HP iPAQ rz1715 Pocket PC

[Derek Snyder]

Pocket PCs have always been known for two things: their power and versatility. In the past year, many Pocket PC vendors have been providing a myriad of models to choose from, whether based on power and performance or, in the case of HP's most recent release, budget. The HP iPAQ rz1715 is designed for someone who wants a rock solid Pocket PC without breaking the bank.

[pgh1969pa]

This is a totally unremarkable device. I think you were too kind in your review. I think that HP would have done better by not releasing it and holding the 1935 over for a little while longer. The price is too high and feature set is too low. If someone wanted my opinion, I'd tell them to skip this device and buy a 1940 or x30 with the cash. Way to go retro HP! I'd buy a more functional unit used on ebay before I would waste my money on this one!

[Derek Snyder]

Originally posted by pgh1969pa
This is a totally unremarkable device.

I couldn't agree more. I would use an iPAQ 1940 or even a 4150 any day over this device. They are both more sleek, and more powerful.

If this keeps up HP is going to have a bunch of Jornadas on their hands again, destroying the beauty and innovation Compaq started with their iPAQ line.

[pgh1969pa]

The iPAQ of old was the number one selling PPC because people liked what it offered and its appearance. I thought HP understood that! That's why they kept serving them up (36xx,37xx,38xx,39xx,54xx,55xx). Next, they demonstrated that they could improve on visual appeal and still offer feature rich devices with true value (19xx,22xx,41xx,43xx). The icing on the cake was they offered better support (upgrades & patches) than many who have played in the PPC segment. Now they want to show that they have bad taste and a limited sense of value. They killed the support and offer 1st generation styled PPCs.

So far I'm not impressed. After waiting to see what HP had to offer with WM2003SE, I not sure if I'm going to pass on WM2003SE devices, HPs, or both. The 47xx is nice but it's huge and expensive! For the price, I can buy a notebook! I can afford it but I decided that I would never spend that kind of money on a PPC that may be orphaned by it's manufacturer in 4 months. Toshiba has taught me well. It's ironic that they are offering upgrades and HP isn't

[Pony99CA]

Frankly, I'm shocked that HP would bother with the rz1715. For the same $279.99 that the 1715 costs, you can get the iPAQ 1945, which has 64 MB RAM, Bluetooth and a Samsung 266 MHz processor. See the HP consumer store page (http://www.shopping.hp.com/cgi-bin/hpdirect/shopping/scripts/generic_store/generic_subcategory_view.jsp?landing=handhelds&category=handhelds&subcat1=handhelds&catLevel=2&BV_SessionID=@@@@0827703809.1090916324@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccdadcmdlghkgecfngcfkmdflldfjk.0) to compare them.

The only things the 1715 seems to have going for it are Windows Mobile 2003 SE (although the product page (http://www.shopping.hp.com/cgi-bin/hpdirect/shopping/scripts/product_detail/product_detail_view.jsp?landing=null&category=handhelds&subcat1=handhelds&product_code=FA290A%23ABA&catLevel=3) says it's only WM 2003 Professional, not SE), a 950 mah battery instead of a 900 mah battery and possibly some extra applications.

Most every iPAQ offered something cool or different, but not this one. If it were priced at $149 or so, this might be a nice entry-level Pocket PC, but who would buy this over a Dell X30 at $249? Of course, maybe it's meant for people who can't research things online. :D

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Originally posted by pgh1969pa
After waiting to see what HP had to offer with WM2003SE, I not sure if I'm going to pass on WM2003SE devices, HPs, or both. The 47xx is nice but it's huge and expensive! For the price, I can buy a notebook!
Well, miniaturization costs money. That's why laptops cost more than desktops. While you might be able to find a new laptop for $649, it won't be a very good one. And try carrying it in your pocket or on your belt. :D

The price isn't out of line with most of the other high-end iPAQs, either. The iPAQ 3870 listed for $649 when it came out, the iPAQ 3970 was $699, the iPAQ 5450 was $649 and the iPAQ 5555 was also $649. So arguing that the 4700 is too expensive won't win much sympathy.

Would I like it to cost less? Of course. I just don't think it's outrageous.

Steve

[Ce]

mrE6yL <a href="http://fmfioqrwrijw.com/">fmfioqrwrijw</a>, opvhikshaxdx (http://opvhikshaxdx.com/), rlcwvibssgze, http://qerhfctngtgg.com/

[user5918]

gshKDY <a href="http://oevogoepfqul.com/">oevogoepfqul</a>, onkahimibnjl (http://onkahimibnjl.com/), yvedhbsjytim, http://owpazvvzftlj.com/

[Guest34234234]

UxZLHT <a href="http://jrmedqfvxmkh.com/">jrmedqfvxmkh</a>, iedritfwabjs (http://iedritfwabjs.com/), ftprpkwlxxwf, http://yhyoybpebbak.com/