Saw this opinion piece by Sascha Segan at PC Magazine today. I'm not an expert on phone chips, but I know some of you probably have very well-informed views on the subject. What do you think of the quote i pulled from the article, below?

"Much of Microsoft's PDA-centric OS was designed in 2003 and 2004, when the Pocket PC ran at 312 or 416 MHz. So Microsoft designed an OS that runs well on a chip equivalent to a 416 MHz Intel PXA270, assuming processors would just get faster from there.

"But they didn't. And Windows Mobile runs with a visible lag on any device slower than 416 MHz, which means on most of the products in the market."

First of all, do you think it's true? And second, how big an issue is processor speed with today's devices? Are phone chips keeping up with the demands of the OS or not? I, for one, don't see too many issues with my HTC S620 running WM 6.1, but that's just me.

I do wish the processor was faster in my 6800. I am somewhat reminded of the performance of my old 486 desktop from years ago. We are just entering the "BOOM" stage of smartphones. Processor speeds and memory will become faster and bigger in the very near future. The people using these devices will demand it. Seems in our world today we don't have room for any lag time.

Doug-Iowa:

Seems in our world today we don't have room for any lag time.

This is so true - people expect lightning speeds now so the processor had better be up to it.

It's all about power. While intel, amd etc could make lighning quick chips for our mobs the truth is that the improvement in battery technology has just not kept up. We're literally feeling the heat for this lack of progression in both the laptop and mobile arenas now. Check out the batteries from your original XDA's and compare it to your lastest ones. I bet they're almost identical in power size/weight ratio.

Interesting.. I hadn't thought about battery differences. The battery in my 6800 does great as I still have plenty left at the end of each day. Throw in a faster processor and I am sure that would change that. Thanks for helping me think down a different path.