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:


User Score:

The phone's other key feature is its onboard GPS support. Unfortunately HP doesn't supply any navigation software to make use of it. However, we tried it out with Googlemaps and it was very quick to pickup satellites and find a lock on our location.

Unfortunately, the phone uses a non-standard 2.5mm headphone jack so you can't easily swap the supplied headset for your own pair of cans. However, the bundled headphones don't sound too bad and are handy because they also double up as a hands-free kit. Nevertheless it would have been nicer if HP had provided a standard headphone adaptor in the box.

When it comes to call quality we've got no complaints as callers sounded crisp and clear through the phone's ear piece. It's also good at holding on to a connection, even in weaker signal areas. Battery life was pretty much par for the course for a Windows Mobile device. We got around two days out of it with occasional usage of Wi-Fi, HSDPA and normal phone calls, which isn't too bad.


There's plenty to like about the Voice Messenger. Style-wise it's right on the button and it's got a good range of features and speedy performance. However, HP has hit a real bum note with the optical control pad which has affected our scores. It's so crucial to the handset's operation, yet so unreliable that it ends up making the phone quite frustrating to use. With a different control system this would be a fine little smartphone, but as it is we find it hard to recommend.

Overall Score


Scores In Detail

  • Performance 7
  • Value 6
  • Features 7
  • Design 6
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