 |
Welcome, User!
(CAxxxxxxx)
|
|
|
|
|
| member icons |
| |
 |
HP moderator |
 |
expert in this area |
|
| member status |
|
|
shining |
| 150 points |
|
|
bright |
| 300 points |
|
|
radiant |
| 750 points |
|
|
brilliant |
| 1500 points |
|
|
beaming |
| 2,500 points |
|
|
hot |
| 7,500 points |
|
|
sweltering |
| 20,000 points |
|
|
|
| » |
how to earn points |
|
| » |
support forums FAQs |
|
| question status |
 |
magical answer
|
| Message with a response that solved the authors question |
|
| favorites status |
|
 |
add to my favorites |
|
 |
delete from my favorites |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
author
|
subject:
updated: Windows Mobile 2003 SE Support
|
HP iPaq Team
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 08:57:35 GMT
|
|
Outlined in the attachment are additional FAQs regarding the subject of Microsoft Windows Mobile 2003 SE and HPs decision to not provide this enhancement on the iPaq h1900, h2200, h4000 and h5500 series of products.
Regards,
HP iPaq Team
|
|
|
Sort Answers By:
Date or Points
|
|
|
Scott Jensen
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 11:28:23 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Why do you state many times on the attached page 5000 series but you keep saying the 5450/5455 is not being updated.
The only reason your not doing it is because your not willing to take care of proir customers. Remember we dont forget when you dont support us and we go away.
You have lots of compition these days why start alienating us? Are you just getting out of the business?
|
|
TJ Adams
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 11:46:11 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Your FAQ is nice, but it doesn't begin to address the complaints.
Please address the complaints in the other thread from your customers.
Also please explain why it has taken two weeks for you to respond.
|
|
CHARLES K. NORMAN
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 11:51:07 GMT
unassigned
|
|
You started a previous thread and have not responded to all the points contained therein. Please have the courtesy to do so immediately. Also explain here why for example your competitors such as Toshiba can provide the upgrade and you cannot do so.
|
|
Ronald Aung
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 12:05:01 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Hmm.. at last, a response from the HP iPaq Team.
Quote:
"
Why is ROM size a factor in deciding whether Microsoft® Windows Mobile⢠2003 Second Edition can be supported on the h1900, h2200, h4000, and h5000 series?
ROM size determines the maximum amount of software and value-added features that can be inherent to the handheld device. For the majority of models in question, HP delivers Windows Pocket PC 2003 Premium, substantial value-added software and 3rd party applications. When evaluating Microsoft® Windows Mobile⢠2003 Second Edition, it was determine that HP would have to de-feature its ROM deliverable and exclude a large portion of the value-added and 3rd party applications in order to fit into the existing device ROM capacity. The Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition is a larger operating system than that of Windows Pocket PC 2003 Premium Edition. The benefit of maintaining the value-added features outweighs the limited functionality that could be deployed on each of these units, especially when giving consideration to the fact that specific hardware changes were also required.
"
OKAY. Then You let us change the ROM to a bigger memory size for a certain fee AND THAT SHOULD ABLE TO LET WM2003SE OCCUPY & RUN. Doesnt a 64MB ROM (maybe after an upgrade of ROM) able to support the SO-CALLED BIG-SPACE WM2003SE???? DOES THAT REQUIRES A "HUGE AMOUNT" OF TIME TO CHANGE A LITTLE MEMORY CHIP? You mean with HP's "innovative & advanced technology" , YOU cannot D
|
|
Steve Mueller
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 12:32:14 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Let's debunk these reasons one at a time.
"1. Square Resolution, VGA Support, QVGA for SmartPhones: While the VGA viewing experience might be more enjoyable for certain users, the support is designed for products that contain VGA screens and/or SmartPhone functionality. The operating system alone does not enable these features. HP provides 3.5â or 3.8â Transflective Display Screens (depends on model) on HP iPAQ h1930, h1940, h2200, h4100, h4300, h5100 and h5500 series products, therefore these products cannot make use of these features."
While it's certainly true that the VGA support won't work fully on the Windows Mobile 2003 iPAQs, some features may still be useful, such as font scaling. This allows users to easily resize the fonts the way they want, which could be *very* useful.
Second, the iPAQ rz1715 is running Windows Mobile 2003 SE, but doesn't support VGA (as most of your WM 2003 SE iPAQs don't). So the operating system seems to have benefits even for non-VGA devices.
Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC
http://www.svpocketpc.com
|
|
Steve Mueller
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 12:34:38 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Let's debunk these reasons one at a time.
"2. Landscape Support: This support provides dynamic switching between screen orientations from portrait to landscape. With the March 2004 announcement of Microsoft Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition, tools became available to the extended application Development Community, so the wide variety of third-party applications could take advantage of the landscape mode. While Microsoftâs standard applications will function in landscape mode not all HP value-added software delivered on platforms launched prior to June 2004 would be able to take advantage of this feature."
What "value-added software" are you referring to? If it's things like iPAQ Backup, iPAQ Wireless, etc., haven't you fixed those to work with the new iPAQs that ship with SE installed? If so, why can't those be included in the ROM image of an SE upgrade for existing devices?
Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC
http://www.svpocketpc.com
|
|
Steve Mueller
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 12:36:10 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Let's debunk these reasons one at a time.
"3. Many software developers are focusing their efforts on the next release of their applications, as opposed to devising a retro-fit for existing versions. If HP added Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition to its pre-June 2004 launched products some applications would not function in landscape mode properly, and therefore providing no customer value."
First, most software developers are incorporating SE support into existing products, while still ensuring their products work on Windows Mobile 2003 (and Pocket PC 2002 and 2000 devices, in many cases). Those aren't "retro-fits", they're upgrades, and those applications, often available for free or at reduced cost to existing users, will work in WM 2003 SE, providing much value.
In fact, HP has it easier here. Your value-added applications (which, as I mentioned above, are already likely working correctly in SE) don't need to worry about running on any other operating system other than WM 2003 SE because they'll ship as part of the OS upgrade.
Second, if some third-party applications don't work in landscape mode, and aren't upgraded, so what? WM 2003 SE's ability to switch between landscape and portrait without a soft reset would make it easy to work with those applications in portrait mode and switch back to landscape mode for programs that work well there.
Even if some applications *crash* in landscape mode, that's not a sufficient reason to deny us an upgrade to SE. Not all Pocket PC 2000 programs worked in Pocket PC 2002, yet Compaq made an upgrade available. Not all Pocket PC 2002 programs worked in Windows Mobile 2003, yet HP made an upgrade available. Why is this suddenly being used as excuse to prevent us from upgrading to SE?
Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC
http://www.svpocketpc.com
|
|
Steve Mueller
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 12:36:44 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Let's debunk these reasons one at a time.
"4. Why is ROM size a factor in deciding whether Microsoft Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition can be supported on the h1900, h2200, h4000, and h5000 series?
ROM size determines the maximum amount of software and value-added features that can be inherent to the handheld device. For the majority of models in question, HP delivers Windows Pocket PC 2003 Premium, substantial value-added software and 3rd party applications. When evaluating Microsoft Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition, it was determine that HP would have to de-feature its ROM deliverable and exclude a large portion of the value-added and 3rd party applications in order to fit into the existing device ROM capacity. The Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition is a larger operating system than that of Windows Pocket PC 2003 Premium Edition. The benefit of maintaining the value-added features outweighs the limited functionality that could be deployed on each of these units, especially when giving consideration to the fact that specific hardware changes were also required."
Granted, ROM size could be a limiting factor on some iPAQs, but this explanation falls short on several points.
First, how much larger is SE than Windows Mobile 2003? I'm guessing it's not that much larger, as you have managed to fit it in the 32 MB ROM of the iPAQ rz1715.
Second, my iPAQ 5550 has 48 MB ROM with 17.4 MB available to the user as the iPAQ File Store. If SE is larger, I would be willing to sacrifice some of the File Store for the new features. I'm only using 5.58 MB of it, and wouldn't miss a few megabytes.
Finally, for devices where the ROM could be filled up (like the iPAQ 2210 perhaps), there is the alternative of offering Pro and Premium upgrades, as was done for Pocket PC 2002 and Windows Mobile 2003.
The Premium version includes all software in the ROM image, while the Pro version omits some (Terminal Services, Reader, etc.) and includes them on a CD to install in RAM if the user chooses.
Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC
http://www.svpocketpc.com
|
|
Steve Mueller
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 12:37:43 GMT
unassigned
|
|
If those arguments are somehow incorrect, please feel free to enlighten me as to where.
