|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #340861 is a reply to message #340845] |
Sat, 01 April 2017 20:40   |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> A friend went to replace his cell phones. They were two years
> old, but unreliable. New phones cost several hundred dollars.
>
> In the old days, a telephone set was designed to last 15 to 20
> years, though in service could last much longer (I have sets
> 40 years old that work just fine.)
>
> Here's an ad from the old Bell System extolling their reliability.
> Too bad it would be meaningless to a Verizon dealer today.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=JlYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA12& amp;dq=life%20western%20electric%2015%20to%2020%20years& pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=life%20western%20electric%2015%20to% 2020%20years&f=false
>
But the phones were much simpler. And, nothing changed.
A cellphone is a complicated piece of radio equipment. Circa 1971,
it would have taken up a lot of space. So not only is there a whole lot
more than can go wrong, but the standards keep changing, so something that
is a few years old may no longer be capable of updating.
Even for a few hundred dollars, you are getting an amazing deal. And it's
small, and it's portable, and it's a lot more than "just a phone".
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #340919 is a reply to message #340913] |
Sun, 02 April 2017 14:00 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-04-02, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The people I know usually get new phones to get some feature they want, not
> because the old one is dead. They're pretty hard to kill--I ran one
> through the washing machine once and after it dried out it was fine.
My old AMPS phone fell into the toilet one day - again, once I dried
it out it was fine.
The last time I got a new phone was because my existing one fell
out of my belt pouch when I wasn't looking and disappeared forever.
And then, the replacement wasn't new - I took over my wife's flip
phone because she was getting an Android phone (see above).
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #340926 is a reply to message #340911] |
Sun, 02 April 2017 14:25 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <obr6rj$6r9$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 20:27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> A friend went to replace his cell phones. They were two years
>> old, but unreliable. New phones cost several hundred dollars.
>>
>> In the old days, a telephone set was designed to last 15 to 20
>> years, though in service could last much longer (I have sets
>> 40 years old that work just fine.)
I'll up you on that.
I have an Elektrisk Bureu (now Ericsson) 1892 vintage wall phone
that is still in working order; I even have it connected to a
Xorcom switch with a little amplifier in between. It has a paper
certification inside with 7 co-signatures for the work.
I also have an Ericsson 1932 vintage phone that can connect
directly to a POTS line, and it has a pulse wheel; it is in
Z-cadence so I have to translate it in the asterisk dial plan.
It has a little wobble when dialling 8 and 9, it may drop a
click and dial 7 or 8 instead, but only if I dial fast and not
let the wheel come all the way back to rest properly.
But I am on my 27th mobile. I still have #24 and #25, they
were upgraded for capacity. #26 died in water. So this one is
waterproof.
And they do a whole lot more than the 1892 and 1932 models.
But it is cool to have phone calls on 125 year old equipment.
>> Here's an ad from the old Bell System extolling their reliability.
>> Too bad it would be meaningless to a Verizon dealer today.
>>
>>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=JlYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA12& amp;dq=life%20western%20electric%2015%20to%2020%20years& pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=life%20western%20electric%2015%20to% 2020%20years&f=false
>>
> Why are they un-reliable? I have a couple of two year old phones and
> they work just fine. I would expect a few years out of a phone.
>
> Fairly decent Android phones are available for around $60 just not from
> the high street. Certainly in the UK they want to lock you into a
> contract...
When you want good phone deals, follow the recent immigrants. They
have a knack for finding the good caller plans and the good deals
on equipment.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #340929 is a reply to message #340926] |
Sun, 02 April 2017 14:43 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017, Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <obr6rj$6r9$1@dont-email.me>,
> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
>> On 01/04/2017 20:27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> A friend went to replace his cell phones. They were two years
>>> old, but unreliable. New phones cost several hundred dollars.
>>>
>>> In the old days, a telephone set was designed to last 15 to 20
>>> years, though in service could last much longer (I have sets
>>> 40 years old that work just fine.)
>
> I'll up you on that.
>
> I have an Elektrisk Bureu (now Ericsson) 1892 vintage wall phone
> that is still in working order; I even have it connected to a
> Xorcom switch with a little amplifier in between. It has a paper
> certification inside with 7 co-signatures for the work.
