ipaq sleeves as an example for hardware extensions

kenneth marken k-marken at online.no
Thu Jan 18 10:01:42 CET 2007

Christopher Heiny wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 January 2007 14:37, kenneth marken scribbled in crayon on 
> the back of a kid's menu:
>> Christopher Heiny wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 17 January 2007 13:48, David Schlesinger scribbled in
>>> crayon on
>>> the back of a kid's menu:
>>>> On 1/17/07 1:44 PM, "kenneth marken" <k-marken at online.no> wrote:
>>>>> hmm, i seems to be getting a bit of flak about this on osnews when it
>>>>> comes how bulky the phone can be. err, do people expect long lasting
>>>>> wifi from something with the bulk of a samsung ultraslim slider?
>>>> We enjoyed the WiFi sleeves for the Compaq iPaqs when I was working at
>>>> Palm. Took the battery life of the device down to about forty minutes.
>>> I used an iPaq for a year. Even with a sleeve with an extra battery in
>>> it, power was in short supply.  And the darn sleeve was so bulky, it
>>> was like carrying a brick in my pocket.
>> something tells your trying to say that sleeves is a bad idea...
> Gosh!  Was it that transparent? :-)
> Actually, I don't know if sleeves themselves are inherently a bad idea.  The 
> iPaq's sleeves certainly sucked, but it's entirely possible that better 
> implementations are possible.

true. the biggest problem right now is that the usb port is unpowered. 
therefor any optential sleeve will have to carry its own power supply.

outside of that, most of the hardware needed have become very small 
since the ipaq.

question is tho if the fexibility afforded by a sleeve system is worth 
the extra bulk.

yes the ideal device is something the thickness of a credit card that 
can house the computing power of a nuclear physics super cluster. but 
until one hits that spot, there will allways be a compromise between 
size and functions.

More information about the community mailing list