Finally, while the above features (along with WPA) may be the main improvements in Windows Mobile 2003 SE, you shouldn't neglect the Pocket Internet Explorer improvements. The single-column mode will be a boon to people reading Web pages, especially in portrait mode.
All told, I find upgrading to this version of Windows Mobile to be *more* compelling than the upgrade from Pocket PC 2002 to Windows Mobile 2003.
As a purchaser of three generations of iPAQs, I strongly urge you to reconsider offering a Windows Mobile 2003 SE upgrade.
Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC
http://www.svpocketpc.com
P.S. Sorry for the multiple posts, but the system didn't seem to like me posting the whole thing at once. I kept gettings errors.
|
|
CHARLES K. NORMAN
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 12:40:54 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Please may I remind you of the forum rules and the award of points. The rules clearly stipulate:-
4- 7: The answer helped with a portion of my question, but I still need some additional help!
In your previous thread you have awarded 7 points to each person that posted and thus can you explain in what way the answers helped with a portion of your question and what additional help you require? After all you have an army of people ready to help you by taking the WM2003SE and paying for it - a bonus! Do HP iPAQ Team not like our money?! You have a solution - you can make money for HP - you can keep the customers satisified - you can restore goodwill - you can become the best by listening to this forum instead of reaching decisions by closed doors. Provide the WM2003SE and you will regain thousands of loyal supporters who spend their days at times promoting HP. Let us decide - hold your own independent poll and abide by the wishes of the majority.
HP iPAQ Team you can redeem yourselves now and in the words of Shakespeare this will all become "Much Ado about Nothing" and "All's Well That End's Well".
You have now had the courtesy to return and thank you for that. Just tell us more about what you have done to get the upgrade to work and why the problems seem insurmountable. You have some great engineers but one thing I have found is that there are some phenomenal people in the forum who can help and maybe in partnership we all can co-operate to help you. Just remember you are dealing with friends who feel they have been badly insulted. We will all go the extra mile to look at the problems encountered to help you - just please tell us and we can work with you as a Team. Are you up for the challenge - please say YES. Ask us some questions, give us some feedback, help us to help you. You can create one of the best partnerships which will drive HP into a brighter and better future. PLEASE THINK AGAIN and let's reach an agreement to work with you to help.
|
|
Steve Mueller
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 12:47:07 GMT
unassigned
|
|
On August 4, 2004, at 12:05:01 GMT, Ronald Aung wrote:
"OKAY. Then You let us change the ROM to a bigger memory size for a certain fee AND THAT SHOULD ABLE TO LET WM2003SE OCCUPY & RUN."
Let's get serious.
First, I would not expect HP to upgrade our hardware to be able to run a new operating system. If your current PC won't be able to run Longhorn, would you really expect the manufacturer to upgrade it?
Second, I doubt any hardware upgrades would be necessary, as I spelled out in my previous posts.
I don't expect upgrades for the 19xx series (after all, HP didn't offer a Windows Mobile 2003 upgrade for the 1910), but the 2200s, 4100s, 4300s, 5100s and 5500s should have them available.
If there are trade-offs (smaller iPAQ File Store, having to install value-added applications in RAM, and so on), disclose them to the user before selling them, and let US decide what we want to do. But DO OFFER THE UPGRADE!
Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC
http://www.svpocketpc.com
|
|
G-A GAY
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 12:50:11 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Funny as said and seen by other persons some iPAQ 2210 was running 2203SE, so your nice word doc is in fact not telling the truth or I am just not able to read English properly?
here you are the nice forum where you can see this 2210 running under 2203Se
http://www.mobilegadgetnews.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=4204
|
|
Ronald Aung
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 13:03:01 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Steve, thanks for that. But seriously shouldnt my 5555 having a 48MB ROM AND if the FileStore is disabled , ABLE to let the WM2003SE image possible to RUN ???!?!!!
48MB, should be more than enough. You said about Longhorn and PC upgrading... Well, if you PC is upgraded to the best hardware upgrades THAT EXCEED the minimum REQUIREMENTS, longhorn will and SHOULD boot with no problems right?
