View Full Version : PDA as a remote using bluetooth or wifi

Tim Long
2003-12-06, 13:05
The HP/Compaq iPAQ H5550 is very good, if a little pricey. It has
integral Bluetooth and WiFi and comes with Windows Mobile 2003 OS, 128Mb
RAM and is flash upgradeable. My wife uses hers to read eBooks and she
says it is good for 4 hours continuous use with the display brightness
on Auto. I have an h3790 which has bluetooth but not WiFi. I get WiFi
using a LinkSys CF card and I have an add-on CompactFlash jacket which
has an extra battery in it. With the jacket on, I've gone for 8 hours
continuous use (with nothing in the CF slot). They're unstoppable! WiFi
is less battery-friendly than Bluetooth, though.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard O'Callaghan [mailto:richnird (AT) yahoo (DOT) com]
> Sent: Saturday 6 December 2003 19:26
> To: SlimDevices Discussion
> Subject: [slim] PDA as a remote using bluetooth or wifi
> Hey all,
> I'm trying to find out what the best PDA setup is, in order
> to control multiple squeezeboxes via the 'handheld' web
> interface on the slimserver.
> At the moment, I'm testing a Palm M505 with Bluetooth card,
> connecting back to a PC with Bluetooth, and thus allowing me
> to browse the network to the Slimserver.
> It works fine, but there is a delay from when I switch on the
> palm, and then re-establish the Bluetooth connection (5-10
> sec), and then browse.
> Can anyone recommend an optimum setup. Will a WIFI PDA make
> a big difference? - I know the data transfer will be faster,
> but will the reconnection time be faster?
> What about Pocket PC vs Palm for this function - especially
> with regard to battery life. The last thing I want is a
> remote that I have to charge after an hours use! (This is
> also why I would like to have the PDA switch off after a
> period of inactivity to avoid battery drain - but then the
> connection is lost!!)
> Any opinions would be greatly appreciated. I think this
> topic could be of great interest to anyone who is trying to
> develop a whole-house system.
> Thanks,
> Richard