PC World doesn't get it.

Here is a link to a hands on review of the Palm Foleo by PCWorld.

I don't have a problem with the review until the last paragraph where the author says:

But for $600 ($500 with a $100 mail-in-rebate), I'd hunt around for a used laptop, especially if I already had anywhere-access with my Treo. I settle for a limited selection of limited-function apps on a smartphone as a trade-off for it fitting in my pocket. If I'm going to have to carry something around, it may as well be a laptop.

But why? I'm not sure where he's getting this whole limited function apps nonsense, sure there are not a whole lot of applications available NOW, but the developers are not going to be sitting around /NOT/ developing for the Foleo. The small guys may not be able to get their hands on the pre-release, or be able to afford the trip to the big conference etc.

Documents to go isn't a limited function application, heck the version on my Treo650 does everything I've ever asked of it. Opera browser is limited? Because it doesn't support tabs?
How much you want to bet it will support tabs by Christmas? or failing that a third party web browser will be available.

This is a whole new market, and it's NOT a laptop, but why do you need to carry a laptop around with you? You want to carry something that takes minutes to boot, is prone to getting spyware, runs for a limited amount of time without being plugged into a wall. Heck If I'm going to carry anything around I'd rather the Foleo, but again please remember I only carry it for WORK. I play on my iMac, I work on my Treo.