Anyone Use A Pocket Pc Or Palm?

[Chriss Grube]

I have both a palm and the Ipaq. The Ipaq is way beyond the palm in speed and ease of use. Damn thing is better than my first laptop from 98. It has a faster processor, better memory and a much better display. I don't know about Rob's palm but if the batteries die or you take them out to change them you're F%^ed. You have to hotsync it to even get the programs and contacts back. The scoring system is a great advance BUT be very careful about the battery useage. I would love to see the system use the Pocket PC Op sys instead of Palm. Hell you could probably score the whole match without using a regular computer except for printing.

[BritinUSA]

You can score an entire match with the PALM software. The requirements that USPSA is placing on the developers is to feed the final results into ez-winscore. If the results from each individual palm is uploaded to a single PALM unit then that unit can caculate the scores for the entire match.

I think that the PALM scoring is a valid alternative to the existing paper system. What seems to be lacking in IPSC is a will to adopt new methods that were created outside of IPSC.

The last time IPSC tried something new was HFX which died a fortunate death. A lot of work has gone into this product but for some reason IPSC is unwilling to endorse it. I don't know if IPSC endorses EZ-Winscore but it seems to fulfil the scoring requirements and works very well allowing clubs to upload their scores and classification data directly into the USPSA web-site.

If a formal link between PALM and EZ-Winscore can be accomplished then a club could score their match using PALMs, feed the results/data into EZ-Winscore and then upload to the web or email the results to the competitors before the first prop has been stored in the equipment shack.

The need for paper copies is a throw back to pre-technology. I have my bank accounts on-line, I don't receive paper statements. I don't write cheques for all my bills but instead I can check the status online.

It's time for IPSC to move into the 21st Century.. It seems from Rob Boudrie's post that USPSA is taking some positive steps to streamline the scoring mechanisms and I hope it all works out.

We need to put aside these antiquated fears and embrace the future. Sure it's not perfect, but then neither is the paper scoring method. I've done enough matches, CLUB, STATE, NATIONAL, CONTINENTAL and WORLD SHOOT and I've seen screw ups with the paper system in every level of this sport.

FREE YOUR MIND

[BritinUSA]

On the subject of changing the ASS software so that it runs on a Pocket PC; There is more than one way to skin a cat... How about getting some software on the Pocket PC that allows it to run a PALM program.

There are PALM emulators for Windows PCs and Apple MACs so in theory it should be possible to run the ASS scoring system on a Pocket PC without modifying the original code.

[Vince Pinto]

Paul,

What seems to be lacking in IPSC is a will to adopt new methods that were created outside of IPSC. The last time IPSC tried something new was HFX which died a fortunate death. A lot of work has gone into this product but for some reason IPSC is unwilling to endorse it.

Well gee, golly gosh, I think you're right. In fact, I'm going to suggest that the entire IPSC Executive Council resign enmasse because, darn it, we're just a bunch of Neanderthals who are keeping IPSC in the dark ages. In fact, I feel so ashamed to have been part of the "Alexakosaurus Conspiracy", I think I should commit hare-kari with my stone axe (and that's gotta hurt).

But, before I do, here's an idea. Perhaps we could put you in charge of PDA Stats for World Shoot XIV in Ecuador, and you could take full responsibility for scoring the match on PDAs in parallel with Pebbles & Bam-Bam (our usual Stats Directors) and the Range Officials serving as scorers.

You arrange for all the hardware, the software, the batteries, the PDA printers, the provision of a separate team of PDA Scorers (to "shadow", but not interfere with, the official RO scorers), and the integrity of all scores but without any paper backup, because "The need for paper copies is a throw back to pre-technology". Of course I expect you'll use the EzyWinscore on your notebook computer as the "master" and, since it's so easy to operate the PDAs, I have no doubts that you could easily & cheaply hire and train a bunch of local Ecuadorean school kids to serve as PDA Scorers for the duration. As a gesture of my goodwill, I'll personally pay for three square meals a day and refreshments for up to 40 kids for 7 days. Chumbawumba, um-foo-foo?

