In some of the threads I've read that EVDO is much better then it's predecessor but that the limiting factor is the speed in which the pages can be rendered while browsing due to browser limitations and processor speed. If this is true then why would I want to browse using WIFI when the EVDO is already paid for, x dollars a month? In others words, if I'm not downloading large files, do I get any benefits from using WIFI over EVDO?
wifi is still faster than evdo, depending on the speed of the network. At home my cable is 3m. Plus wifi does not have the latency issues associated with EVDO.
Dont know, seems to be an inherent flaw. You have a very good question, why bother with an EVDO and/or WiFi enabled device if you cant achieve those speeds when you have the OS and browser as limiting factors?
Best you can do is wait for 3rd party browsers, try Opera for smartphone and hopefully Minimo will come out soon.
EVDO is a new technology that is being implemented. Although on paper it looks like an ideal replacement for Wifi, there are several factors that still secure the need for Wifi.
1) EVDO is not in all areas, so if you are one of the unlucky ones that doesn't live within a large metropolitan area, you can forget EVDO speeds, leaving you with the old 1xRTT speeds that is much slower than wifi.
2) Inside buildings of certain construction and many homes, signal quality degrades quite substantially. This degradation could cause you to drop from EVDO to 1xRTT which would leave you with a slow connection.
3) Some building security policies prohibit the use of unauthorized signals from being transmitted, where they may have already done the environmental testing for wifi and deemed it safe.
4) Some businesses will only allow PDA's on to their network only if they can lock their MAC address for security purposes. This may be needed to sync company email with a PDA using a 3rd party app, something that network access via EVDO would not support without a lot of security testing.
As far as browsing goes, these devices were not meant to be laptop, tablet, desktop computers. An entire technology (WAP) has been developed to provide information and speed to mobile devices. Until we can figure out how to cram a Pentium 4 processor, a gig of ram, a battery that will supply it and last 2 days, we are going to have to make do with what we have.
But honestly, I haven't really noticed that big of bottle neck on my pocket pc when it comes to browsing using wifi.
People really REALLY have to stop mentioning WAP as an alternative, I mean come on, a 400mhz processor with a 1.2m connection and we still have to resort to WAP?!?! Even a vanilla cell phone can browse HTML with little problems and its not that slow.
I can see the proc speed as a limiting factor that we have to live with until power/battery issues are solved. But having a bottleneck due to PIE is unnacceptable. Vision has been around for years now, at least thru 2 windows mobile OS's, and EVDO has been talked about for a couple of years. If MS wants to dominate in this market they need to predict the future a bit better.
Originally posted by SpineDoc People really REALLY have to stop mentioning WAP as an alternative, I mean come on, a 400mhz processor with a 1.2m connection and we still have to resort to WAP?!?! Even a vanilla cell phone can browse HTML with little problems and its not that slow.
Well, however bad it may be, its still an alternative. I have had times where I absolutely cheered when I was able to get to a WAP site over some of these highly polluted web pages. There is a large community of WAP sites out there that are fast and efficient. Now, don't take this as me being a WAP advocate, I too feel its antiquated, but nothing has stepped up to the plate to replace it. Yes you can use PIE to view any page, but as you also state, it is dreadfully slow.
You also have to keep in mind that these devices are designed for the business world, and not the everyday consumer. Surfing the web in daily business accounts for a miniscule fraction of the total usage. Email , calendar, contacts, and the such are its primary purpose. I guess the day the business world says screw the calendar I want to surf the web, MS will start optimizing PIE.
Besides, its only a matter of time before an optimized browser gets released anyway.
Wonder if the EVDO Treo 700p will be any faster browsing (If there really is such a thing)
Last edited by DoverGeek : 09-25-2005 at 11:12 AM.
Monday is when the Treo 700 comes out so I can't wait to hear about this issue on the Treo 700.
Well, I agree with the EVDO / Wifi bottleneck issue. If we can't have an OS with built in software to take advantage of these higher speeds, it only sets us up for the NEXT best thing in the short term future.
let me see..a PPC-7000 with an upgraded browser perhaps to take advantage of the WIFI / EVDO features?
I was on EVDO, WIFI then 1X and it was not much of a difference and it appears the browser and software within the OS is the problem.
One other thing...my Treo 650 takes advantage of WAP...hate to say it but much faster.
__________________
"Apology accepted Captain Needa..." Darth Vader
Guys, in light of this topic I really started looking hard at Opera browser, it is MUCH faster than PIE, worth a try. I ponied up the 29 bucks for it, I was impressed so much.
