball-point. It's great to write on the screen and not wonder why the stylus isn't going through the other side--this I miss in the 568. I like to hold a solid PDA in my hand, and the 568 feels a bit cheap in this respect. While the sides of the 568 feel metallic, the 568 feels more hollow than the iPAQ. Why not be more like the cradle: solid and sturdy? I'm confident my 568 won't fall apart, but I'd like to be reminded of this, not call this into question, every time I go to use it.
Finally, the "removables" of the 568 are a bit annoying. So many things detach from the unit--so many things to lose! The cradle has that expansion hatch. Why not use something akin to the iPAQ cradle, which "grabs" both a naked and an expanded iPAQ? The CompactFlash slot should have a spring-loaded cover that comes out from inside of the device, like on the PCMCIA Sleeve for the iPAQ. I've never damaged this cover in any way, mostly because it's very well protected. I'm wondering if HP could have done something more clever with the Expansion cover on the back of the 568, too. And the stylus: what a piece of junk! I realize HP is attempting to save weight, but I wouldn't have complained if they used in their specification list the weight of the Jornada without the stylus, such that they could have made it a bit more massive. Would you have complained?
SIZE COMPARISON
Perhaps the dimension
numbers on the previous page don't do it for you.
Never fear: photographs are here! I have assembled
several comparison shots, showing the different bodies
of the UR There @migo, Compaq iPAQ, HP Jornada 568,
and the Casio BE-300 (not a Pocket PC, but an intriguing
unit--stay tuned for its review!).
The @migo is a beast, but you'd expect it to, with its PCMCIA slot built-in
Each has its own very distinctive styling features. Both the iPAQ and 568 have great curves
Notice the gentle sloping of the 568 . . .
AUDIO
Since we were first introduced
to Windows CE devices with stereo headphone jacks,
I've been hooked on little Windows Media Player for
Windows CE. It makes an outstanding MP3 player! Now
with support for MP3, WMA, WMV, WMP, and ASF as well
as such streaming audio and video formats as ASX,
WAX, WVX, WMX, and WM, you can do some amazing things
with the new Windows Media Player 8 for Pocket PC!
As such, you'll want to experience the new multimedia
content with the best possible sound quality. The
iPAQ, as many know, has probably the loudest speaker
of any PDA on the planet. I'm sorry to say that neither
the built-in speaker nor headphone output is more
than a fraction of the loudness of the iPAQ. This
isn't to say that the output isn't rich--it is! I
played several techno tracks on both the 568 (at maximum
volume, which was quite comfortable), and the iPAQ
(at one third volume, which was also a good volume).
Despite the differences in decibel output, the HP
seemed to have bassier, cleaner, higher fidelity sound.
All tracks were played through some pretty high-end
Sony MDR-V600 studio monitor headphones.
Also, while the 568 doesn't exhibit that horrible popping of the amplifier between tracks, there is a loud pop when the amplifier first goes on (it will stay on while in WMP), and then throughout the duration, you will notice a constant hissing that is more noticeable than that of--say--a dedicated MP3 player. If you pause a track with the volume all the way up, again not that terribly loud, you'll hear the hissing clearly. Other than these issues, we've come to expect very high quality stereo output from Pocket PCs, and the Jornada is no disappointment here.
WMP 8 is nearly identical to WMP 7.1, with the exception of a cooler (skinnable) interface and greater audio/video format support.
DEVICE SPEED
Think your iPAQ H3600 series
is the fastest device on the block? Think again! Virtual
Office Systems has created a set of benchmarks
called VOBenchmark.
While the nature of the individual tests aren't well
documented, it's an easy way to compare apples to
apples. Here are the results from the 568, iPAQ H3650
(upgraded to Pocket PC 2002), and UR There @migo (Pocket
PC 1.0). Each number represents how many times within
a given unit of time the specific operation was able
to be performed. Higher numbers are better. Average
of best three recordings taken.
| Test | HP Jornada 568 | Compaq iPAQ H3650 | UR There @migo |
| CPU: Floating Point | 8.05 | 8.04 | 8.02 |
| CPU: Integer | 15.55 | 15.55 | 15.50 |
| Graphics: Bitmaps - BitBlt | 24.20 | 17.24 | 55.74 |
| Graphics: Bitmaps - StretchBlt | 1.10 | 0.85 | 0.86 |
| Graphics: Filled - Ellipse | Rectangle | Rounded Rectangle | 1.26 | 1.45 | 0.99 | 0.46 | 0.47 | 0.45 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.51 |
| Memory: Allocation | 8.95 | 8.98 | 8.67 |
| Memory: Fill | 0.43 | 0.54 | 0.36 |
| Memory: Move | 0.74 | 0.87 | 0.68 |
| Text | 3.43 | 1.93 | 2.74 |
While there is no clear speed winner, the 568 does seem to pull ahead. I'd be very curious to see what kind of numbers the H3800 series pulls away with.
BATTERY LIFE
Fourteen hours is a pretty bold
claim for any Pocket PC, as they are typically used
quite a bit while on, rather than left idling without
the screen on, which is how HP got their figure. However,
I have had my 568 on for over 11 hours, with me using
it for light tasks, and with the side light on at
its lowest settings (but on!). I'm very impressed
with the battery capacity of this device, and I wouldn't
be surprised if the expected battery life is on par
with the iPAQ H3800's new 1400 mA Lithium Ion battery.