I am not asking HP to provide the necessary hardware upgrade, THAT i can find a way-out myself. I am thinking IF ROM-size is the limiting factor why HP do not allow the WM2003SE avaliable, by all means I will somehow change the flash ROM to a bigger size, and IF in any case of the process, the warranty is voided, i dont care. It is my device anyway.
|
|
William
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 13:22:31 GMT
unassigned
|
|
As Steve has pointed out very clearly. Anyone who has taken a moment to examine the facts will clearly see that HP is completely unwilling to admit the real reason behind this decision. Most likely two things, 1. maybe the cost to deploy new ROM's (not a good reason seeing how the majority of users have indicated their willingness to pay for the upgrade. and 2. if wm2k3se is not available as an upgrade HP feels they will see increased interest in their new devices that use wm2k3se. The problem with this is most current HP customers feel betrayed and left out and the new devices severely lack ergonomic and visual appeal.
HP you have lost a long time customer, I will no longer boast of HP and I will go out of my way to avoid HP products. You will obviously not notice that I am no longer an HP supporter. This is apparent to your lack of sincerity to this issue! Your nicely formulated letter really stretches to be something that it is not.
So long!
|
|
christak
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 13:42:30 GMT
unassigned
|
|
This part is the most troubling to me...
"it was determine that HP would have to de-feature its ROM deliverable and exclude a large portion of the value-added and 3rd party applications in order to fit into the existing device ROM capacity"
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this very hard to believe. I'm an electrical engineer... HP, how about providing some data to back up your claims? What would have to have been left out? How much extra space does SE require? Why is it that you can offer an update to a 5500 (even though I don't have a 5500)? Why can you offer SE on the rz1715?
HP's claims, as presented, don't make sense...
|
|
christak
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 13:44:09 GMT
unassigned
|
|
EDIT from last post:
Why is it that you "can't" offer an update to a 5500 (even though I don't have a 5500)?
|
|
martin
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 14:05:41 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Lets to me choose my if I make or not update of Windows mobile in my ipaq 2210. I believe that I am sufficient intelligent to know how that to choose. It is completes time that I buy a HP product. Good bye.
Buenos Aires - Argentina
|
|
RL2
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 14:21:12 GMT
unassigned
|
|
In regards to the post showing pictures of the h2200 running WM2003se, the upgrade was given out at a conference and to me that shows that HP did one last push to sell the "obsolete" Ipaps like the 2200 by showing at this conference that it could indeed run the SE version, so all the new customers went out and bought a new (but soon to be obsolete) Ipaq in hopes to get the upgrade, very deceiving tactic in my opinion.
As far as third party software being in ROM, I do not need pocket outlook, nevo, sprite backup, reader, and a bunch of other useless (to me) software that could be offered on a CD like many have said to be installed in RAM (which is pretty cheap, a 256MB SD card can be had for $70)
I have said it once and I will say it again, I will no longer buy HP products and my next PPC will be from another company.
|
|
Michael Butler
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 17:21:02 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Hello HP iPaq Team,
Sure glad you have started to become visible again.
A few items, if I may:
1) Appreciate the new FAQ, but you really could have helped yourselves by posting here that there was activity and a document was being developed and needed clearances. It would not have stopped the continued inquiries but at least it would have quelled some of the ire that HP appeared to not care. In developer terms, it's like the hourglass in Windows; it assures the user the system is busy, not dead. Use the hourglass, okay?
2) I, like a lot of others, including the corporate world, are waiting for you, the HP iPaq Team, to provide the proof that the H5550, with faster processor, more RAM, and more ROM then the 1715, can not run MW2KSE whilst the 1715 can?
Steve has presented the rebuttals to your points quite clearly and rationally.
HP credibility now rests with you, the HP iPaq Team and your management. The FAQ was a start, but you still need to address the issues raised in the forum or you've just wasted everyone's time, including your own.
Regards,
Michael
|
|
CHARLES K. NORMAN
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 17:32:37 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Well Team,
I hope you are listening and learning and will keep responding.
Just see the latest results on the petition:-
http://www.petitiononline.com/HPWMK3SE/petition.html
7730 and rising in a short space of time. The news of the customer action will get bigger and bigger so please start talking now with your friends in this forum.
You have more to gain from talking - please start doing so.
Charles
|
|
TJ Adams
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 17:33:59 GMT
unassigned
|
|
To follow up on what Michael is saying,
The FAQ is nice, but how was I a customer able to post it 10 hours before you?
The FAQ suddenly became available after a customer posts it??? What does that say about a company?
