4 ms·

I had the first edition Compaq Ipaq pocket pc phone, running on windows. It had a dedicated keyboard and built in 28.8k modem. It was the first 'smart' phone,

I had the first edition Compaq Ipaq pocket pc phone, running on windows. It had a dedicated keyboard and built in 28.8k modem. It was the first 'smart' phone, in that I could somewhat browse the web, but it was mostly useful for email. The modem also functioned as a fax, so I could send and receive faxes, though not all that practical. It didn't have a camera, and was nearly as big as a brick, but it was the first portable, internet connected device that was small enough to carry. Came with a stylus thing to function like a mouse, sort of. It only got about a days use before needed a recharge. Google didn't exist at the time, but Lycos did. I smuggled my brand new phone into a local pub triva night, and with all my new tech powers, ensured our team won that night. $20 of beer was our prize, and the concept of smartphone was firmly embedded in culture.

moron4hire 4y ago
I had a coworker that had one of those, while I had only an IPaq PDA. They were roughly the same size, with the phone being slightly thicker and also an antenna nub on the top. I found my IPaq while moving a month ago. The footprint is significantly smaller than my Google Pixel 6. Though the Pixel is significantly thinner, I find that also makes it more uncomfortable to hold. Like, imagine taking it to an extreme and the phone becomes as thin as a piece of glass. Even without sharp edges, it'd still be very uncomfortable to wrap your hand around such a thing. I don't understand the obsession with thinner and thinner phones. Thickness is not universally bad. It would at least give us more room for battery. There aren't any other, similarly-sized objects that I wrap my hand around completely. Small books, digital cameras, handheld game consoles, I hold gripping the edge of the device. But you can't do that with a smartphone because one of the two largest faces of the rectangular solid is reactive to any part of your skin. My laptop touchpad can tell when I wrest my wrist on it while typing on the keyboard versus just touching it with my fingertips. Why can't smartphones reject grabbing the side of the screen and only react to fingertip touches?
- theriddlr 4y ago
  This! Candybar phones have more secure grip and room for battery. The iPhone 4 while heavier is more comfortable to hold than the iPhone 6 / SE3 which I now use.

moron4hire 4y ago

I had a coworker that had one of those, while I had only an IPaq PDA. They were roughly the same size, with the phone being slightly thicker and also an antenna nub on the top. I found my IPaq while moving a month ago. The footprint is significantly smaller than my Google Pixel 6. Though the Pixel is significantly thinner, I find that also makes it more uncomfortable to hold. Like, imagine taking it to an extreme and the phone becomes as thin as a piece of glass. Even without sharp edges, it'd still be very uncomfortable to wrap your hand around such a thing. I don't understand the obsession with thinner and thinner phones. Thickness is not universally bad. It would at least give us more room for battery. There aren't any other, similarly-sized objects that I wrap my hand around completely. Small books, digital cameras, handheld game consoles, I hold gripping the edge of the device. But you can't do that with a smartphone because one of the two largest faces of the rectangular solid is reactive to any part of your skin. My laptop touchpad can tell when I wrest my wrist on it while typing on the keyboard versus just touching it with my fingertips. Why can't smartphones reject grabbing the side of the screen and only react to fingertip touches?

theriddlr 4y ago
This! Candybar phones have more secure grip and room for battery. The iPhone 4 while heavier is more comfortable to hold than the iPhone 6 / SE3 which I now use.