Waddya say? Don't just "talk the talk", dude, "walk the walk". And believe me, we can make it happen for you. This is not a drill.

Meanwhile, gee, golly gosh, pray tell what does HFX have to do with PDA scoring? HFX was proposed as a different scoring method to Comstock, but it was ultimately withdrawn when shortcomings were discovered during field trials. I realise I'm probably just a Jurassic Period Bonehead, but isn't PDA scoring merely a data entry system? If so, what's the correlation between HFX and PDA, apart from both being 3 letter acronyms? Please explain in words of one syllable or less because, well, I don't have opposable thumbs, and I'm always a bit slow during a full moon.

So, you have your bank accounts online, huh? I'm impressed but, darn it, can you believe I do too? I use it to trade rocks, beads, animal pelts and other currencies. In fact, I maintain all my personal and business accounts electronically and I can also access and manage my accounts from my cellphone (two cans connected by a piece of string), from anywhere on the planet with a cellular network. Hey, maybe there's hope for me yet?

I also wonder whether there's any correlation between me, a single individual in ugh boots and a loin cloth, conducting my banking online, from the comfort of my cave (or even a Holiday Inn Cave) on a product that I already own (which I operate with pedal power), using free software provided by The Bank of Bedrock, to +40 individuals trying to score a World Shoot with +800 competitors on a product operating on batteries under whatever conditions Mother Nature throws at them?

But hey, what do I know, right? Anyway, I gotta go call IPSC President Mr. Flintstone on the village drums now and warn him our gross incompetence has finally been revealed to the world, and it's time for him, Barney, Wilma, Betty and I to step aside.

And thank you again for showing me the light. Could you teach me about fire next?

[EricW]

Don't touch that dial kids! Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of...

Unfrozen Caveman Range Lawyer

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

Why are you being so hard on the ASS?

[Peter C]

WHOOPEE! FINALLY - It works!

PC

[RHall]

Peter C welcome to the forum.

[Vince Pinto]

Why are you being so hard on the ASS?

Hmmm. Does that make me a Hard ASS?

I was certainly dripping in sarcasm in my reply to Paul Hyland (who I happen to know), but I certainly don't think I was rude, crude or nasty. Moreover, my measured (yet spicy) response only arose because Paul launched a ballistic missile at "IPSC" which, for all intents and purposes means "The IPSC Executive Council" - and that's five people for whom I have the highest respect. Oh yeah, it's me too.

I can, and do, accept criticism of all things IPSC on a daily basis - all I ask is that people don't make it personal. If you don't like a particular rule or policy, identify the issue and propose a solution, and we can discuss it like adults. However if someone says "IPSC" has got it all wrong, that's personal, just like when someone says "Microsoft sucks" (that means Management, not the Shareholders, right?).

OK, I'll take my medication now.

[Skywalker]

just like when someone says "Microsoft sucks" (that means Management, not the Shareholders, right?).

I usually repeat that sentence about 3/4 times a day, but I mean Microsoft SW products quality, no reference to Microsoft management or shareholders is ever intended.

[Rob Boudrie]

But, before I do, here's an idea. Perhaps we could put you in charge of PDA Stats for World Shoot XIV in Ecuador, and you could take full responsibility for scoring the match on PDAs in parallel with Pebbles & Bam-Bam (our usual Stats Directors) and the Range Officials serving as scorers.

Actually, it makes a lot more sense to work your way up to the "big match" such as the World shoot. It would be a mistake for IPSC to perform its first test of Palm Scoring at a World Shoot.

I threw a number of obstacles at Peter - so many that I was actually surprised we made it all the way to the Infinity match (whcih was the original goal).

The action plan was:

1. Use it to score a local match

2. Use it for the Area 7 Championship

3. Use it for the Infinity Open

If *any* of the above steps failed (failure being defined as erroneous or delayed results) we would not proceed to the next match on the list. I told Peter I would do all I could to make his product succeed at these matches, but would not cover for him if it failed - and that he was free to not deal with me if he did not accept those terms.