I also notice the FAQ is dated, dated July 29, that is now 5 days ago. Where has it been?
So 5 days after the FAQ you finally post it after a customer makes others aware of its existence. What else do you have that you aren't making us aware of?
It would be nice if we could use FOIA on big bad corporations like HP to find out what you are hiding, like the truth on WM 2003 SE.
|
|
Michael Butler
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 17:37:15 GMT
unassigned
|
|
PS: Thanks for the points, but I'd really rather have answers that are backed up with certifiable data.
|
|
TJ Adams
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 20:48:35 GMT
unassigned
|
|
This thread has moved up over 150 places in rank on the most read in just today.
HP LISTEN UP, That means that your customers want to hear what's going on, that they are looking at your exuse for not providing this upgrade.
And they are still signing the Petition, People do care HP. Do you?
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?HPWMK3SE
Now 12 Days - 7765 Signed That's an average of 645 a day.
|
|
Michael Butler
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 21:22:20 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Hi,
Just to preempt anyone getting sidetracked, my references to 'MW2KSE' are really for 'MW2003SE' otherwise known as 'Mobile Windows 2003 Second Edition'.
I just didn't want to waste the time of the HP iPaq Team or anyone else in wondering or researching what I might be referring to.
My apologies.
You see, HP iPaq Team, I'll be proactive in clearing up any possible confusion I might cause to the readers here. It would really go a long way if you folk could go even one better and answer our questions without mounting external pressure. How about it, for old times sake?
Regards,
Michael
|
|
Rainald Taesler
|
|
Aug 4, 2004 23:23:04 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Dear iPAQ Team,
thanks for coming back, even if it is really bad news.
Apart from the bad news, another annoying thing:
Why does a document attached here come in the WinWord DOC-format?
Does not seem too professional to me....
Rainald
|
|
Antony C. Kuo
|
|
Aug 5, 2004 07:58:28 GMT
unassigned
|
|
The statement in the Microsoft Office Word is like talking "Lie" to a three year old kids... it does not make sense at all, some newer iPAQ from HP don't have VGA and it works????? what is wrong with you iPAQ Team? don't even know your own company products???? It's like looking at "Animals" yelling 24 hours a day, but don't know what they are yelling at or for????
Give us a better excuses, or else consult your HP B.O.D. to give you some Business Excuses, maybe these people in the B.O.D. have some good highier Educated Excuses!!!
I have got my company into different PDA manufacturer, HP is not in our list after August 3, 2004... so any "Stupid" Excuses is just making HP a complete idiot in the industries, anyone looking at the WORD they have will get the idea... "Must Think To Clean Their HP iPAQ Team's Behind"
|
|
CHARLES K. NORMAN
|
|
Aug 5, 2004 11:15:36 GMT
unassigned
|
|
HP iPaq Team,
Please may I have a reply to my constructive proposals.
Best Regards
Charles
|
|
Michael Butler
|
|
Aug 5, 2004 15:38:20 GMT
unassigned
|
|
HP iPaq Team,
Would you please do all of us the courtesy of responding to Steve's counterpoints and our questions, or at least indicate what response, if any, is being formulated.
Remember the hourglass?
Regards,
Michael
|
|
TJ Adams
|
|
Aug 5, 2004 17:49:40 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Another Day, Another Statement from HP
Regarding ROM, and the fact that my 5555 has more ROM than the newer models:
Dear Mr. Adams:
I requested further information from our engineering team in order to
assist you & they basically provided this statement that I am including
below.
PPC 2003 SE Drawer Statement
HP is pleased to announce that it will support Microsoft(r) Windows (r)
Mobile 2003 Second Edition on some on the HP iPAQ hx4700, rz1700, rx3000
series Pocket PC products that launched July 26, 2004. The h6300
product will contain the MS(r) Windows(r) Mobile 2003 Phone Edition.
After extensive assessments of MS Windows Mobile 2003 SE support on
current products HP has decided not to offer this upgrade on existing
product platforms. However, HP will provide users with a more secure
experience through the use of WiFi Protected Access Support (WPA) on
selected models.
The past & current information that I have been able to send to you is
the most information we are able to provide. If you have other contacts
within HP that you mentioned before, you may also try to contact them,
or you may also try to contact Microsoft if you wish as well.
