From: ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (Ian Staples)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.palmtops
Subject: Psion Series 3 Vs HP 95LX
Summary: HP 95LX wins on cost, but Psion may be nicer to use
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:09:29 GMT
Organization: Qld Dept Primary Industries

PSION SERIES 3 POCKET COMPUTER (Version 1.77F/ENG, Ser. No. 500334)

I quite like it.  It has a nice "feel" and it certainly has a load of 
interesting built-in features - I can't say I've really come to grips 
with most of them yet!  (And I wonder if I ever would find the need to!)

I was initially disappointed with the apparent inflexibility of data file
handling, and the lack of some programming options (especially the
restriction of data structures to scalars and vectors only; and the lack of
variable dimensions for the vectors).

However, I eventually discovered the various "IO..." commands which
indicated I *could* have strings to my own specifications after all, and a
fair bit of flexibility in data file handling generally.  I then recalled that
when I used FORTRAN years ago, I played with coding my own logic to embed
arrays in vectors (i.e. treating v(n) as if it was v(i,j,k) where (i*j*k=n),
so that ceased to be a serious problem too.  Which only leaves the
lack of variable dimensions as a major nuisance.

There is certainly something funny about the application buttons.  
"Agenda" and "Time" seemed so much harder to press than the others that 
I ran an objective test to measure the force needed to operate them.

On the first run I had to apply 390 - 400 g to operate these two, compared
with the range 210 - 275 g for the other six buttons.  On another run, 30
minutes later, things had changed a lot (somewhat to my surprise!) but the
relativities were much the same:  "Agenda" and "Time" now took 680 -700 g;
"Calc" and "Program" took 415 - 480 g; and the rest needed 255 - 325 g.

HP 95LX versus PSION:

I haven't yet had a chance to play with the HP 95LX, so I don't know how
convenient it would be to use in the field.  It certainly has three big
advantages over the Psion:

(1)  you can use your normal MS-DOS compatible programs on it without
     hassles (if I can believe the blurb sheets);

(2)  it has a numeric keypad to facilitate data entry; and 

(3)  it is a lot cheaper!  (At least it is in Australia.)

For a minimum useable configuration the Psion costs about AUD1220 (machine
plus PC link) versus AUD860 for the HP.  In fact, you would need to add about
AUD210 to the Psion's price for extra RAM (flash card) if you had as much
data to enter as we do in some field experiments.  (I imagine you would be
okay with the bare 256k model if your data files are always less than 150k
- maybe even as big as 170k?  [That would still leave about 30k for the
application program itself.]  But note that you have to close all the
built-in applications to get this much available for your own stuff.)

On the basis of cost alone the HP is a clear winner.  So it would then come
down to whether it is really a practical proposition for field use - how
easy is it to hold and type on; is the LCD screen readable; how well can a
running program be protected against clumsy fingers?  I must admit I'm very
concerned about the "loose lid" syndrome which many users have reported on
USENET.  A "floppy screen" is certainly a new IT concept!  It would make
the HP 95LX impractical for field use.

Ian S.
-- 

Ian Staples                       | Internet : ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au
Senior Pasture Agronomist, QDPI   | Fax      : +61 70 92 3593
Mareeba, Australia                | Voice    : +61 70 92 1555