There was no need to run scores "in parallel" - the Palms were used to score the stage, and totals written down. The shooter saw a full display of their per-target hit and totals, and signed paper accepting this. It also meant that we did not need to have "duplicate staff" for the match. As to the "Validity" of the test - I submit that paper has NEVER been tested at a major match (double blind score acquisition by two separate individuals with comparison of each after totalling hits).

Paper may be a "throwback", however, I don't see the elimination of a paper audit trail until the match culture has evolved to the point that people will accept the integrity of a "paperless" system. There is also the fact that out of 2000 scoresheets at the Infinity Open, 4 somehow did not get saved on the Palm. I attribute this to operator error (especially since 3 were on one stage). The presence of paper backup made this a non-issue, which only took a few minutes to correct.

The decision to actively explore Palm scoring is a long term strategic one, not a decision about any particular match. An organization can decide to work to make something new succeed via incremental steps, or decide that the inability to get there all at once is reason to take a pass on the new technology.

[EricW]

I don't see the elimination of a paper audit trail until the match culture has evolved to the point that people will accept the integrity of a "paperless" system.

[Edit]

I re-read this post, and it sounds like I'm harshing on Rob. I in no way intend to, so please don't take it in that vein. I mean to be skeptical here, and I'm just as skeptical of totally electronic scoring as I am of totally electronic voting.

[/Edit]

I would submit that a system that doesn't provide a permanent audit trail *has* no integrity. I would also expect any reasonable person who just shelled out $1K or more to attend a major match to expect a hardcopy receipt of their stage score before accepting a paperless system.

Frankly, I've spent a bit of time with the Palm handhelds (bought 4) as both an owner and developer, and just physically don't trust the platform as a data repository for mission-critical applications. If you have an immediate RF link that places the data onto a secure platform before the next shooter, fine. But, all it takes is one wrong bump to kill a Palm handheld. I've personally witnessed/experienced it many times. This doesn't include all the OS freezes I've seen where the only recovery was to zap the memory and hard boot the unit.

"Oops, guess we have to have do 75 reshoots today...."

Announce THAT at a major match and see how many friends you have left.

Lest anyone think all I do is gripe w/o ever providing a solution, here is my proposal:

=====================================================

Handheld (not sure it should be a Palm) used to score the stage

2 barcoded receipts printed (barcode is of the 2D variety and contains all necessary scoring / competitor info) all scoring info is duplicated on receipt in plaintext as well

Competitor checks receipt and signs (if she agrees with the scoring)

Signed receipt retained by Match Personnel

Other receipt retained by Competitor

Since we have a paper audit trail, synchronization can take place at any time, but preferrably sooner than later.

If a handheld croaks, a "recount" is simplified by scanning the 2D barcode (with the stage score encoded therein) on each receipt into the match computer - for quick and easy auditing. If I were King, no match scores would be valid until this had been done anyway...

================================================

Finally, as someone who has watched their investment in Palm stock be devalued to less than 5% of its value when the stock value was *depressed* - I think I can state that unless something radical occurs, the PalmOS is deader than the Dodo bird and the doornail it got shot with. The market has spoken. Palm stock reverse split 15 to 1 and it's still going down, folks. Heavy investment into the PalmOS by USPSA/IPSC is a mistake. It's going to take a large financial commitment by every club to create a system that has reasonable integrity and by the time that happens, the vendor of the PalmOS platform probably won't exist/matter.

Personally, paper looks pretty damned cost-effective to me.

[Rob Boudrie]

At this point, USPSA is not at this point making a "heavy investment" - my guess is that we will spend a few hundred $$ extra on the EzWinScore upgrade having the flat file import/export feature to support Palms. I can assure you that the work on the Palm end is the bulk of the task (the interim MS/Access transfer program alone is far more complex than the EzWinScore interface will be).

