Home / Mobile / Mobile Phone / HP iPAQ Voice Messenger / HP iPAQ Voice Messenger

HP iPAQ Voice Messenger - HP iPAQ Voice Messenger

Niall Magennis

By Niall Magennis



Our Score:


Although it's not touch-sensitive, the Voice Messenger's screen is actually pretty good. It takes up just over half of the front real-estate on the phone and thanks to its 320 x 240 resolution text and icons look very crisp and sharp. It also does a good job of displaying pictures and videos as colours look bright and vibrant.

The handset is built around Windows Mobile 6.1. By default this is set to use a slightly tweaked version of the Sliding Panels home screen, which looks good and is easy to use. However, the traditional Window Mobile mess of menus behind this home screen still remain in place. On the plus side you do get the mobile Office suite of applications including Word and Excel so you can edit work documents while you're on the go. HP has also loaded some extras including the welcome addition of the Opera Mobile Browser (v8.65) and the Westek Jetcet viewer for displaying PDF files.

The phone's Qualcomm 7201A processor is clocked at 528MHz and keeps everything ticking over at sprightly pace, plus there's 128MB of RAM and 256MB of flash memory for storing files. You can supplement this using microSD cards of up to 8GB in size, but the card slot is rather awkwardly placed. It's mounted on the side of the phone, but you have to take the battery cover off to get at it. It would have been much more sensible to provide access via a simple flap like on most other handsets.

Browsing the web with Opera is suitable speedy as the handset supports both Wi-Fi and HSDPA. The latter can't be used for video calls, however, as HP has only included a single rear-facing camera. This has a 3.1-megapixel resolution and features both autofocus and an LED flash for taking pictures in low light. The quality isn't too bad - it's certainly good enough for taking the odd picture for your blog or something similar - but snaps don't really stand up that well to really close scrutiny.

Carrier pricing updates & information supplied by WhistleOut


December 22, 2008, 6:31 am

Ok.. i have to ask;

Why dont TR ever take their own photos of the reviewed item? Granted on some reviews they do take their own, but mostly (esp phones) the manufacturer's images are used which sometimes looks far better than the real deal.

Dont get me wrong, i love the reviews, just the images are off (for me)

Jay Werfalli

December 22, 2008, 9:53 pm

On average around 50 per cent of our total review output uses stock imagery. The rest uses photos taken by ourselves. Most (not all) reviews undertaken by our freelance writers use manufacturer's images, for a number of reasons: Our freelancers are commissioned to write, not to take photos. Many are also not equipped to take decent pictures (especially of large products) nor can they be expected to with their extremely tight schedules.

We understand what you mean, though, and we'd photograph everything in-house if that was practical. Our freelancers receive review samples (in limited numbers) directly from manufacturers/PR agencies, test them, write the review and then send them back. Jumping in at the beginning, middle or end of this process in order to photograph the products will only serve to cause delays, inevitably leading to late reviews - something we all want to avoid!

Martin Daler

December 23, 2008, 6:54 pm

Jay, you are looking down the wrong end of the telescope! Turn it the other way about. Start from the point of view that the pictures are part of the review (self-evident really), that your authority rests on your authorship (equally self-evident), and stop making excuses.

The clue is in the name "Trusted" Reviews.


December 23, 2008, 10:34 pm

To run with your analogy...

You're using the wrong instrument. You're looking at TR from afar and drawing conclusions from the weird murky patterns you see on the surface. Instead, you need to be close up and using a microscope to look into the inner workings of TR to get a true sense of what's going on. Quite simply, as things stand, what you're suggesting is not feasible. End of. If you choose to interpret that as an excuse, that's your prerogative.

comments powered by Disqus