Andy Yeong wrote:
"What I'm trying to bring across is that, if you are trying to build something similar to Palm, it's better off buying one from them..."

Actually, its BETTER than that:

If you are trying to build something NEAR to a Palm in function, you can't beat the price of making a Palm one of your subsystems.

We reason it this way:

Every device needs some way for the user to affect the settings and run-time options. That requires a display, a case portal for viewing and I/O, a minimal keypad, and some code to orchestrate the user interface. At best, its a cryptic sequence with the cursed nontechie simplicity of the video recorder control.

So why spend the money for all the work that the customer will do once, hate, lose the instructions and never want to use again? Why not allow the customer to use a Palm with a nice software controlled display interface to select options and settings and beam it over to the DEVICE?

Now the device is cheaper to build since it doesn't require all the display I/O circuitry and coding. The case is 10 times cheaper to build because in no longer requires the panel cutouts and assemblies. The power supply requirements are reduced.

In Short: I don't include a PALM because I would otherwise design a PALM equivalent... I include a PALM because it reduces system cost AND makes the customer HAPPIER.

An amusing subnote: We find that a lot of our industrial/government customers prefer the PALM interface AS A JUSTIFICATION for buying themselves PALMs for their job (or home). After all, they can justify to their management that they REQUIRE a PALM to access the equipment. And since the PALMs they buy from us have our partnumbers and part names, they don't raise too much accounting notice. heheheeh... human nature is wonderful to exploit for fun and profit! :)

-duh, aka j, Moses, Danny, Sonabouy, Jay, Bob, and others I've already forgotten. :)