I apologize for not being able to provide any further information.
|
|
Michael Butler
|
|
Aug 5, 2004 20:51:39 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Hello HP iPaq Team,
What ARE the minimum requirements for MW2003SE? ROM? RAM? CPU speed?
If ROM is a problem, why not put the 'extra' programs on a CD, like you ALREADY do for things like Resco File Explorer? By the way, just how many image viewers do I really need in ROM anyway? I have two (2) now ('Pictures' and 'IPAQ Image Viewer'). Some of the programs, like 'iPAQ Backup', encourage one to get an update or enhanced version for $5-$10. Of course, the update or new version goes into RAM, blocking the ROM, so the ROM is now wasted space.
I am having trouble understanding why we aren't getting answers, or the answers are essentially, 'because we said so'. These questions don't seem very complex, especially for a company that boasts of it's technological skills ("HP Invents"). The customer base here is quite capable of understanding the technical reasons. Members here like Steve can translate it into terms the non-technical user can understand (Steve, excuse me if I'm being presumtious on your behalf).
We really aren't the enemy. Trust us like you once did and tell us the full story. If the technical reasons are valid, we can work with that and make it clearer then it is today. If it's really a marketing tactic, at least we can all stop pretending it isn't. The current approach of silence folowed by vague arguments that have more holes then a sieve backed up with empty PR prose is not helping HP. I know customers are getting frustrated and the word about this is spreading, slowly right now, but it is accelerating.
The HP iPaq Team really doesn't want this, do you? I sure don't, but I can't see any other outcome based on current (in)action.
HP iPaq Team, please respond.
Regards,
Michael
|
|
Kati Compton
|
|
Aug 6, 2004 00:35:35 GMT
unassigned
|
|
HP Statement:
"3. Many software developers are focusing their efforts on the next release of their applications, as opposed to devising a retro-fit for existing versions. If HP added Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition to its pre-June 2004 launched products some applications would not function in landscape mode properly, and therefore providing no customer value."
So... if an application doesn't work on 2003SE PPCs produced before June of 2004, wouldn't that mean it wouldn't work on a 2003SE produced after then as well? If this were a valid argument, that would mean that no 2003SE devices should be produced because there might be applications that won't work on them.
It's arguments like this and the ROM size one that make the consumers upset with HP. If HP said "We don't think we'd make enough money for it to be worth the trouble", at least we'd know they were being honest (though I'm sure some would argue whether or not HP was right in that assertion).
But with these arguments, HP just seems to be making hollow excuses unbefitting of a grown-up corporation.
|
|
Joshua Foster
|
|
Aug 6, 2004 02:07:25 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Anyone notice the date on that attached document? Why did it take them over a month to release this thing? Besides that, the arguments enclosed are pretty weak, for reasons that Steve has already quite eloquently laid out. This is simply another one of HP's attempts to find excuses for their behavior. You can't pull the wool over our eyes and tell us it's dark outside, HP; we've seen the light, and we don't want it any other way.
|
|
Steve Mueller
|
|
Aug 6, 2004 12:14:43 GMT
unassigned
|
|
It's bad enough that HP won't be offering the SE upgrade to iPAQ 2200, 4100 and 4300 users, but consider how we users of the higher-end, business-oriented iPAQs (the 5100s and 5500s) feel.
First, HP announced (more or less) that they won't be producing any more sleeve-compatible iPAQs. While I think this is a bad decision, I can understand the trend toward slimmer Pocket PCs. (However, I don't agree with it -- you can see my thoughts on the death of sleeves at http://thoughts.svpocketpc.com#THOUGHT_IPAQ_SLEEVES if you're interested.)
That was bad, but I figured it wouldn't be too painful, because I could keep my 5550 and at least upgrade to Windows Mobile 2003 SE. That would give me time to move away from sleeves to Bluetooth peripherals and larger SD memory cards, which should become more common by the time Windows Mobile 2004/2005 (based on Windows CE 5) is available.
Then HP announces that our current high-end, sleeve-compatible iPAQs won't get an upgrade to Windows Mobile 2003 SE.
So we can't buy a new iPAQ that will support our investment in sleeves, and we can't upgrade our current iPAQs to use the latest operating system. Does that sound right?
Many people paid over $600 for a 5550, and I think we deserve a little better support. We certainly deserve answers to our questions.
Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC
http://www.svpocketpc.com
|
|
christak
|
|
Aug 6, 2004 13:30:04 GMT
unassigned
|
|
I give up...
I'm done with HP.
It's really not "this SE update"... I'm not sure that it would really be worth rebuilding my 2210 after installing the update -- if it were available...
What really bothers me is the lack of concern on HP's part toward its customer base, the lack of timely/truthful responses to customer comments/questions, and the truly arrogant attitude.
I have gone from the Compaq 3630 (and a Compaq 3635 for my wife) to the Compaq 3950 to the HP 2210... I have really enjoyed each device. Unfortunately, I don't foresee another HP device in my future.
If driving customers away was your goal HP, you have succeeded, at least with me.
|
|
Johnny Due
|
|
Aug 7, 2004 06:32:11 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Yes, I have owned just the PDA part, 1 x 3975 and 1 x 5455 and 1 x 5555 and two 4155. so I would consider I am quite royal to HP. but things has changed, I have to change too.. recently I was looking to buy a Tablet PC, originally I was going to buy the TC1100 but since I have had it with HP, I went and bought the NEC instead.. Hey.. there goes $2299 from me to HP.. Yeah HP, go ahead and laugh.. hahaha.. if every one is doing the same like me.. you won't be laughing for long.. by then it will be our time to laugh at HP.. LOL..
|
|
Mohd I Abu-Taleb
|
|
Aug 7, 2004 17:52:55 GMT
unassigned
|
|
I'm really surprised about "No Upgrade" for h6300, it is not yet out to the market and you are saying No Upgrade :( ... It is like you are saying do not buy it and go for the XDA III with WM2003SE which will be in the market in few months...
I may accept the "No Upgrade" for the old devices, but I can not accept it for the newly released one like h6300... I'm really very upset and angry with that...
I'm an HP fan and can not accept this kind of action from a big company like you... I'm so sorry if I cross the limit, but it is the fact and it is my feeling now...
Best regards,,,
|
|
Tab
|
|
Aug 7, 2004 19:08:24 GMT
unassigned
|
|
@ The HP Team
Quote
"The benefit of maintaining the value-added features outweighs the limited functionality that could be deployed on each of these units"
If I am responsible enough to spend £700.00 GBP (early adopter) on a device I think I should be given the right to choose if I want to loose some "value-added features" software at the price of some other enhancements.
Give me the right to choose.
What makes any of your new devices better than my H5550?
MY BELOVEDED H5550 WILL BE THE LAST HP DEVICE AFTER THIS DISGUSTING FIASCO
|
|
mwpiercejr
|
|
Aug 7, 2004 19:44:53 GMT
unassigned
|
|
I don't understand why you've decided against supporting business users of high end iPAQ's. I have owned numerous iPAQ's & even several Jornada's. I no longer buy Dell or Compaq/HP due to lack of Support for their laptops. I recently bought IBM laptops based solely on support & quality.
Why have you decided to leave your business customers hanging out to dry on entire lines we have recently purchased [iPAQ 5555/5550 series]. I guess there is no reason to buy HP any longer as there is no continued support even for business customers. We paid over twice as much for our iPAQ 5555 than what we could have bought from Dell. I see now that this was a bad decision. Shame on you the 1st time, Shame on me if I make the same mistake twice. That will NOT happen. No longer an HP customer. An Unhappy Mike
|
|
mwpiercejr
|
|
Aug 7, 2004 20:03:12 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Over 8,000 angry signatures on the WM2003SE petition should tell you something, if you are listening, Maybe not.
8,000+ names is not a big # but HP needs to consider that people using PDA's normally are also the ones controlling where the comnpany's money is spent on IS both for Servers & laptops for their entire company. These folks also, like myself, tend to have a good memory of what company left them hanging out to dry in the past. So while 8,000+ is not a large number, it can be exponentially larger when for instance, our company no longer buys HP/Compaq OR Dell Laptops for over 200 field rep.'s [moving to IBM ThinkPads]. We also moved all of our servers from HP/Compaq to Dell for over 2,500+ locations this year, as it became time to upgrade these servers.
I don't particularly think HP should have upgrades for ALL of their current models, only those that were sold to business' such as the iPAQ 55xx, 54xx, 41xx, 43xx, & possibly even the 22xx.
