Mobility Site - View Single Post

joudbren · 09-13-05, 07:07 PM

Hi all. I'm looking to see if anyone can definitively tell me what is the faster interface on a PocketPC for the GPS system. Bluetooth, SD or CF? If it is bluetooth, then which of the two hard interfaces is the next fastest, CF or SD?

Reason for the question is that I have a BT-338 bluetooth GPS working flawlessly on a Dell X30H on an Arkon powered mount but I have just now acquired a new Toshiba E830 with the 4" VGA screen which I'm lovin so far. Plan is for the wife to inherit the Dell/Globalsat/Arkon setup and I'll do a new config with my Toshiba.

I'm thinking of going CF or SD this time for a nice integrated solution but it's been suggested to me by others that an SD GPS would be faster than a CF GPS. Not sure if that is actually true or not and if it is, does it matter? Could either interface be slow enough on a fast pocketpc to make your position "lag" on the GPS software?

Colour me curious and thanks for any feedback!

P.S. I may just get another 338 which is working with the E830 but it sometimes is a little cranky starting up with the Toshiba's bluetooth stack. Works great otherwise, just seems to be a little more finicky on the startup than on the Dell. Would be nice though to get rid of one more thing to charge and go CF or SD. CF is my preference in this case though.

James 8-)

09-13-05, 07:07 PM	#1 (permalink)
joudbren Aximsite Prospect Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 14 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Speed of various GPS formats Hi all. I'm looking to see if anyone can definitively tell me what is the faster interface on a PocketPC for the GPS system. Bluetooth, SD or CF? If it is bluetooth, then which of the two hard interfaces is the next fastest, CF or SD? Reason for the question is that I have a BT-338 bluetooth GPS working flawlessly on a Dell X30H on an Arkon powered mount but I have just now acquired a new Toshiba E830 with the 4" VGA screen which I'm lovin so far. Plan is for the wife to inherit the Dell/Globalsat/Arkon setup and I'll do a new config with my Toshiba. I'm thinking of going CF or SD this time for a nice integrated solution but it's been suggested to me by others that an SD GPS would be faster than a CF GPS. Not sure if that is actually true or not and if it is, does it matter? Could either interface be slow enough on a fast pocketpc to make your position "lag" on the GPS software? Colour me curious and thanks for any feedback! P.S. I may just get another 338 which is working with the E830 but it sometimes is a little cranky starting up with the Toshiba's bluetooth stack. Works great otherwise, just seems to be a little more finicky on the startup than on the Dell. Would be nice though to get rid of one more thing to charge and go CF or SD. CF is my preference in this case though. James 8-)