View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
myrrh Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 19, 2004 Posts: 41 Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:05 pm Post subject: ipaq gps? |
|
|
Hello,
What forms of gps units are available for the ipaq?
Thank you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dave Frequent Visitor
Joined: Sep 10, 2003 Posts: 6460 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All kinds. Take a look at our reviews.
Anything from Compact Flash Cards, Bluetooth, cabled Serial connections, Sleeves (depending on iPAQ). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
myrrh Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 19, 2004 Posts: 41 Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:47 pm Post subject: ipaq gps? |
|
|
Okay, Dave, I checked out the reviews. I think I found all the possibilities for an ipaq GPS-please tell me if I missed any.
1) sleeve
2) CF
3) Bluetooth
4) cabled to handheld GPS
5) cabled to car powered GPS
Thank you! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dave Frequent Visitor
Joined: Sep 10, 2003 Posts: 6460 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's it. You will find that if you're doing a lot of walking and want rich high resolution maps, then a Bluetooth Receiver would be better, but if it's primarily for in-car use a cabled or bluetooth solution would be better. CF is good mainly for outside of a car, but can be used inside but won't have an optimum view of the sky but will drain the Pocket PC battery more than Bluetooth as it doesn't have it's own battery source. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
myrrh Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 19, 2004 Posts: 41 Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
|
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm somewhat overwhelmed by the amount of information at Pocket GPS World. I've read a lot of the reviews but I haven't found any explanation of the advantages of a sleeve over a CF or vice-versa. And I'm not clear on the performance of one versus the other. Looking at the TTFF tables it seems some sleeves are slower than the CF units and some are faster. Perhaps someone can clear this up for me?
Thank you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dave Frequent Visitor
Joined: Sep 10, 2003 Posts: 6460 Location: UK
|
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Performance wise you won't see a lot of difference. Sleeves consume about the same battery power as a CF card, although bear in mind if you have a CF card in the slot that's in the sleeve, then this will consume more power.
The older Navman 3000 and 3400 sleeves were slow and sometimes unpredictable, but the newer 3450 sleeves and Emtac/CoPilot sleeves are much better.
It really depends on what you want, the sleeves give you a CF slot which can come in handy, where as if you want to use an iPAQ 38xx, 39xx, 54xx, 55xx then you won't natively have a CF slot, so if you wanted to use a CF card you'd have to use a CF Sleeve, the GPS sleeves combine basically a GPS card and a CF sleeve into one.
If you want to go for a sleeve (and some people do prefer this over a CF card), then go for the 3450 or Emtac. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
myrrh Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jan 19, 2004 Posts: 41 Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
|
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You say some people prefer sleeves over CF cards. I get that an advantage of the sleeve is that you automatically get a CF slot. Are there any other reasons? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dave Frequent Visitor
Joined: Sep 10, 2003 Posts: 6460 Location: UK
|
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A lot of people tend to have CF sleeves anyway so they're just substituting one for another, but if you don't have a CF sleeve, then a sleeve would be a bonus.
I suppose the only other reason is that the GPS sleeve comes with a windscreen mount, so it's an easy way to mount the Pocket PC in-car compared with a CF sleeve. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|