Once that is in place, changing to support other platforms will be relatively straightforward, athough differences in conduit conventions may result in tweaks to the code if assumptions such as "all transfer files go into a single directory" turn out to be Palm-specific. But, I don't know of any credible plans for a non-Palm handheld scoring system at present.

As to paper integrity -

a) I've been pushing the "paper concept" in conjunction with Palm scoring. I told the MD of both the 2003 Area 7 and Infinity matches that the system is good, but we still need paper at anything above a local match. That assessment has not yet changed.

MANY mission critical systems use electronic authentication. If you call your stockbroker or do an on-line transaction, you are not given a reciept - (one you print from your computer certainly isn't "signed" and won't be accepted as "overriding proof" if you brokerage house disagrees with the record). I'm not arguing that the Palm system is as robust as a brokerage house storing its data on raid arrays with off-site real-time remote replication - just making the point that the concept of "electronic data integrity" is already accepted in today's world.

As to "79 reshoots" - A stats runner picks up scores every hour, which would mean about one squad's worth of reshoots in the event of a lost palm at the worst possible moment in the case of a paperless match. If the reshoots are impractical, the risk is one of a lost stage. Any Palm based stats officer who allowed a stage to build up 79 scores without doing a data pickup would be rather negligent.

My local club is planning on going 100% paperless for local level matches, but will still used signed log sheets at big matches such at the upcoming Area 7 Championship. By the way, if you want to see a new way to do squadding, visit http://www.uspsa.org/squadding .

[Vince Pinto]

On a related subject, a friend just sent me a copy of a New York Times article published on 18 January 2004 entitled "Fixing Democracy" which said "Fortune Magazine named paperless voting its "worst technology" of 2003".

The article goes on to say:

"To address these concerns, electronic voting machines should produce a paper trail — hard-copy receipts that voters can check to ensure that their vote was accurately reported, and that can later be used in a recount. California recently took the lead on this issue, mandating paper trails from its machines by July 2006. A bill introduced by Representative Rush Holt would do the same nationally. Congress should make every effort to put paper trails in place by this fall."

Seems we're not the only ones to think so

[Rob Boudrie]

On a related subject, a friend just sent me a copy of a New York Times article published on 18 January 2004 entitled "Fixing Democracy" which said "Fortune Magazine named paperless voting its "worst technology" of 2003".

The article goes on to say:

"To address these concerns, electronic voting machines should produce a paper trail — hard-copy receipts that voters can check to ensure that their vote was accurately reported, and that can later be used in a recount. California recently took the lead on this issue, mandating paper trails from its machines by July 2006. A bill introduced by Representative Rush Holt would do the same nationally. Congress should make every effort to put paper trails in place by this fall."

Seems we're not the only ones to think so 

The difference is that voting is a activity where "data integrity" does not only mean "accuracy" and "not losing data" but protection from tampering by highly motivated and well funded adversaries, in a environment where the user has no chance to verify their data. Although banks and brokerage houses rely on electronic data, the customers know if the data is "right" and any systematic outcry of inaccuracy would be looked at. No such feedback exists in a voting system, since there is no way to tell how your vote was recorded.

[EricW]

Rob,

I'm not going to dispute that totally electronic transactions occur today. But, 99% of the time, there's sometype of check and balance in place. If I order something online, I get an email receipt. Make a transaction with the bank, get a transaction confirmation number. Etc...

I'm not an expert in *this* particular type of data collection system, but similar industrial systems have been my career for about 8 years or so. It's not that I don't trust an "all eggs in one basket" system farther than I can throw it, I simply don't trust them at all. They have no proven track record of reliability and adding the multiple redundancy necessary is a herculean task. Hence, my paper receipt mantra, but it sounds like we're on the same page there.

I'm really pleased that you ARE making a conduit and that it's not platform-specific. I think that's very forward thinking.

While USPSA HQ may not be making a substantial investment into the conduit, individual clubs/major matches will - and collectively that will represent a substantial sum of time and capital. In ten years, I think the Palm OS will be about as relevant and pervasive as the Timex Sinclair. If folks are going to hitch their wagon to a star, they might not want to choose one that seems to be forming an event horizon.