>
> I also have an Ericsson 1932 vintage phone that can connect
> directly to a POTS line, and it has a pulse wheel; it is in
> Z-cadence so I have to translate it in the asterisk dial plan.
>
> It has a little wobble when dialling 8 and 9, it may drop a
> click and dial 7 or 8 instead, but only if I dial fast and not
> let the wheel come all the way back to rest properly.
>
We have a Bell wall phone in the kitchen, been there since they put in the
modular jacks in the seventies. I can't remember why they replaced the
old wall phone, which was older. I know a few years ago it wasn't dialing
properly, I opened it up and blew out some dust, maybe adjusted something
on the dial, and no further problems. I'm surprised, grease and dirt tend
to accumulate in the kitchen, I remember a wall clock that was a mess
inside.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #340983 is a reply to message #340845] |
Mon, 03 April 2017 08:51 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> A friend went to replace his cell phones. They were two years
> old, but unreliable. New phones cost several hundred dollars.
My cell phone is 7 years old and works fine. It cost $135 new.
>
> In the old days, a telephone set was designed to last 15 to 20
> years, though in service could last much longer (I have sets
> 40 years old that work just fine.)
My oldest working deskset is about 70 years old (3xx series).
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341016 is a reply to message #340913] |
Mon, 03 April 2017 15:24 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:04:30 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> The people I know usually get new phones to get some feature they want, not
> because the old one is dead. They're pretty hard to kill--I ran one
> through the washing machine once and after it dried out it was fine.
Their cell phones frequently failed.
FWIW, Verizon told me the typical lifespan of a cellphone in heavy
service was two years.
Personally, I had several cellphones die because the battery would no
longer hold a charge and a replacement battery was not available. In
another case, the on/off button ceased to work.
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341017 is a reply to message #340861] |
Mon, 03 April 2017 15:27 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 8:39:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
> But the phones were much simpler. And, nothing changed.
Yes and no. AFAIK, a modern cell phone is basically just a single
encapsulated chip. In contrast, a traditional telephone set consisted
of several discrete components tied together by wiring. An old phone
had the 'network' (capacitor), ringer, dial, hookswitch, and handset.
It had a cord to the wall and a cord to the handset, as well as
internal wiring connecting all the pieces together.
>
> A cellphone is a complicated piece of radio equipment. Circa 1971,
> it would have taken up a lot of space. So not only is there a whole lot
> more than can go wrong, but the standards keep changing, so something that
> is a few years old may no longer be capable of updating.
>
> Even for a few hundred dollars, you are getting an amazing deal. And it's
> small, and it's portable, and it's a lot more than "just a phone".
>
> Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341024 is a reply to message #341017] |
Mon, 03 April 2017 16:54 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 8:39:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>
>> But the phones were much simpler. And, nothing changed.
>
> Yes and no. AFAIK, a modern cell phone is basically just a single
> encapsulated chip.
Try taking one apart some time, there's a SOC with the processor
and most of the I/O some RAM, some flash memory, the display, microphone,
speaker(s), the touchscreen, a radio chip, the battery and charging circuit
and a few switches and connectors. They are amazingly hard to take apart
and put back together, I can only assume they are assembled by machines.
The most common damage is to the screen, almost any sufficiently
hard impact will crack the glass. If you're lucky the touchscreen will
still work if not then you're in for an expensive repair or discovering
just how hard they are to take apart and put back together.
In my box of bits I currently have two working cellphones with
cracked glass[1] and one which I failed to put back together with a new
touchscreen - a ribbon cable with a *very* awkward connector snapped after
the umpteenth attempt to get it to stay connected while I put the board it
connected into place. The annoying thing is that I had it together and
working once - apart from one speaker, which I took it apart again to fix.
Another common failure point is the headphone socket, which doesn't
affect anything but being able to use headphones. Of course it only fails
if you use it a lot.
[1] One mine, one my son's, both replaced when contracts expired.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341029 is a reply to message #341016] |
Mon, 03 April 2017 16:58 |
pechter
Messages: 452
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <a639b0bd-d62d-4cde-bc90-e8c9d2668f68@googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:04:30 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> The people I know usually get new phones to get some feature they want, not
>> because the old one is dead. They're pretty hard to kill--I ran one
>> through the washing machine once and after it dried out it was fine.
>
> Their cell phones frequently failed.
>
> FWIW, Verizon told me the typical lifespan of a cellphone in heavy
> service was two years.
