The cost is absolutely a concern here. What have you paid for those other CF cards? I paid over $100 for my Wi-Fi card. D-Link probably sells hundreds of thousands of them. The total market for IR extender cards seems to be in the hundreds rather than hundreds of thousands.

I could have designed PDA-ir to be a fully CF+ compliant IO card. I would have had to submit it to a testing lab for FCC, CE, etc. compliance testing that cost about $6000. Given the low volume, all that would have increased the unit cost to about $200 each.

How many would you like at $500 each?

Mr. Houston,

Again you seem to harp on part of my response that has little or nothing to do with what I am talking about.

My concern again is not cost. I understand what you are saying about certification and I believe you.

I will try and state my concern as matter-of-factly as I can for your understanding.

Here it goes...pdawin told somebody in an email that this is a software problem. Therefore, something has changed, pinout, voltage, TX/RX, etc... from the 38xx to the 39xx so that the software is no longer corresponding with the device correctly. Yet, there is no distinction in the expansion sleeves for these two devices. There is also no disction in CF memory, wi-fi, microdrive, etc.. for these two devices. Therefore, this makes for backward compatibilty between the 38xx and the 39xx (i.e. if you upgrade the Ipaq you would still be able to use your external CF cards). I may not understand the detail involves as much as you, as indicitive of my statement of education. If logic is involved, would it not be sensible that this type of change to the interface would change many more CF devices than the PDA-ir?

Now it seems that there are difference between PDA's like the Jornada, Toshiba, etc...and one would have to maintain compatibility between them all. That I understand is costly, but costly to the point of the driver or software that is using it. The hardware stays the same for every product. Yet CF memory does not have to change and it doesn't have specific drivers for each PDA...interesting?

As for your questions. I paid $80 for my wi-fi card. How do you get $200 each when they only charge $25 per card? Would it really add $475 to the device?

USB, PCI, AGP, Firewire are the same for every PC. Apparently CF is not the same for every PDA. That is what I am concerned with Mr. Houston.

And if pdawin and PDA-ir made a package deal for let's say $75 I would pay for that. Still comes under the price for a "working" pronto pro. And perhaps I would get better customer service and replied emails if the price was a little bit higher. As it stands now I have yet to receive any responses to my emails for $20.

This message was edited by hammer995 on 09/13/02 08:53.57.

Mr Hammer995:

Let me try to explain it in a way that you might understand.

The HARDWARE IS DIFFERENT for every PDA!

Each PDA, even different models of the iPaq, maps CPU ports to CF slot pins differently. (By port, I am referring to memory addresses in the processor. You can search Google and find Intel's documentation on the Strong Arm processor to get an idea of what is involved.) This is documented for the iPaqs before the H39xx series but PDAwin has, so far, been unsuccessful in finding the necessary documentation for the H39xx series. They also have not found the necessary documentation for the Toshiba e740, Audiovox Maestro, HP Jornada 568, and other PDAs.

I know that PDAwin is working diligently on this problem. We even bought an e740 here and shipped it to them. But, unless they can find the technical documentation, there's little they can do. They do not have the engineering resources of NetGear, D-Link, etc.

Other CF IO devices comply with the CompactFlash organization's standards. PDA-ir does not. It would require a serial connection between the PDA and a microcontroller in the CF card. This adds manufacturing cost, requires regulatory approvals and would mean delays between the time you pushed a button and the time the IR was actually sent as the serial command would have to be sent to the CF card MCU which would then have to translate it and output it to the IR emitter. It would also require a major rewrite of PDAwin's software to handle the serial communications with the CF card. The cost would be far too high.

You can find the CompactFlash Organization's standards online. The FCC rules are also available online. They apply to almost anything that uses a clock. We chose a design that does not require regulatory approval and one that will also work with the PalmOS.

Frankly, if I had it to do over, I wouldn't. The sales volume is not worth the hassle.

Hi Dave.......

Well I for one am thankfull for your hardwork in bringing the PDA-ir to market..........even though at yet I am not in a position to use it!!......:-))

It is people like yourself (and writers of software) who provide the necessary components....bits and pieces.....etc.....as a "cottage industry".......that people like myself depend upon.