[D.Hayden]

This may have been covered, and maybe I missed it... wouldn't the PDA have a 802.11g card or equivilent and be sending to a secure place? I'm assuimg with either a 2 phase commit or something similar/equivilent?

Generally we would never trust any single component to contain anything (generally money) by itself. If we can't get confirmation that the 'host' acepted the remote transaction, we always go into 'store and forward' and produce paper, and store the transactions, then when the host comes back on line, transaction are 'forwarded'.

The more important the information, the more hardened the data and back-office system must be.

This is almost always true for any software/hardware platform. Doesn't matter Microsoft/Sun/IBM/BEA etc...

[Rob Boudrie]

This may have been covered, and maybe I missed it... wouldn't the PDA have a 802.11g card or equivilent and be sending to a secure place? I'm assuimg with either a 2 phase commit or something similar/equivilent?

Generally we would never trust any single component to contain anything (generally money) by itself. If we can't get confirmation that the 'host' acepted the remote transaction, we always go into 'store and forward' and produce paper, and store the transactions, then when the host comes back on line, transaction are 'forwarded'.

The more important the information, the more hardened the data and back-office system must be.

This is almost always true for any software/hardware platform. Doesn't matter Microsoft/Sun/IBM/BEA etc...

Since we do not have linkages between records (as in debit in one account and credit in another), there really isn't any need for a two phase commit.

[lynn jones]

i'm sure glad when the electronic timers and chorongraphs came out there wasn't this much debate over the technology.

i can remember scoring matches with pen, paper and calculator. then luckly lotus 123 spreadsheets came about. then MSS, then Ezwin score. Now the palm is tring to make the job of the ROs and stats people easier.

if the palm program was not worth doing, then peter cunningham and lloyd berggren would not have invested time and money to develope the program in the first place. i bought the palms and use the program to score all of our matches at our club (memphis sport shooting association). this program has made my life a lot easier since i do all the scoring.

my club is like everyone else's club, there are only several worker bees and a bunch of shooters that only come out to play. now, using the palm as the match scoring device, i get people indirectly involved with the scoring and helping with match. i spead 99% of the stats workload to the squads (we have a paper back up, btw). this saves me an hour or two of score input into Ezwinscore, and worring with incomplete scoresheets and unreadable hand writting.

the plam scoring system steps in and takes the place, almost, of an RO or stats officer where man power is lacking. world shoots or national championships where there are plenty of volunteers to work, you don't have a problem. hell, enough people with shovels can move a mountain. getting workers for state or area championships is becoming harder and harder to find. freeing up workers for other duties is what the palm was designed to do.

my buddies vince and peter may not agree on the benifits of the palm. however, there is a lot of interest in the U.S. and other countries, that want to use the palm in an official capacity with the MSS and Ezwinscore programs. it there is enough shooters wanting to us the palm system, the IPSC & USPSA powers that be, should make allowances with the rules.

the palm is a tool, just like the electronic timer and should be used to help our sport.

lynn

[Flexmoney]

Well put, Lynn.

[EricW]

Lynn,

I would never argue that an "automated" data collection system has no merit.

I *will* argue that using system (unlike yours) with no safety net will lead to data loss catastrophes. I will also argue that a scoring system that, either by misuse or design, is prone to catastrophic data loss will lead to a total distrust of the scoring system - which will have broader consequences for IPSC/USPSA.

I've been through this scenario on a commercial basis a couple dozen times. Everybody worships the electronic system (it's new, it must be better).....right up until the first unrecoverable failure/error. Then no one will ever believe *anything* that comes out of that system ever again. It's human nature. I've read about this utopian dream of "going paperless," but I really don't think people are considering the consequences of the ill-will generated when something goes seriously awry.

In summary: If there is no paper trail, the system had better be double-damned bulletproof. Double-damned bulletproof costs mucho dinero, so y'all better hang onto your checkbooks if that's what you really want.

Much to the relief of all, I'm going to shut up now.