>
> Personally, I had several cellphones die because the battery would no
> longer hold a charge and a replacement battery was not available. In
> another case, the on/off button ceased to work.
Usual failure on phones was loss or impact with the floor. Lost a couple
of glass screens on my VZ Samsung Galaxy S3... Still runs today after having
the glass replaced. Upgraded to an S5 when I changed phone services
to GSM and saved $20+ per month.
I did have three Samsung flip phones that melted down after about 4 years.
Damn near burned me.
Changing battery didn't help -- the phone got hot enough to roast me.
Bill
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341037 is a reply to message #340913] |
Mon, 03 April 2017 18:48 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <obr6rj$6r9$1@dont-email.me>, g4ugm@dave.invalid says...
>>
>> On 01/04/2017 20:27, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> A friend went to replace his cell phones. They were two years
>>> old, but unreliable. New phones cost several hundred dollars.
>>>
>>> In the old days, a telephone set was designed to last 15 to 20
>>> years, though in service could last much longer (I have sets
>>> 40 years old that work just fine.)
>>>
>>> Here's an ad from the old Bell System extolling their reliability.
>>> Too bad it would be meaningless to a Verizon dealer today.
>>>
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=JlYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA12& amp;dq=life%20western%20electric%2015%20to%2020%20years& pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=life%20western%20electric%2015%20to% 2020%20years&f=false
>>>
>> Why are they un-reliable? I have a couple of two year old phones and
>> they work just fine. I would expect a few years out of a phone.
>>
>> Fairly decent Android phones are available for around $60 just not from
>> the high street. Certainly in the UK they want to lock you into a
>> contract...
>
> The people I know usually get new phones to get some feature they want, not
> because the old one is dead. They're pretty hard to kill--I ran one
> through the washing machine once and after it dried out it was fine.
>
I usually recycle mine from my wife or daughter when they get a new(er)
phone. Never had a hardware problem with them. IPhone 4 is now getting
hard to find alps for.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341060 is a reply to message #341024] |
Tue, 04 April 2017 02:03 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> The most common damage is to the screen, almost any sufficiently
> hard impact will crack the glass. If you're lucky the touchscreen will
> still work if not then you're in for an expensive repair or discovering
> just how hard they are to take apart and put back together.
So why aren't they made out of lexan or similar indestructo plastic?
Nobody will sell me glasses (eyewear, not drinking vessels) made of
glass any more. I'm sure this is great for the dispensing opticians.
Why not for cell phones?
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341061 is a reply to message #341060] |
Tue, 04 April 2017 02:40 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 04 Apr 2017 03:03:10 -0300
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> The most common damage is to the screen, almost any sufficiently
>> hard impact will crack the glass. If you're lucky the touchscreen will
>> still work if not then you're in for an expensive repair or discovering
>> just how hard they are to take apart and put back together.
>
> So why aren't they made out of lexan or similar indestructo plastic?
Good question, I suspect it's down to how easily the surface
scratches, even lexan scratches much more easily than glass.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341071 is a reply to message #341029] |
Tue, 04 April 2017 05:38 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-04-03, William Pechter <pechter@lakewoodmicro-fbsd-tor1-01.lakewoodmicro.com> wrote:
> In article <a639b0bd-d62d-4cde-bc90-e8c9d2668f68@googlegroups.com>,
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:04:30 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> The people I know usually get new phones to get some feature they want, not
>>> because the old one is dead. They're pretty hard to kill--I ran one
>>> through the washing machine once and after it dried out it was fine.
>>
>> Their cell phones frequently failed.
>>
>> FWIW, Verizon told me the typical lifespan of a cellphone in heavy
>> service was two years.
>>
>> Personally, I had several cellphones die because the battery would no
>> longer hold a charge and a replacement battery was not available. In
>> another case, the on/off button ceased to work.
>
> Usual failure on phones was loss or impact with the floor. Lost a couple
> of glass screens on my VZ Samsung Galaxy S3... Still runs today after having
> the glass replaced. Upgraded to an S5 when I changed phone services
> to GSM and saved $20+ per month.
>
> I did have three Samsung flip phones that melted down after about 4 years.
> Damn near burned me.
>
> Changing battery didn't help -- the phone got hot enough to roast me.
