1-0 for Palm Treo 700p vs. Moto Q, says WSJ

Alexander Turcic · 06-07-2006, 11:33 AM

WSJ Tech Columnist Walter Mossberg gave the Motorola Q a spin, and his verdict on the slick-looking smartphone? Nice, but weak user interface and inferior to the Palm Treo 700p.

Quote:

You might like the $199 Motorola Q because of its price tag or striking design. If you don't use email too much, or if you've never used another smartphone, you might not miss the more user-friendly features that the Treo 700p has to offer. We wish that the sleekness of the Motorola Q could be combined with the intuitive features of the Treo 700p. For now, we'll stick with what works best -- the newest Treo.

Moto Q Pros (vs. Palm Treo 700p)

just half as thick
more than one-third lighter
price ($199)

Moto Q Cons (vs. Palm Treo 700p)

clumsier implementation of Windows Mobile ("Its software is annoying, often requiring two clicks to do what takes one on the Palm")
display is lower-resolution and smaller (320x240 vs 320x320)
weaker battery life
inferior keyboard
inferior software (e-mail, office tools)

volwrath · 06-07-2006, 04:58 PM

I actually saw and played with a Q today. I dont know what WSJ was thinking, but it is sweeeett. I could not believe how tiny the device was + it runs windows mobile 5 so thousands of apps will work. Only con i see is lack of WiFi.

Dick Tracy · 06-07-2006, 07:55 PM

The Q runs the Smartphone edition of WM5. It will not run Pocket PC software, thus there is a much smaller software library than what you can use on say an Axim.

You cannot edit documents of cut & paste.

I think this is a good choice for those who want to spend $80/month for texting. I'd rather work when on the go and will stay with a full-featured device.

TadW · 06-08-2006, 02:45 PM

Seems there is no love for the Moto Q. Today, in the NYTimes:

"Unfortunately, this software's designers must believe that you bill by the hour; getting anything done on this phone requires more steps than the Empire State Building."

jackhitrov · 07-19-2006, 06:32 PM

http://www.worddisplay.com?q

TadW · 07-20-2006, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackhitrov

http://www.worddisplay.com?q

*grin*

07-19-2006, 06:32 PM	#5
jackhitrov Junior Member Posts: 1 Karma: 10 Join Date: Jul 2006 Device: Treo 600	Being thinnest is not enough http://www.worddisplay.com?q

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PRS-900 WSJ subscription through Sony vs WSJ direct	advocate2	Sony Reader	14	01-29-2010 11:52 AM
Happy to be here - using a Treo 700P believe it or not	edgechc	Introduce Yourself	6	06-19-2009 12:28 PM
Palm to offer free Treo or Pre for some	pshrynk	News	8	05-03-2009 12:37 PM
Vom Palm Treo zu einem eReader - nur welcher	Nordlicht	Erste Hilfe	18	04-03-2009 12:07 PM
Palm Treo smartphone advances while handhelds evaporate	Colin Dunstan	Lounge	1	01-10-2006 01:44 PM

06-07-2006, 04:58 PM	#2
volwrath Guru Posts: 713 Karma: 1001739 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Nashville, TN Device: SGS3/PW2/Nexus72	I actually saw and played with a Q today. I dont know what WSJ was thinking, but it is sweeeett. I could not believe how tiny the device was + it runs windows mobile 5 so thousands of apps will work. Only con i see is lack of WiFi.

06-07-2006, 07:55 PM	#3
Dick Tracy Detective Posts: 109 Karma: 4455 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: California Device: Palm TX	The Q runs the Smartphone edition of WM5. It will not run Pocket PC software, thus there is a much smaller software library than what you can use on say an Axim. You cannot edit documents of cut & paste. I think this is a good choice for those who want to spend $80/month for texting. I'd rather work when on the go and will stay with a full-featured device.

06-08-2006, 02:45 PM	#4
TadW Uebermensch Posts: 2,583 Karma: 1094606 Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Italy Device: Kindle	Seems there is no love for the Moto Q. Today, in the NYTimes: "Unfortunately, this software's designers must believe that you bill by the hour; getting anything done on this phone requires more steps than the Empire State Building."