Previous owner of Tungsten E, Tungsten T3, IPAQ 1940.
Current owner of IPAQ 210 and IPAQ 111.
The IPAQ 210 Touch Screen outer layer when pushed by the Stylus tip, requires a significant amount of Deflection before contacting the inner layer, (as compared to my IPAQ 111).
This also results in requiring more Stylus Force, (as compared to my IPAQ 111).
Amount of Deflection required is more pronounced in inner/middle of the screen versus at the edges, indicating that the Touch Screen Outer Layer to Inner Layer distance varies.
Amount of Deflection is estimated at 1.0 mm.
This makes it difficult to print/write and use Transcriber on the Touch screen.
You can actually see the distortion in the Touch Screen when the Stylus pushes on the outer layer, due to the concave surface created, which reflects the light differently.
It feels as if one is depressing a taunt/tight plastic layer each time with the Stylus. And that one has to push this layer downward 1.0mm until hitting the layer underneath.
My IPAQ 111 only requires a very small amount of Deflection.
This is the first ever PDA which I have owned which requires a significant amount of Touch Screen Stylus Deflection, which makes myself question whether this is abnormal.
Would appreciate some feedback from other IPAQ 210 owners about there experience with the amount of Touch Screen Deflection required.
Note: If you are the author of this question and wish to assign points to any of the answers, please login first.For more information on assigning points ,click
here
There is a significant difference in the amount of pressure required for the 210 over any other Pocket PC I have owned also. With out a constant force on the stylus you drop objects that you might be dragging across the screen ie. scroll bars where as with my 4700 you can just lay the stylus tip on the screen to drag scroll bars. I don't know that the mylar cover is actually thicker but there is a large air bubble between it and the glass screen that makes the extra pressure necessary. This has got to be hard on the mylar cover. The fear of an early death of the mylar screen along with some of the other issues I'm having with the 210 as far as hardware compatibility, etc. is making me have second thoughts about the purchase and hoping that HP has a decent return policy.
At first I thought I would be thrilled with the upgrade the thrill quickly turned to its just a replacement for my 4700 and now after about a week of working with it I'm not sure it is a suitable upgrade and I am considering returning it.
Thanks for the Feedback Pat. It would be interesting to know if this is the Normal Touch Screen Deflection spacing that has been designed into the IPAQ 210 or whether this is poor Quality Control allowing a few through with the fault. I to have your concern, as per your comment "The fear of an early death of the mylar screen". It feels like there is a tight layer of Saran Wrap over the display and pushing on this layer will eventually result in fatigue and the upper layer failing. This has been a lesson for myself, never buy the first round of a new product. Instead wait until the bugs are ironed out first.
I think that the screen quality is extremely poor (very definitely inferior to my 4700, which sadly died on me after four years of use). I also think that HP should look into the issue. In addition, it seems to me that the screen is slightly cloudy. Had I known about these problems, I would not have bought the HP 210, and I would certainly encourage potential buyers to think twice before chosing this PPC, despite its other attractions.
For what it is worth I think the design is poor, as well - but it is the technology that is much more important.
All in all, very disappointing; I feel slightly conned.
Sorry about the death of your 4700. I'm afraid that the Grim Reaper might be waiting in the wings for mine since it was purchased a couple days after they were released.
I'm returning my 210. I'll reconsider if they fix the issues with the screen and CF Card firmware but I got burned on the WM5 upgrade for the 4700 can't get burned again. And I had my hopes up for an upgrade and the 210 sounded so promising.
this may be a dumb question, but isn't the Mylar cover just a protection for transportation and isn't it supposed to be removed before you start using the iPAQ?
What's in a 210 that's not in a 110? Besides the CF and the other 64 MB of RAM, that is.
The 110 is a good PDA. Lttle it is, but how can that not be good? The screen is not as big... so that's another difference. The battery has half the capacity - another one. Still, the 110 is a pretty good all-around PDA. It's very easy for me to use one-handed with apps that are made for that sort of control. Light. Balanced.
Its main limitation for me, common to some-many-most current devices (thank the French for helping keep your hearing longer) is the volume out the headphone jack is much lower than the older iPAQs, everything else the same. Also, if you run a tone sweep, you may notice the non-linearity in the output (it's a DSP problem with the guts in the 110). The problem is masked in normal use (i.e., music playback), but it's always there even if you don't hear it.
BTW, I tested a tone sweep on an iPAQ 310 (using a custom 40iplay app) and it was perfect there (that's expected for any PDA though). The 110 is the only one of my PDAs that does that. It's very pronounced so it's not something you could miss -- not if you listen to tone sweeps. In music you probably won't notice.
I've been reviewing an IPAQ 110 and agree with 40th floor -- it's a great pocket pc. It's got a beautiful screen, lots of memory, and very fast. A solid pocket pc in my book. I'd expect the IPAQ 210 to be all that and more.
There is supposed to be a plastic film over the glass screen of your pocket pc, I have been led to understand that it is Mylar if its a different type of plastic then oh well it is still plastic over the screen. When you buy a screen protector it is supposed to protect the plastic cover over the screen from scratches. Anyway that plastic screen should lay very close to the glass of the touch screen, on my 210 it is bowed outwards which requires quite a bit of pressure with the stylus to make contact with the screen.
if you hold it at an angle, do you see lots of little holes in the outer layer? If not then the screen protector is still on. The touchscreen itself (well, technically it is a pokescreen, not a touchscreen) has all these little holes that separate the digitzer areas.
I've been visiting a couple of different forums and I'm see that the screen sensitivity of this IPAQ is a hot topic.
One user mentioned that running through a couple of screen touch alignment cycles, being careful to place the stylus in the center of the touch area (circle), helped considerably. You might try that and see if it makes a difference.
I've just received my 214. My first thought was that there was some kind of screen protector that needed removing, but no, it seems not. My Loox 720 was much easier to use and I think HP have really got a problem here. Another issue seems to be the volume of the sound and microphone. Both much quieter than the 720, and barely useable with Skype. I tried a headset but no improvement. Hmm, I thought going for HP was a safe bet. Not so sure now.
Previous owner of HP-4700, Jornada, HP-200, HP-100, HP-41, HP-38, and other HP programmable calculators. Current owner of HP desktop and 30" monitor. I have like HP equipment, but...
I just returned my HP Ipaq 210 for a refund. Although the machine is faster, has more memory, connectivity and a absolutely beautiful screen, the "poke screen" is ridiculously sloppy. It's too loose in the middle and too tight on the edges and not responsive without extra effort that is not required on any other touch screen I've used. I can't imagine it getting better (tighter in the middle, looser on the edges and responsive to a touch instead a poke and then another poke.)
I upgraded my 4700 to Windows 6.0 with the help of free online ROM upgrade and zero help from HP. (HP's WM50 upgrade was a collosal failure.) My 4700 operating system is better now, but it still lacks the speed, memory and expansion of the 210 and is aging after 4 years of daily use.
The "touch" to the 4700 touch screen is superb and as good as the day I bought it. It hasn't changed even with a scratch or two. Again, I expect the 210 won't change either. HP should not have released the 210 with such a bad screen. As you pointed out, the IPAQ 110's screen is very good. They could and should make the 210 better. Or, come out with a responsive VGA screen on the 110. It's certainly more pocketable.
The 210 also lacks the quality feel of the 4700. It's not at all rugged like the 4700, yet it's bigger and definitely not pocketable.
I expected comestic and ergonomic design improvements in addition to the technical improvements. I'm losing faith in HP. I guess I'll just wait for the improved version.
Printable version
