Motorola Phone Tools is the worse software I have ever used

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:35:11 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]>
wrote in <zj%[email protected]>:

>in 126097 20061128 182411 John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:24:32 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
>>wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>> Motorola Phone Tools is the worse software I have ever used, as well as
>>>> constantly crashing and I have to reboot every time I try to use it and
>>>> it doesn't recognize SIM Contacts.
>>>
>>>It's very unstable software. It seems to decide whether to work or not
>>>based on lunar tides. It's always an adventure to predict whether or not
>>>it will recognize your phone, and if it does, which features of the
>>>program will actually work during that session.
>>
>>It's actually quite stable _if_ installed, configured, and used
>>properly.
>
>Then perhaps you would like to give us a few hints on how to install, configure
>and use it properly?

Lots of info is readily available on BVRP forums, Usenet, and the Web.

>Before I retired a few years ago I spent 40 years fixing, testing, designing, building
>and programming all manner of computers, but I've never come across such a
>frustrating and annoying piece if software.

I've got comparable experience, and I've seen _lots_ of worse software.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: Motorola Phone Tools is the worse software I have ever used

In message <[email protected]> John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That's actually because support for drives is based on _shared_ access,
>whereas cell phones are essentially _dedicated_ access devices, a legacy
>of their modem heritage. Support for multiple connections on dedicated
>devices is non-trivial, and likely problematic due to the Law of
>Unintended Consequences. Shared connection support in the cell phone
>could be a solution except that it would greatly complicate design of
>the cell phone, and obsolete existing software (including Windows).

It wouldn't be hard for a cellphone manufacturer to offer both, with the
modem component being dedicated access, everything else being shared, or
even simply presenting the data on the phone as a removeable drive
(read-only where applicable, read/write for media, ring tones, etc)

Nothing would need to be obsolete except for MPT and similar software
written for older phones specifically.

The phone could even ask which mode is desired when connecting, modem or
general access (and modem would be modem-only)

--
No Sprinkles. For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you.
-- Stewie

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 01:30:00 GMT, DevilsPGD
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In message <[email protected]> John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>That's actually because support for drives is based on _shared_ access,
>>whereas cell phones are essentially _dedicated_ access devices, a legacy
>>of their modem heritage. Support for multiple connections on dedicated
>>devices is non-trivial, and likely problematic due to the Law of
>>Unintended Consequences. Shared connection support in the cell phone
>>could be a solution except that it would greatly complicate design of
>>the cell phone, and obsolete existing software (including Windows).
>
>It wouldn't be hard for a cellphone manufacturer to offer both, with the
>modem component being dedicated access, everything else being shared, or
>even simply presenting the data on the phone as a removeable drive
>(read-only where applicable, read/write for media, ring tones, etc)

Actually it would be quite hard, requiring considerable new logic in the
phone with no certainty of support in the marketplace, and given lack of
interest by most consumers, not bloody likely.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

hey, i'm late to the game, but i've gotta agree anyway. wow, who
designed this stuff? did they do any user-interface testing? on
creatures other than monkeys? motorola seems to make decent phones, but
this software/cable package is a real kick in the teeth, especially
after the exorbitant cost of it.

do you know what i'm going to do about it? never buy another motorola
phone. so there.

[email protected] wrote:
> Motorola Phone Tools is the worse software I have ever used, as well as
> constantly crashing and I have to reboot every time I try to use it and
> it doesn't recognize SIM Contacts. Can anyone suggest an alternative
> that works please? Ideally one with a sensible Window Interface instead
> of an ugly and pointless phone image interface. All I want to do is
> download my SIM contacts into a .csv or text file. I could backup my
> contacts onto a harware sim car reader but surely someone has written a
> sensible program to do this. File transfer of images etc is an option
> bonus. Many Thanks, William

well then post data pilot or some other one for us so we can compare
and evaluate some other one.


On 18 Dec 2006 13:01:32 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>hey, i'm late to the game, but i've gotta agree anyway. wow, who
>designed this stuff? did they do any user-interface testing? on
>creatures other than monkeys? motorola seems to make decent phones, but
>this software/cable package is a real kick in the teeth, especially
>after the exorbitant cost of it.
>
>do you know what i'm going to do about it? never buy another motorola
>phone. so there.
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Motorola Phone Tools is the worse software I have ever used, as well as
>> constantly crashing and I have to reboot every time I try to use it and
>> it doesn't recognize SIM Contacts. Can anyone suggest an alternative
>> that works please? Ideally one with a sensible Window Interface instead
>> of an ugly and pointless phone image interface. All I want to do is
>> download my SIM contacts into a .csv or text file. I could backup my
>> contacts onto a harware sim car reader but surely someone has written a
>> sensible program to do this. File transfer of images etc is an option
>> bonus. Many Thanks, William