Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #2  
    definitely looks a little thicker to me, especially around the bottom of the device - less tapered-looking down there.

    might be just a trick of the perspective though.
  2. #3  
    Originally posted by hyperenough
    definitely looks a little thicker to me, especially around the bottom of the device - less tapered-looking down there.

    might be just a trick of the perspective though.
    I think the thicker quality is a known attribute of the 300.
    Jeff
  3. #4  
    The SPECS for the 300 are 4.5" by 2.75" by 1". In contrast to 4.2" x 2.8" x 0.82" for the 270. I don't know the weight.. but I'm betting on a bit heavier.
  4. #5  
    Originally posted by ChrisInDiego
    The SPECS for the 300 are 4.5" by 2.75" by 1". In contrast to 4.2" x 2.8" x 0.82" for the 270. I don't know the weight.. but I'm betting on a bit heavier.
    If I remember my math, that's about a 28% increase in size by volume -- 12.375 in^3 for the 300 vs. 9.6432 in^3 for the 270.
    UniPalmer
    -------------
    It's not the heat; it's the stupidity!
  5. #6  
    ... I hope you didn't do that calculation with your TREO... (refer to the MATH thread.. LOL)... 28% more volume? I think that only matters if your plan is to gut it and use it as a flask. (That would actually be a funny stocking stuffer if the price point was right). The 270 is small enough, there should still be a little room left in the palm of your hand if you're a Sprint customer.
  6. #7  
    Originally posted by ChrisInDiego
    [B]... I hope you didn't do that calculation with your TREO... (refer to the MATH thread.. LOL)...
    I was thinking of making a joke about that!

    28% more volume? I think that only matters if your plan is to gut it and use it as a flask.
    There is a similar difference in volume between the innopocket and palm hard cases for the Palm m500-series PDAs. To me, though, the difference when holding it in hand is significant -- enough so that my wife inherited the bigger palm case, while I have kept the smaller innopocket case. Well, she has an entire purse to lug the thing around in, while I use my pocket!
    UniPalmer
    -------------
    It's not the heat; it's the stupidity!
  7. #8  
    Why would the Sprint Treo 300 be thicker than the Treo 270? Is it simply the nature of GSM versus CDMA hardware components? Or could it be that the 300 has something the 270 doesn't -- such as an expansion slot or a better quality screen?
  8. #9  
    Good question... why is it thicker?
    Roger
  9. #10  
    My guess would be that it probably has a bigger battery...but its just a guess. Maybe Sprint didn't approve of the existing Treos' short battery life?
  10. #11  
    I have used the Treo 300 and it is not noticably thicker, or different at all from the 270.
    The weight is almost too light (i300 user speaking here) and feels cheap.
    The battery is not going to be any different than the 270 model, so all the same problems will be continued. I was told that the next generation would be more built to Sprint specs and would have a removable battery. When I asked for more information I was not given any, sorry.


    homer
  11. #12  
    Maybe the CDMA modem is bigger than a GSM modem which accounts for the additional thickness. Is there also analog support fot this device when out of PCS digital network range?
  12. #13  
    No analog support for the treo 300, single-mode/single-band only. However, discussed in the letters between HS and the tester on the FCC website, the treo 300's internal module supports AMPS 800. Sprint/HS won't be utilizing it though...

Posting Permissions