Well if you just look at the overall rating that Cisco Chang gave the Q1 back in May and the Q1 Ultra today, you’d come away with the message that these two devices are still about the same bang for buck. Of course, it’s all in the details since we know that these two machines are very different in terms of screen resolution, input options and processor architecture.
Much as I respect Cisco’s work, I simply don’t understand one of his negatives for the Q1 Ultra: he says it needs higher resolution. That tells me the Cisco doesn’t use smaller screened devices very often or very regularly. Once you start cramming pixels in a small display you either get icons and text that are unusable or you need to bump up font and icon sizes which reduces the advantage of more screen space. The stated reason for res of 1024 x 768 as a testing option? To run Adobe Photoshop CS2, which is an outstanding photo editor to be sure but has viable peers in that product space; i.e.; you can edit photos just fine in 1024 x 600 (or less). Regardless, there’s some usable observations on the A110 processor and the pointing stick & mouse buttons to go along with this questionable one that still treats UMPCs like a specification-challenged notebook or desktop replacement.
Oh and PC Mag, I’d love to hear back from you on the e-mail I sent some weeks back: not to try and usurp Cisco’s deserved role in notebook reviews, but if you’re looking for UMPC coverage from an actual, everyday UMPC user, just reply back or ping me.