>
>
> Bill
According to my (addmitably old) friends, phones falling down toilets
is the common way of losing them.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341075 is a reply to message #341060] |
Tue, 04 April 2017 05:53 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <87mvbwbtgh.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>,
mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere says...
>
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> The most common damage is to the screen, almost any sufficiently
>> hard impact will crack the glass. If you're lucky the touchscreen will
>> still work if not then you're in for an expensive repair or discovering
>> just how hard they are to take apart and put back together.
>
> So why aren't they made out of lexan or similar indestructo plastic?
The "indestructo plastic" scratches very easily. Not a good thing for a
touch screen that lives in someone's pocket.
> Nobody will sell me glasses (eyewear, not drinking vessels) made of
> glass any more. I'm sure this is great for the dispensing opticians.
> Why not for cell phones?
See above.
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341077 is a reply to message #341071] |
Tue, 04 April 2017 06:26 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 4 Apr 2017 09:38:37 GMT
mausg@mail.com wrote:
> According to my (addmitably old) friends, phones falling down toilets
> is the common way of losing them.
Yep, fairly common with yoofers who stick the phone in the back
pocket of their jeans[1], from where it falls as they pull their jeans up
after using the toilet. It might survive if they reached in and grabbed it
immediately but for some reason they often prefer to flush first.
[1] It doesn't seem to matter how often they're told that the back pocket
of jeans is not a safe place for *anything* of value they still get used
for phones and/or wallets.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341078 is a reply to message #341077] |
Tue, 04 April 2017 06:34 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <20170404112640.1c09a3be2d8e64a918593dde@eircom.net>,
steveo@eircom.net says...
>
> On 4 Apr 2017 09:38:37 GMT
> mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> According to my (addmitably old) friends, phones falling down toilets
>> is the common way of losing them.
>
> Yep, fairly common with yoofers who stick the phone in the back
> pocket of their jeans[1], from where it falls as they pull their jeans up
> after using the toilet. It might survive if they reached in and grabbed it
> immediately but for some reason they often prefer to flush first.
>
> [1] It doesn't seem to matter how often they're told that the back pocket
> of jeans is not a safe place for *anything* of value they still get used
> for phones and/or wallets.
I stuck a phone in my back pocket once. Sat down, heard something go
"crunch", picked some glass out of my butt, and never did that again.
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341104 is a reply to message #341060] |
Tue, 04 April 2017 11:32 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <87mvbwbtgh.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> you write:
>> The most common damage is to the screen, almost any sufficiently
>> hard impact will crack the glass. If you're lucky the touchscreen will
>> still work if not then you're in for an expensive repair or discovering
>> just how hard they are to take apart and put back together.
>
> So why aren't they made out of lexan or similar indestructo plastic?
If you've ever tried to look out of a lexan train window that's been
scratched into opacity you'd know why they aren't.
Most mobile phone screens use Gorilla Glass, a series of glass made by
Corning. It combines strength, scratch resistance, flexibility (for
the touch screen), clarity and thinness. Legend says that Steve Jobs
goaded them into designing the original Gorilla Glass for the original
iPhone by repeatedly sending the samples back and telling them it
wasn't strong/thin/flexible/clear enough. Corning has been doing high
tech glass for over a century and they weren't going to let him say he
knew more about their business then they did.
For lots of blurbage see https://www.corning.com/gorillaglass/worldwide/en.html
It happens to be made in upstate New York, about 45 minutes from my
house. My next door neighbor used to work there writing software for
glass fiber test equipment.
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341131 is a reply to message #341104] |
Tue, 04 April 2017 17:26 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 11:32:27 AM UTC-4, John Levine wrote:
> If you've ever tried to look out of a lexan train window that's been
> scratched into opacity you'd know why they aren't.
The early versions of Lexan did scratch easily and was a problem on
commuter trains where it was installed. However, it was more resistant
to rock throwing than plain safety glass, a big problem then and now.
Current train windows seem to be far more resistant to scratching.
However, as we learned in the North Philadelphia accident, windshields
still shatter when a rock is thrown at them.
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341147 is a reply to message #341061] |
Tue, 04 April 2017 22:46 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On 04 Apr 2017 03:03:10 -0300
> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> The most common damage is to the screen, almost any sufficiently
>>> hard impact will crack the glass. If you're lucky the touchscreen
>>> will still work if not then you're in for an expensive repair or
>>> discovering just how hard they are to take apart and put back
>>> together.