[Peter C]

PC Comment re the last part of Vince’s itemised posting:

Vince is right – any machine has it’s limitations, and PDA’s are no different. Because guns jamb does it stop us from shooting? Because people die in cars, does it stop us from driving? The issue is one of risk verses benefit, but the quantum of each depends on personal prejudice – hence the continuing argument.

Somewhere a median exists, and that is ‘practical application’. Given that some rely on theory, fear and assumptions, but others rely on practical use, which perspective has the greater value? It is healthy to constructively challenge, and it is this that I needed because I was and am too close to the subject – hence biased.

Vince - Mrs top shooter said it crashed. Well – I accepted your challenge and did some figuring! There could be a number of reasons why it crashed – version incompatibility is one that immediately springs to mind! Had I been made aware, I might have an accurate response. Given that at development stage a number of versions could be floating around, such could well happen, but would a reasonable person then damn the whole program?

By way of analogy – If a pilot test flew an aircraft and found a hydraulic fault – would the entire project be scrapped? Let’s get real here and stop the continuing pettiness. When faced with inane comments I often wonder if this sport will ever survive, and why I ever bothered to try helping it.

Recent comment has been on an auditable trail, and fear that my program does not and cannot be relied upon to provide it. Let me put it this way – Is it really all that complex to continue to sign a piece of paper as an official record? That’s what it boils down to, so why the incessant barrage that Palm scoring can result in total failure of a match? Clearly that is not the case and ample proof exists, yet the same rhetoric and fear surfaces again and again.

If these fears can be finally put to rest by people actually using the program, then I might be able to finish off the integrated timer and the RF of scores immediately the score is accepted. Then – paperless scores and instant broadcast scores can be a reality. Personally, I would always want a paper receipt of my scores at a major match. To that end, many have found the easiest way to achieve this is to write and sign on the competitors match booklet for each stage. To my mind that is not a difficult nor a time-consuming thing.

What better situation can there be where a shooter accepts a stage score, then uses a personal PIN to secure it. Given that the score can be only correct, and that unlike the present process, a PIN secured score cannot be touched – the ASS process guarantees that the actual score does not undergo human interpretation or interference thereafter.

More – if the shooter had a Palm, then IR beaming that takes about 3 seconds would transfer that secured score for the shooter’s records and as another backup. More still – if the RO had a later model palm, it’s just a simple matter of copying the match to the memory stick. If the palm dies - take the memory stick out – put it in the master – and recover the scores. Any scores not so saved are recovered from either paper or by finding the shooters and asking them to beam their secured scores back to the master Palm.

Perhaps I’m just imagining it all and that none of this is a substantial benefit after all. Perhaps the clubs and shooters who use the program are also wrong. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me!

Peter Cunningham

PS: I just read Lynn Jones comment – you’ve said it all. That’s just what I wanted – ultimately to relieve stress and allow us to have more fun!

[Peter C]

This is a “geek” length response to Items 1 and 2 of Vince’s comments:

“Misinformation” need not occur if fact was sought in the first instance. Despite ample evidence to the contrary, the same, often discredited arguments are trotted out. I’ll address the core issues now – COST and ownership!

I have repeatedly tried to approach IPSC with the view that the program be assessed and ultimately distributed by an entity such as IPSC and or USPSA who would then have the source codes, and be paid for over 8 or 10 years by a modest annual membership levy of (say) $5 so that the maximum any shooter would need to pay over that period would be $40 or $50. This is surely affordable even for nations with poor exchange rates, and because old Palms that are ideal for our purposes are available for about $60. Where are those cost and ownership arguments now?

That being denied me, I had to determine another strategy and set a price based on just a percentage of the worldwide sport. I was forced to bluntly front Nick in Africa, after which the very capable Myro Lopez was charged with reporting back to Nick the results of his pointed questioning. I know for a fact he was impressed, but since then no emails have been answered, and not one enquiry from ‘up top’.

