Touch-Screen, Keyboard

 
 
By Andrew Garcia  |  Posted 2008-10-03 Print this article Print
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 

The touch-screen is pretty good for a Palm device: At 320 by 320 pixels, it doesn't compare favorably to the iPhone or the BlackBerry Bold, but the picture is sharp and the touch-screen is highly respon??ísive.

The Treo Pro's QWERTY key??íboard has the similarly soft and rubbery keys such as those found on Palm's Centro devices, although the Pro's keys are not jammed together as closely as on the Centro. The Treo Pro also fea??ítures the same five-way naviga??ítion pad found on the Treo 800w, plus physical shortcut keys for call, end, mail, calendar and the Windows menu. Two additional shortcut buttons are actually part of the lower end of the touch-screen.

Like the Treo 800w, the Treo Pro features802.11b/g wireless networking complete with full WPA/WPA2 and 802.1x certifi??ícate support. The Treo Pro also offers a physical Wi-Fi button on the side of the device that can be used to quickly toggle power to the Wi-Fi radio or easily access the WLAN configuration page. However, the side place??íment and flush placement (with the bezel) of the button makes it a little harder to press than I found with the Treo 800w.

The Treo Pro also offers an inte??ígrated GPS receiver for turn-by-turn directions (via the included but unlicensed TeleNav applica??ítion) and a 2.0 megapixel cam??íera for still photographs or video clips.

I was pleased to see Palm has quickly retreated from its brief foray into USB audio. Whereas the Treo 800w was saddled with but a single MicroUSB port-so users could not charge the phone and use a wired headset at the same time-the Treo Pro has a separate 3.5 millimeter headset jack that worked perfectly with the headsets I typically use with my iPhone. Meanwhile, Blue??ítooth users will be satisfied with the Bluetooth 2.0 support with EDR support.

The Treo Pro's 1500 mAh bat??ítery is rated for five hours of talk time or 250 hours of standby time, but in my talk-time tests, I was not able to get anywhere close to that level of performance. Fur??íther experiments indicated that the Treo Pro is capable of per??íformance closer to the specifica??ítions (although not from my test bed). As we recently have seen from other 3G smart phones such as Apple's iPhone 3G, I suspect that the Treo Pro still requires a significant amount of optimiza??ítion and a firmware upgrade or two before it will work consis??ítently on a 3G network.

With the Treo Pro set to autose??ílect the best network available (I tested on AT&T's network) and connected at 3G speeds, I could squeeze an average of only 2 hours and 45 minutes of talk time out of the Treo Pro on several test runs. While trying to troubleshoot the disparity between the published specifications and my own find??íings, I discovered that my test unit was completely unable to place or receive calls when forced to a 2G connection. Figuring there was something wrong with the hardware, I had Palm submit a second unit for the battery tests.

While this second device was able to participate in calls using a 2G connection-achieving 7 hours and 5 minutes of talk time for a GSM call-the 3G talk time numbers were as equally bad (2 hours and 40 minutes) as those found with the first device.

Palm engineers suspected the results were particular to the AT&T network conditions in or around eWeek's downtown San Francisco offices. To verify this supposition, Palm's engineers connected a third Treo Pro to some battery emula??ítion equipment from Agilent to measure the phone's power draw during a call.

Indeed, we found that the third unit consumed much more power during a call from our ninth floor offices than a call placed from the street below. For instance, at street level (driving around the block, actually), the Treo Pro averaged about 335 to 340 milliamps con??ísumption during a 3G call (which would translate to slightly less than 4.5 hours of talk time with a 1500 mAh battery). But in our offices, the average consumption was around 450 milliamps, with occasional bursts of over 500 mil??íliamps.

By way of comparison, we tested a device from a Palm competitor in parallel with the Treo Pro. This device averaged around 315 mil??íliamps drawn from street level and around 340 milliamps in the eWeek offices. These findings indicates that 1) there is a mea??ísurable battery performance hit that comes from placing a call in our offices versus calling from the street below, and 2) the Treo Pro is currently much less capable of dealing with these deleterious con??íditions than other devices avail??íable for sale today.

Palm engineers are still combing through the device logs to root out the ultimate cause of the excessive battery consumption experienced in our offices.

eWEEK Labs Senior Technical Ana??ílyst Andrew Garcia can be reached at agarcia@eweek.com.

 

 

 



 
 
 
 
Andrew cut his teeth as a systems administrator at the University of California, learning the ins and outs of server migration, Windows desktop management, Unix and Novell administration. After a tour of duty as a team leader for PC Magazine's Labs, Andrew turned to system integration - providing network, server, and desktop consulting services for small businesses throughout the Bay Area. With eWEEK Labs since 2003, Andrew concentrates on wireless networking technologies while moonlighting with Microsoft Windows, mobile devices and management, and unified communications. He produces product reviews, technology analysis and opinion pieces for eWEEK.com, eWEEK magazine, and the Labs' Release Notes blog. Follow Andrew on Twitter at andrewrgarcia, or reach him by email at agarcia@eweek.com.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Submit a Comment

Loading Comments...
 
Manage your Newsletters: Login   Register My Newsletters























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rocket Fuel