I installed it to the miniSD card, but I think it was like 8m. It lines up the page as a column, but does it MUCH more intuitively than PIE. It also allows you to use the joystick to scroll up/down, unlike in PIE which only goes thru the page links (bleh). Have not tried any Java pages or streaming stuff yet.
It is really really intelligent with rendering full HTML pages. Especially Dovergeek should take a peek at this and reevaluate his statement that the 6700 is not meant as a laptop replacement. While this may be quite true for keyboard dependent apps like reports and such, for browsing the internet I really think Opera and a PPC can quite easily take over the task of a laptop.
OK, so maybe instead of leaving WIFI on all the time and getting all those network accesible messages I should just turn it on when I can't get EVDO. If nothing else it will save on battery usage. Can't sync with WIFI yet anyway.
Internal shares. DoverGeek alluded to it but to get to internal network shares its usually much easier to go through Wifi than through a VPN on your Pocket PC. For home users this is especially true. Setting up VPN is more of a pain than adding a MAC address to your Wireless Access Point.
Speaking of which, has anyone gotten LEAP to work with the 6700? I was going to mention that my company uses the CISCO VPN which I haven't gotten to run on WM 2003 (Let alone 5.0) but they also use LEAP for Wifi so its still a pain to get onto the network either way.
Also some people have used the Wifi (and EVDO but that's another story) for VOIP using skype. One user took the 6600 over to Europe and made phone calls through VOIP at hotspots.
I personally use my wifi for network admin tasks. Much faster to to RDP a server, move files, check internal email, etc. If I'm just browsing the net, you are pretty much correct that there is not much difference between wifi and EVDO with PIE.
So if you're somewhere where you have access to EVDO and WIFI but not to your charger-Does it use more power to have WIFI on and not the phone service or the other way around assuming your just using the browser?
Originally posted by IvanLasston Speaking of which, has anyone gotten LEAP to work with the 6700? I was going to mention that my company uses the CISCO VPN which I haven't gotten to run on WM 2003 (Let alone 5.0) but they also use LEAP for Wifi so its still a pain to get onto the network either way.
I am in the same dilemna. I work in a data center and we have Wifi available but it goes through Cisco AP's and does PEAP authentication by using our userid and a RSA secure id key that has a new pin number every 60 seconds. It would be extremely nice to be able to enter data from the floor using my PDA instead of undocking my laptop, or writing it down and walking to my desk.
The last time I looked, Movian was the only offering for VPN via Pocket PC, and i'm not totally sure they are still in business. According to Cisco, they still appear to be the only solution.
there is the anthavpn (old movian), the admit one vpn, and a few others. But none of them seem to support hmac-md5 which means I can't use any of them!
Originally posted by Curious Cat So if you're somewhere where you have access to EVDO and WIFI but not to your charger-Does it use more power to have WIFI on and not the phone service or the other way around assuming your just using the browser?
Now that is a great question! I would imagine that EVDO would require more since it has to go longer distances to establish a connection. Anyone got data on the power consumption during transmit and idle for the EVDO and Wifi on the 6700?
The only data I could find isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison, but it gives some idea.
PC5220 - Card used by VZW EVDO (PCMCIA) for Laptops
Operating Voltage: 3.3V
Typical Transmit Current: 470 mA (1xEV-DO mode)
Typical Standby Current: 143 mA (1xEV-DO/IS2000 hybrid mode)
Linksys PCMCIA WPC11 (802.11b PCMCIA)
Operating Voltage 3.3V
Typical Transmit Current: 430 mA
Typical Standby Current: 90 mA
Originally posted by DoverGeek Now that is a great question! I would imagine that EVDO would require more since it has to go longer distances to establish a connection. Anyone got data on the power consumption during transmit and idle for the EVDO and Wifi on the 6700?
The only data I could find isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison, but it gives some idea.
PC5220 - Card used by VZW EVDO (PCMCIA) for Laptops
Operating Voltage: 3.3V
Typical Transmit Current: 470 mA (1xEV-DO mode)
Typical Standby Current: 143 mA (1xEV-DO/IS2000 hybrid mode)
Linksys PCMCIA WPC11 (802.11b PCMCIA)
Operating Voltage 3.3V
Typical Transmit Current: 430 mA
Typical Standby Current: 90 mA
Additionally, there are power saving features/settings for the WIFI. My guess would be that the WIFI still draws more power but it would be interesting to get some facts.
so. it's been two months. Is the jury still out? Which sucks batteries faster? Glad I found this thread; I'm wondering if I should bother with wifi when "only browsing the web".
Login
Panel