When faced with such a wall of indifference there was no point in trying to kick life into the dead dog. In utter contrast, USPSA people have been constructively critical, cooperated, and we have achieved the interim and effective interface to EzWinScore - and more. It could have been with IPSC. A question springs to mind – WHY NOT?

My intent was as simple as it is honest – to benefit the sport by making it available to everybody, so that the traditional problems of scoring and management become a thing of the past and thus to allow our sport to progress.

Perhaps I am wrong, but as a mere shooter and experienced former IROA RO, I thought it a good thing for mere mortals such as myself to contribute to the sport. Perhaps though it is the prerogative of just a few to show initiative and I actually have it all wrong. My sincerest apologies for being so brash!

Vince is right! At a match the size of the WS, some 40 Palms would be needed. Well – I have 30 Palms – and nobody has asked me!

What is the extent of the fear? 40 Palms at $60 = $2400 and 40 licences at $5 = 200. Grand total $2600.

Compare that to 6 people in stats slaving away when only two would be needed. Cost of accommodation for 2 persons in a room for two weeks means 2 rooms for 12 days at $70 = $1680, plus food $500 = $2180, and that’s not considering the costs of flying some MSS Guru to the match just to run it. And what of the computers needed by each of those persons to use – are they bought for the match or loaned? Now – doesn’t that raise some interesting questions?

The other amazing thing is, unlike the Palms, the rooms and food do not remain for reuse on other matches. In fact, there would be no cost at all for such a match because ultimately when RO’s have their own Palm, just set up the match on their Palms. In turn, they provide match data to any shooters with Palms.

Yet again that much-touted ogre of cost is discredited. It is in fact substantially CHEAPER to run a major match with Palms. If anybody has a difficulty with this, please let me know and I will explain in greater detail.

Given the above, all that needs doing is to tap the button SCORE on the Master Palm and one minute later (for WS13) the accurate results are available per division, I think that’s a pretty good effort, especially as the results can be printed direct from the Palm.

I developed Match Magic that handles the output files from the Palm admirably and simply. No computer Guru is needed, and no special software is needed – just an industry standard Microsoft Excel. Literally all you need do is to put the master palm in the cradle and press a button to transfer all data to the main PC. Name the match and click on the button GO. Sit back and have a cold beer and everything is done – NO GRIEF!

I reckon that’s also a pretty good effort, but I was forced to develop it because of the previously stated indifference. Had cooperation existed, we would have developed an interface to use Palms to feed MSS just as we did for USPSA.

OK Vince – At the next WS, I offer to be that “sponsor”. I supply the Palms and my support to run the entire scoring and scoring management for the match using the ASS system for no cost other than that which would be normally afforded to importing such a person for stats.

Of course some positive cooperation will be needed to have RO’s familiar well before such a match – they may even have to buy their own Palm. To undertake such a major match without each match official being familiar would be folly indeed. All I need is one assistant and two way radio comms etc, other than that, everything (except paper) is in a Pelican case.

Peter Cunningham

[BritinUSA]

Here's an interesting link. It would appear that you can now buy little PALM PDA printers ...

PDA Printer

Has anyone ever contacted any of the many PALM manufacturers to see if they would be interested in sponsoring a major IPSC/USPSA match ?

You don't know until you ask....

[kimel]

There are also printers that operate off of IR or Bluetooth link.

We are transitioning our entire campus parking enforcement system to palm devices (rubber armored and weatherproofed of course) using these printers. The printer rides on the belt and prints on a "paper" which is a polyester sheet. That stuff is TOUGH. It can take days on a hot windshield, rain, snow, ice, etc. It will tear if you get it started but it is darn durable. We stress tested a few sample "tickets" last June in a hot parking lot. We drove over them. Immersed them in oil slicks and mud puddles. Walked across them on the hot asphalt and they came through in great shape. So even at the worst possible conditions at a match the "paperwork" isn't likely to be damaged by a little rain/snow/sleet/hail/blood/gatorade/rootbeer/etc.

These printers aren't exactly cheap but they aren't horribly expensive either.