>>
>> So why aren't they made out of lexan or similar indestructo
>> plastic?
>
> Good question, I suspect it's down to how easily the surface
> scratches, even lexan scratches much more easily than glass.
Which is, of course, why it pisses me off that I can't get glass
eyewear. Everything I do (except reading and internet) is dirty:
blackmithing, welding, mechanicing, gardening, cooking, chainsawing
(latter two have grease/oil spatters) but I have to be super-dooper
careful about cleaning my glasses lest I scratch them.
But wait: none of those grime sources would affect a cell phone.
Feh.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341152 is a reply to message #341147] |
Wed, 05 April 2017 01:55 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 04 Apr 2017 23:46:01 -0300
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On 04 Apr 2017 03:03:10 -0300
>> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So why aren't they made out of lexan or similar indestructo
>>> plastic?
>>
>> Good question, I suspect it's down to how easily the surface
>> scratches, even lexan scratches much more easily than glass.
>
> Which is, of course, why it pisses me off that I can't get glass
> eyewear. Everything I do (except reading and internet) is dirty:
> blackmithing, welding, mechanicing, gardening, cooking, chainsawing
> (latter two have grease/oil spatters) but I have to be super-dooper
> careful about cleaning my glasses lest I scratch them.
>
> But wait: none of those grime sources would affect a cell phone.
But a bit of grit on the finger that swipes will, as will keys or
coins in the same pocket.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341155 is a reply to message #341152] |
Wed, 05 April 2017 04:47 |
Harry Vaderchi
Messages: 719
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:55:48 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 04 Apr 2017 23:46:01 -0300
> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
[]
>> careful about cleaning my glasses lest I scratch them.
>>
>> But wait: none of those grime sources would affect a cell phone.
>
> But a bit of grit on the finger that swipes will, as will keys or
> coins in the same pocket.
>
DNAMHIKT?
I have a wallet that has a metal zipped section; I've spent several phones
trying to train myself to put them in different pockets.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341182 is a reply to message #341155] |
Wed, 05 April 2017 05:22 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:47:42 +0100, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:55:48 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On 04 Apr 2017 23:46:01 -0300 Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
>> wrote:
> []
>
>>> careful about cleaning my glasses lest I scratch them.
>>>
>>> But wait: none of those grime sources would affect a cell phone.
>>
>> But a bit of grit on the finger that swipes will, as will keys or
>> coins in the same pocket.
>>
> DNAMHIKT?
> I have a wallet that has a metal zipped section; I've spent several
> phones trying to train myself to put them in different pockets.
For equipment such as phones (and pretty well everything else - tablet,
Kindle, MP3 player) I have always regarded the purchase as requiring a
case.
My phone case is a simple flip-over one, thin but effective at guarding
against damage from scratches or drops. I can keep it in any pocket!
The cases cost a bit, but I regard it as insurance.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341183 is a reply to message #341182] |
Wed, 05 April 2017 13:51 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On 5 Apr 2017 09:22:15 GMT, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:47:42 +0100, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:55:48 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04 Apr 2017 23:46:01 -0300 Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
>>> wrote:
>> []
>>
>>>> careful about cleaning my glasses lest I scratch them.
>>>>
>>>> But wait: none of those grime sources would affect a cell phone.
>>>
>>> But a bit of grit on the finger that swipes will, as will keys or
>>> coins in the same pocket.
>>>
>> DNAMHIKT?
>> I have a wallet that has a metal zipped section; I've spent several
>> phones trying to train myself to put them in different pockets.
>
> For equipment such as phones (and pretty well everything else - tablet,
> Kindle, MP3 player) I have always regarded the purchase as requiring a
> case.
>
> My phone case is a simple flip-over one, thin but effective at guarding
> against damage from scratches or drops. I can keep it in any pocket!
>
> The cases cost a bit, but I regard it as insurance.
I have a camera case that has a belt loop for my cell phone. Cost is
less than $15 and they last for years.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341209 is a reply to message #341155] |
Wed, 05 April 2017 19:18 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:47:42 +0100, "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:55:48 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On 04 Apr 2017 23:46:01 -0300
>> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> []
>
>>> careful about cleaning my glasses lest I scratch them.
