TX vs Modded LD?

[ipmark]

I know there are some threads on TX vs LD... but a lot of those are from back when the LD was full price and you had to deal with hard drive spin-up etc.

Question is... comparing a dirt cheap used/refurb LD modded with a CF card vs a TX, which one is better?

Is there a big difference? Functionally they seem pretty similar... but I've gone through 2 TX exchanges now (though this one seems like a keeper so far).

I'm thinking in terms of build quality, screen, etc. Anyone have/use both?

[dmitrygr]

ld is huge

[BaDZeD]

Never tried LD and LOOOOVE My TX! Plus, from what I read LD has a big wifi stack problem

[potter]

Pro LF: More storage (4G + SD vs SD).
Pro TX: More memory (128M vs 64M).
Pro LF: More sturdy construction.
Pro TX: Thinner.
Pro LF: Faster CPU, thus theoretically faster. However, I do not have any benchmarks or direct observations to support this.
Pro TX: More stable WiFi.
Pro TX: Warranty.
Pro TX: Palm will perform out of warranty repairs.
Pro LF: Bigger battery (1660 vs 1250 mAh), thus theoretically better battery life. Again, however, I do not have any benchmarks or direct observation to support this.

[Icecruncher]

I have both. (Actually my wife and I)

Tx and a LD with CF Ultra II mod and bigger battery.

I recommended the TX to my father because of the LD wifi issues. So he got the TX.

However, it often depends on what you are using it for. Besides what was mentioned above it, the LD is much more practical for GPS navcards, TomeRaider 3 Wikipedia, VOIP (Articulation). All three are much less useable on the TX.

However I have many more problems with stable wifi and downloads from internet on LD. Many result in a crash.

[mrp123]

I've tried a TX on several occasions. I chose the LD before the mod. But I'm really glad i chose the LD especially because I could modify and customize it, thanks to the bright people here at 1src.

Regarding the stability of the WiFi (or basically anything else), mine never crashes or freaks out and I use it very often. The only instablilites I get are individual apps that have their own bugs, issues with NVFS, etc.
However, the difference is as I did the CF mod, I entirely de-crap-ified the ROM that Palm bogged down in an effort to be all things to everyone. In the process, their final result was instability. When the ROM is minimal and clean, one can see how cavernous the LD was intended to be, where things actually work! Palm completely urinated their shoes in so many ways. And that which I've put in RAM, I tempered with UnCache. I'm pleased with my LifeDrive 3.0, as I like to think of it, when I compare it to a TX.

[ipmark]

hrmm great info, thanks everyone!

Anyone know how much the conversion will cost? I saw a threat by a guy who will do it if you supply all the parts and a small fee. Anyone have totals for cf and fee offhand?

[pruss]

Pro TX: Palm will perform out of warranty repairs.

For which conditions do they do that?

[potter]

Pro TX: Palm will perform out of warranty repairs.For which conditions do they do that?
What I meant by that is:
For the TX that is out of warranty Palm will repair it, for a fee.
For an LF, Palm will refuse to repair it. From Palm's Repair page (http://www.palm.com/us/support/contact/repair.html):Unrepairable Damage
Your device is considered unrepairable by Palm if:
[...]
Plastic casing has been opened, device modified, or service performed by someone other than a Palm Repair Center technician

[pruss]

What I meant by that is:
For the TX that is out of warranty Palm will repair it, for a fee.
For an LF, Palm will refuse to repair it. From Palm's Repair page (http://www.palm.com/us/support/contact/repair.html):

IANAL, but I suspect the rule on the Palm page is illegal in the case of in-warranty repairs for two reasons: (1) The official warranty information included with the TX has no such restriction; it only states that the warranty does not cover damage caused by unauthorized repair; (2) The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 seems to prohibit manufacturers from voiding warranties in case of unauthorized modification:

Moss-Magnusson Warranty Act
(15 U.S.C. 2302(C))

(c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if -
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and

(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefore.

[potter]

Moss Magnusson Warranty ActHmm, this looks like it could be an interesting read, both in regards to hardware and software.

Current reading list:
Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?q=+Moss+Magnusson+Warranty+Act)
FTC's A Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.shtm)
On FTC's site, public comments: Comments re "Warranty Protection for High-Tech Products and Services" (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/warranty/comments/nagle.htm)
So far (in my limited reading), this may imply that performing the CF modification to a LF might not void the warranty. It would be Palm's burden to prove that the modification caused the failure. However, knowing how static can damage this type of electronics there would always be doubt. However, I could see if a third party had performed the modification and one could demonstrate that the third party had the skills and equipment to perform the modification is a static safe manner, one could have a reasonable case of argument. However, the dreaded phrase, "Limited Warranty" may come into play.

But, as always, IANAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL).

[pruss]

Hmm, this looks like it could be an interesting read, both in regards to hardware and software.

Current reading list:
Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?q=+Moss+Magnusson+Warranty+Act)
FTC's A Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.shtm)
On FTC's site, public comments: Comments re "Warranty Protection for High-Tech Products and Services" (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/warranty/comments/nagle.htm)
So far (in my limited reading), this may imply that performing the CF modification to a LF might not void the warranty. It would be Palm's burden to prove that the modification caused the failure. However, knowing how static can damage this type of electronics there would always be doubt. However, I could see if a third party had performed the modification and one could demonstrate that the third party had the skills and equipment to perform the modification is a static safe manner, one could have a reasonable case of argument. However, the dreaded phrase, "Limited Warranty" may come into play.

But, as always, IANAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL).

I don't know much about the hardware side of things. If it worked right after being put together, could there still be some kind of hidden static damage?

[potter]

I don't know much about the hardware side of things. If it worked right after being put together, could there still be some kind of hidden static damage?
One would think that if an electronic device continues to work after performing a procedure on it that it was unaffected by any static discharge. However, I have heard that static discharges can degrade electronics without causing them to completely fail.