Parity7 July 2003 A friend of mine hit me with a comment recently that got my head spinning. She said that since she became an atheist, she enjoyed going to computer user group meetings to discuss theology. I can be a bit slow on the uptake, and it took me a minute to realize she was talking about the "holy wars" we geeks get into over our computing platforms of choice. The odd thing is, the more mature the technology, the more it lends itself to these sorts of jihads. I'm a veteran of Team OS/2 and it seems remarkably silly, looking back on it now, the fire and passion with which we evangelized OS/2 over Windows 95 and NT. In the end, it didn't matter (as IBM eventually abandoned OS/2 and embraced Linux as a more capable alternative to Windows) and really, the platforms were more alike than they were different. We're starting to see the same thing in the handheld space. Palm's Tungsten C and Zire 71 are roughly equal in terms of performance and capability to HP's iPAQ 5555 and 1945, respectively. Microsoft's Pocket PC 2003 is roughly as easy to use for "organizer" tasks as Palm OS. It isn't like the old days, when Palms were extensible organizers and Pocket PCs were scaled down laptops. Now the roles are less clear. Now that the capabilities of both platforms have achieved parity, choosing between them is more an emotional decision than an intellectual one. It's not dissimilar from the decision to run either Windows or Linux on a PC (a decision with which I currently struggle). Do I want the vast array of Windows applications available, or would I rather run a leaner, cleaner system with superior stability and most of the application niches filled? In the end that decision comes down to personal preference. Linux and Windows both get the job done, and each does it just about as well as the other. The decision ultimately comes down to deciding not which works better, but which works more the way I want to work. I'm a bit of a control freak, so I'm leaning towards Linux, which gives you more control over how the system runs than Windows. Palm Powered versus Windows Powered has boiled down to largely the same decision. Most users would be equally well-served with either one, assuming they really needed a PDA in the first place. Palms offer a more Mac-like "It just works" philosophy, while Pocket PCs operate more like the little Windows computers they are. Which is better? Depends on what kind of person you are. There is no right answer, and all the debating in Internet message boards won't change that a whit. What might make a difference is the rise of other handheld computing platforms. I find it interesting that just as the two dominant PDA operating systems have achieved parity, the PDA itself finds its future in doubt. Most of the people that now own PDAs will eventually replace them with smartphones powered by Palm, Microsoft, or, more likely than either, Symbian. Bizarro keypad aside, the Nokia 3650 is a harbinger of things to come in the handheld space, a Symbian-powered device that can handle most of the handheld functionality most people need. Smartphones in and of themselves don't get it done for writers, though, or at least they won't until they have 99.99% accurate speech recognition built in. Writers looking for a mobile computing solution will be more likely to pick scaled down tablet PCs, either Windows or Linux based, since Apple's Steve Jobs has dismissed the tablet form factor1. Unless they get down to a pocketable size, these devices don't get it done for me, either, since pocketability is a deal-breaker condition for mobile writing. If I ever leave my writing system behind because it's too much trouble to lug around, it's worthless. That leaves PDAs, in either flavor. Long may they reign. Or at least exist. Jeff Kirvin
Jeff Kirvin is available for consulting on mobile technology. Email me today! 1Probably too Newton-like for his taste. |