>>>
>>> But wait: none of those grime sources would affect a cell phone.
>>
>> But a bit of grit on the finger that swipes will, as will keys or
>> coins in the same pocket.
>>
> DNAMHIKT?
Do not abuse my ... ?
Or what, please?
> I have a wallet that has a metal zipped section; I've spent several phones
> trying to train myself to put them in different pockets.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341212 is a reply to message #341209] |
Wed, 05 April 2017 21:06 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:47:42 +0100, "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:55:48 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04 Apr 2017 23:46:01 -0300
>>> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>> []
>>
>>>> careful about cleaning my glasses lest I scratch them.
>>>>
>>>> But wait: none of those grime sources would affect a cell phone.
>>>
>>> But a bit of grit on the finger that swipes will, as will keys or
>>> coins in the same pocket.
>>>
>> DNAMHIKT?
>
> Do not abuse my ... ?
> Or what, please?
Do not ask me how I know this ...
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341253 is a reply to message #341212] |
Thu, 06 April 2017 15:13 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 20:06:01 -0500, Lawrence Statton NK1G
<lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:47:42 +0100, "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
>> wrote:
[snip]
>>> DNAMHIKT?
>>
>> Do not abuse my ... ?
>> Or what, please?
>
> Do not ask me how I know this ...
Why not? I could not find it with a Web search.
(Yes, I got it. Thank you.)
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341529 is a reply to message #340911] |
Tue, 11 April 2017 18:32 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Mike Causer
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 16:57:29 +0100
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
> Fairly decent Android phones are available for around $60 just not
> from the high street. Certainly in the UK they want to lock you into
> a contract...
Funny, I've now had 3 PAYG Android phones in the UK at the cheap end of
the market. One Voda branded but unlocked, then 2 Moto Gs, both unlocked.
Perhaps you're buying them in the wrong place. Tesco me.
Mike
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341549 is a reply to message #341529] |
Wed, 12 April 2017 04:44 |
Andy Leighton
Messages: 203
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 23:32:11 +0100, Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 16:57:29 +0100
> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Fairly decent Android phones are available for around $60 just not
>> from the high street. Certainly in the UK they want to lock you into
>> a contract...
>
> Funny, I've now had 3 PAYG Android phones in the UK at the cheap end of
> the market. One Voda branded but unlocked, then 2 Moto Gs, both unlocked.
Same for me. Currently on a Moto G too. I have never had a problem finding
PAYG mobiles. A simple google search finds a number of shops selling them.
--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341566 is a reply to message #341549] |
Wed, 12 April 2017 14:05 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> Same for me. Currently on a Moto G too. I have never had a problem finding
> PAYG mobiles. A simple google search finds a number of shops selling them.
If you don't insist on the newest and shiniest phones, sites like
swappa.com make it easy to find good used ones for reasonable prices.
That's where I get most of mine.
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341581 is a reply to message #341566] |
Thu, 13 April 2017 05:34 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-04-12, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>> Same for me. Currently on a Moto G too. I have never had a problem finding
>> PAYG mobiles. A simple google search finds a number of shops selling them.
>
> If you don't insist on the newest and shiniest phones, sites like
> swappa.com make it easy to find good used ones for reasonable prices.
> That's where I get most of mine.
>
Bit of a paradox there, hey?
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: cell phone frustration [message #341582 is a reply to message #341581] |
Thu, 13 April 2017 06:45 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 13 Apr 2017 09:34:04 GMT
mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-04-12, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>> Same for me. Currently on a Moto G too. I have never had a problem
>>> finding PAYG mobiles. A simple google search finds a number of shops
>>> selling them.
>>
>> If you don't insist on the newest and shiniest phones, sites like
>> swappa.com make it easy to find good used ones for reasonable prices.
>> That's where I get most of mine.
>>
> Bit of a paradox there, hey?
Nope it just takes advantage of the fact that there's always a good
number of people willing to pay the premium to get their hands on "ooh
shiny" early and aren't too fussy about how much they get for their
leavings as long as someone takes them away before they pile up and look
messy.
Much the same way that it makes more sense (IMHO) to buy a decent
car secondhand than to spend the same money buying something new but nasty.
The idea is to get on the right side of the big initial drop in value taking
full advantage of those who prefer to be on the wrong side of it.
Think of it as a wealth redistribution mechanism.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