So I hope those reading these emails "The HP Team", sees the error of their ways before it is too late. 8,000 is not a big number BUT if my thoughts above are correct for very many of the 8,000 customers you have decided to step on, this will prove to be more of a bad decision than you think.
Time for HP to go back to the calculator on what their decision may cost for them to leave us 8,000+ folks behind. Unhappy Mike.
|
|
mwpiercejr
|
|
Aug 7, 2004 20:19:19 GMT
unassigned
|
|
I am surprised that HP has taken this stance with the stiff competition from Dell & PalmOne as well as the soon to be released Motorola MPX [Late 2004 OR Early 2005].
If you failed to understand ny distress, I am done with HP if they choose to be done with my iPAQ 5555's & 4355's that we purchased less than 6 months ago.
Another Unhappy Mike
|
|
Adam
|
|
Aug 7, 2004 21:14:43 GMT
unassigned
|
|
Recently I signed up for a pre-sale of new HP 6300 at Tmobile( one for me, on for my wife).Hovewer because of the unbelivably unfair upgrade policy of HP I changed my mind.If that was the new Hp Way, David Packard wouldn't be proud of it.
|
|
Jay Gottschalk
|
|
Aug 7, 2004 22:01:52 GMT
unassigned
|
|
You can expect my company to no longer buy from HP after this. I got better treatment from Compaq then I ever had you HP even before the merger. I guess someone other than HP will get my business now for everything for myself and the companies I represent.
On another note how can you not even support a device you dont have out yet. The h6315 would have been an awesome product but you dont want to even let us have the ability to upgrade it before it is even released. Tmobile will not be getting my money for one of these and I guess you will not be getting much money from Tmobile since their customers are not happy with this news.
BTW www.pocketpcthoughts.com readerbase is not very happy with this information and I asure you the other PPC sites that are aware of this and posted this are not very happy either.
One very very sad and angry panda.
-Jay Gottschalk
|
|
TJ Adams
|
|
Aug 7, 2004 22:09:01 GMT
unassigned
|
|
To prose a question from Jay's thoughts, by not providing WM 2003 SEfor the 6315 aren't you effectively failing to provide any support for the product?
Considering this is a Smart Phone and Smart Phones require much of the features that you feel the need not to mention, specific to Smart Phones for security, and other needs?
|
|
Tim Colling
|
|
Aug 7, 2004 22:10:40 GMT
unassigned
|
|
I own a 5555 with WM 2003 that I purchased last October. So far, it has had one major problem, a dead battery, which HP replaced after about a week of silliness. Here's my take on all this re WM 2003:
1. This isn't a big deal to me in terms of my use of my 5555. It does what I need it to do, that is, what I needed it to do when I purchased it.
2. It IS, however, a big deal to me in terms of HP's business identity with me. I was willing to pay HP's premium price when I purchased the unit because I had an assessment that HP was "special", becuase HP was fair and reasonable with its customers.
I no longer have that assessment. HP is no longer "special" to me. They have lost that level of customer satisfaction and seduction with me. They are back on the same level with Dell and almost on the same level as the dastardly and evil Toshiba. The next time I select a new PDA HP won't have an inherent advantage with me.
- Tim
|
|
Helen Tvorik
|
|
Aug 7, 2004 23:56:33 GMT
unassigned
|
|
All I can respond is this HP-
I have always owned Hp desktops, laptops, and printers. I have also owned a Ipaq 3800, 3900, 5400,2215, and currently a Ipaq 5555.
I regret my purchase of my 5555, the only reason I bought the Ipaq 5555, was because I knew HP would take care of me and let me UPGRADE to SE. I mean your HP i am a faithful customer, therefore you will meet my needs. Your reasons for not suppling me with the SE upgrade are weak. I mean let's face it when Microsoft rolled out SE it was loaded on an Ipaq 2215!!!!
I think you just want us to spend more money on a new Ipaq with SE. Lets face you do not take care of your customers. So HP I did what you wanted I bought a new UNIT with SE.
Yes I bought a DELL. I will give DELL my money. They care about their customers.
Good-Bye HP.
|
|
Steve Mueller
|
|
Aug 8, 2004 08:21:04 GMT
unassigned
|
|
On August 7, 2004, at 17:52:55 GMT, Mohd I Abu-Taleb wrote:
"I'm really surprised about "No Upgrade" for h6300, it is not yet out to the market and you are saying No Upgrad | |