Seems to me that it is a real pity that some of the larger software houses have not taken on board the ability of a PDA/PPC to be used as a remote and developed the appropriate software. I am sure that PDA Win is probably only a one or two-man band.

Surely there are still enough older 38xx Ipaqs out there should anyone be sooooooo desperate to use the PDA-ir CF card. ...........a cheaper option too!!

It is frustrating that the 568 Jornada is not supported.....but hopefully in time it may be......or at least the 39xx Ipaq similarly. It has only just been released after all.

Keep up the good work.....

Andrew

That appears to be changing with United Electronics (Nevo), Philips (ProntoLite for Palms) and HarmonyRemote (beta software for Palms) entering. Both Philips and HarmonyRemote indicate they have plans for other platforms.

I have always thought a PDA made more sense as a remote than a dedicated device like the Pronto. I was using a Visor to send both IR and RF nearly three years ago.

[Link: laser.com]

Now that I've moved to the iPaq for this type of thing, my grandkids have inherited my Visors which still function as PDAs. The same cannot be said for obsolete Prontos.

I think you're right about PDAwin. I suspect they are not only small but that they all have day jobs. Harassing someone like that with multiple e-mails demanding the same type of customer service as is given by (some) large corporations is likely to be counter productive.

Hi Dave,

PDAWin may be small and anything else you said, but they are getting good money for their product and I think they should support it accordingly.
They even sold it to a company (G-Data) who market it under their own label. So I cannot see it as "hobby project". As I see it they sell their software in beta-state for at least a year and there comes the day when even the most patient customer wants to see some bugs fixed.
All I see is new features (voice) and new platforms (Loox, 740) but nothing works without flaws and the old bugs don't get fixed.

Wilhelm

Does G-Data sell it as their own program or do they sell it as a distributor or dealer in the same manner as other dealers and distributors?

Did you buy your copy from G-Data or from PDAwin?

What version do you have? You seem to be the only person complaining about bugs. Most of the other comments I see about the software praise it quite highly. There are even people who want to use it instead of the Nevo application on the H39xx iPaqs.

I think that quite a few of us have noticed bugs in the software. In CCF mode buttons sometimes seem to "forget" their commands. Another annoying bug is that the software also "forgets" that it has been registered & goes back into demo mode.

I have a H3970 & think that it is a better option than the very basic Nevo software. It keeps coming down to the same old problem...the IR range. PDA Win is really going to have to sort out the H39XX compatablilty issue quickly as possible otherwise their sales will eventually suffer. An older iPaq with an Electric Dog IR extender blows away the H39XX's Nevo IR range.

I really hope that they will sort this out ASAP. My iPaq is not being used as a remote & the Electric Dog IR extender is in the draw until a fix is found.

I haven't used it much in CCF mode so I can't comment on that but the only time mine has forgotten its registration is after a soft reset.

Well mine has never forgotten its registration, but to list some of the bugs:

1. Button-Action from the Touchscreen is sent, when the button is released not when it is pressed.
This has 2 disadvantages:
a) There is no repeat for a screenbutton
b) It is incompatible with Pronto.

2. Repeat frequency of the hardware buttons is taken from the WindowsCE settings and not from the learned IR-code. This results in not repeating properly eg. on Yamaha devices. Turning up or down the volume takes ages.

3. Green LEd on iPAQ 3800 and 3900 series doesn't show action properly as it does on the 3600 and 3700 series.

Only for Pronto emulation:

4. Switching between macro and device mode doesn't work.
5. Switching between devices sould be a pull down menue, not a listbox.
6. Beep command doesn't work.
7. Color-Palette is not reproduced compatibly.

Don't get me wrong: I find TVRemote much much better than the crappy nevo software, but I think at least the repeat issues should be resolved. This is basic stuff in my oppinion.

Wilhelm

Hi manc01,

I totally agree with you. I've been running the Nevo-software on my Ipaq 3970 for a couple of days now. I find the software acceptable, but not very flexible.

I do however find the Consumer-IR-emitter to be too weak ! Range/distance is not a big problem, but direction is. You have to point Ipaq STRAIGHT at the device you want to control.

This restriction makes the nevo-remote useless for many people.

I would therefore very much like to buy an electric-dog-extender and the PDAWin-software..... If is was working on the 3970 :-(