Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: gabe@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu (Gabe Wiener) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Phone Design For Humans Message-ID:Date: 27 Sep 89 21:37:29 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Reply-To: Gabe Wiener Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Lines: 31 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 413, message 7 of 9 In article dsacg1!dlscg1!drms3002@ cis.ohio-state.edu (Andy Meijers) writes: >Designers: (including ATT, WECO, etc): Go back and look at the 500 and >2500 series desk sets again. There is a reason they lasted so long, >and were so widely imitated. They WORKED!!! Speaking of the 2500, is it still with us? Does AT&T (or ITT, or GTE, or Stromberg Carlson (comdial) or whoever) still manufacture a _real_ 2500 set? I remember when a friend went to buy a 2500 set a few years ago, what he came back with was truly horrible. Worse, it was made by AT&T. It had -- - A square handset - Buttons that generated short tone bursts - A wimpy electronic ringer. A ringer should be MECHANICAL and it should be LOUD! -An el-cheapo keypad that had little travel, and had the cutesy yuppie ringer volume and other such stuff right on the front panel. -No weight. You could breathe and the thing might fly away. Is this the evolution (or shall I say devolution) of the venerable 2500 set? I'd better hang on to the one I have. It may well be worth something one day. Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings gabe@ctr.columbia.edu to be seriously considered as a means of gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu communication. The device is inherently of 72355.1226@compuserve.com no value to us."