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."