Brighthand Reviews the HP iPAQ rz1715

[Ed Hardy]

While the iPAQ rz1715 is definitely a "bare-bones" model, it's good enough to satisfy most first-time handheld users, and it has some growth potential so it won't have to be replaced in a few months.

Read more at http://www.brighthand.com/article/iP...eview?site=PPC

[tthiel]

Well that should get you some advertising from HP. Giving a good review to a product that everyone else thinks is junk.

[Take1]

To be fair for what it's intended market , this review does pretty well.

The price HP thinks it can charge for their outdated QVGA devices is my biggest gripe about these units (apart from the fact that they exist in the first place).

[imported_geniv]

Originally posted by tthiel
Well that should get you some advertising from HP. Giving a good review to a product that everyone else thinks is junk.

yeah I"m sure BrightHand gets some revenue from HP for advertisement or what ever gig that they have between them.

I"m sure brighthand shaked some sugar and snow on this Piece of ****. and try to pass it on this review as chocolate ice cream. I hate to see the sucker that eat this thing up.

geez, I like the way BH tried to pass the InfraRed Port as "Wireless networking" and that 32 meg is "enough" and 203 mhz is fast enough. man I thought I was reading a PDA review from 2 years ago.

was reading slashdot.org the other day and it have a link to a website.
forgot which website it was but it one of those major one. it have this top 10 worst new product of the year and this disgrace of an ipaq was on the list.

If I was to do an unbias review. It would be a 3/10 for something like this.
- crappy processor
- useless amount of ram.
- fugly design.
- expensive for you u get.

Now if the unit is $150 it would be a completely different score


4 months ago I bought an Axim X30 high for $264

- 620mhz cpu
- 64 meg ram
- wifi and bluetooth.


I hope anyone that read my message will have a good laugh. as Brighthand might just delete my post.

[Siliconaddictio]

However, the rz1715's price was recently cut to $250. And, even better, a search of CNET Shopper.com shows several sites offering this iPAQ for less than $220.

At that price, the rz1715 compares well with models like the Dell Axim X30 and the palmOne Tungsten E.

Ed. It?s your review and you are entitled to your opinion but how in the name of all things good and holy could you type that last sentence? It feels like one of those soul-selling sentences. I'm not going to call you a liar or anything. But come on. Compares well??
Maybe if the Axim had a broken screen, and a busted stylus, and a shorted out speaker, and gave the owner electric shocks when they turn the device on. Maybe then it would compare well. More accurately it compares well to the:
but to even the bottom of the barrel Axim it just plain sucks rocks.

[Pony99CA]

The iPAQ rz1715's problem isn't that it's slow, under-featured or ugly. The 1715's problem is that it's a bad value. You do not get a decent feature set at a good price, contrary to what Ed says.

If you don't believe me, compare the rz1715 with the iPAQ 1935 and 1945. The 1935 ran at the same speed, but you got 56 MB available memory instead of 25 MB (which includes 10 MB in the iPAQ File Store -- usable only for storage -- although Ed said the 1715 had 27 MB RAM available for the user plus 10 MB of File Store, for a total of 35 MB). It also listed at $249, $30 less than the 1715 was introduced at (although HP is selling them now for $249). So you were getting less RAM for more money.

The iPAQ 1945 had 56 MB RAM, a 268 MHz processor and Bluetooth for $299. For $20 more than the 1715, you got more RAM, a faster processor and Bluetooth. That was a better value.

Yes, the rz1715 has Windows Mobile 2003 SE, but many people seem to think that's useless (although I'm not one of them). It is less useful on a small QVGA display, though. You also get a 1000 mah battery instead of a 900 mah battery. I don't think those features are enough to justify the price differences compared to the iPAQ 1935 and 1945.

To be fair, Ed does admit that the 1715 was a bad value at $279, but seems to think $249 is fair (which I don't). He also mentioned that you could find it as low as $220 if you did a price search, but I still think that's too much for what you get.

The rz1715 would have been a great entry-level Pocket PC at $199, I think. At $279, or even $249, it's simply a bad value. If you don't need Windows Mobile 2003 SE, get the iPAQ 1945 (for the Bluetooth) or the Viewsonic V36 (for the built-in digital camera). I got the V36 for my daughter Christmas 2003 for around $150 (after a Staples price match and a $100 rebate), and think that was an outstanding value. The rz1715 doesn't come close.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Originally posted by jonathan1
More accurately it compares well to the [Palm Zire....]

Of course, except for price, what didn't compare well to the Zire?

Steve

[Ed Hardy]

Originally posted by Pony99CA
The 1935 ran at the same speed, but you got 56 MB available memory instead of 25 MB (which includes 10 MB in the iPAQ File Store -- usable only for storage -- although Ed said the 1715 had 27 MB RAM available for the user plus 10 MB of File Store, for a total of 35 MB).

The rz1715 has 27 MB of RAM available to the user, not 25 MB. It's actually 27.26 MB.

[Ed Hardy]

Originally posted by tthiel
Well that should get you some advertising from HP. Giving a good review to a product that everyone else thinks is junk.

Actually, HP dislikes Brighthand because we leak so much information about their upcoming models. As a result, it does no advertising with us, though some comes indirectly through our ad service. HP is the only handheld maker that we have to buy the devices if we want to review them, rather than having the company loan us the device. And its PR people refuse to answer any of my questions. So if anything, I should be biased against the rz1715.

But having used the device (something I doubt any of you have done) I found it to be just fine, for its price range.

Yes, I know that PC Magazine put the rz1715 on its list of 10 Worst Products of the Year, but (obviously) I think this was totally undeserved. I found that this iPAQ doesn't have a "glacially" slow processor, and I would hardly call 7 hours of battery life short, considering typical performance these days for high-end models is about 3 hours.

As I said in the review, the rz1715 is light on memory, but SD cards are pretty darn cheap these days. Buy.com keeps sending me emails offering 128 MB cards for less than $10, after rebates.

Plus, this amount of RAM is typical in this price range. The $199 Axim X30 also has 32 MB of RAM, and you can get the rz1715 for less than $210.

No, this isn't the greatest model HP ever made, and I also miss the outstanding designs of previous years, like the h1900. But that doesn't mean the rz1715 is junk.

[Pony99CA]

Originally posted by Ed
The rz1715 has 27 MB of RAM available to the user, not 25 MB. It's actually 27.26 MB.

If so, HP should really fix their specs page, where they specifically state the rz1715 has "Up to 25MB user available memory including 10MB iPAQ file store".

As you've actually used the device, I'll take your word here, but 27 MB RAM and a 10 MB File Store is still significantly less than the 56 MB RAM the 1935/1945 had.

Originally posted by Ed
But having used the device (something I doubt any of you have done) I found it to be just fine, for its price range.

True, I haven't used the rz1715 extensively, but I didn't criticize its performance, features or styling, either. I criticized its value compared to other Pocket PCs.

Since you brought up the entry-level Dell X30, let's look at it. For $199 ($10 less than the best price you found on the rz1715, $50 less than what many places sell it for), you get a 312 MHz XScale processor and a removable battery. Now I realize that you can't just compare MHz to get an indication of true performance, but most people will think 312 MHz is better than 203 MHz and Intel is better than Samsung. And I think almost everybody would agree a removable battery is better than a non-removable one. So what does the rz1715 bring to the table to justify the higher price?

I don't need to drive a Yugo to realize that it would be a bad value at $50,000 even if it might be a decent car at $10,000.

Steve