Can anybody recommend me a mobile?

"F1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > It's even harder for somebody to take your credit card from you when you
> > only use it about 1 time a year. So there YOU go
> >
> > Princess Morgiah, always paying in cash.
>
> Now I'm starting to see why the "Princess" in the name...

Sorry, I don't get it - why?

Princess Morgiah

---

› See More: Can anybody recommend me a mobile?

"Adam Greatrix" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Princess Morgiah" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
> > It's even harder for somebody to take your credit card from you when you
> > only use it about 1 time a year. So there YOU go
>
> Very true, but then when you do use it that once you still safer using it
on
> the internet...

Got me there - let's just agree to disagree.

Princess Morgiah

"Adam Greatrix" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snipped>
> If somebody said they were a web developer and say they don't trust
> web-based transactions it's either because they haven't caught up to
current
> technologies or standards and best practice procedures developed over the
> past 5 years for performing secure transactions, or they don't bother with
> them, or they do but are aware of some of the sites out there that don't
> bother with them. However, it's pretty easy to spot a good site from a bad
> site... even if it's just spotting when it's a secure site or not by
looking
> for "https" or ".shtml" or the padlock displayed in I.E. In the same way
> it's pretty easy to spot a dubious looking shop or door to door salesman
> who's about to try to rip you off.

By implementing these best practice procedures, I have seen what is needed
to set up a secure environment - and I have also had the privilige to see
how others did not do that. That's one reason for not trusting online
transactions.

Another reason is the fact that I find it easier to complain to a real shop
when something goes wrong, whereas you're talking to an online entity. In a
real shop, I am a real person which they have to satisfy or get rid of. As a
client, I always get my way so that second option is not an option for a
real shop.

The last reason is that I have no need for shopping on the net - I can find
everything I need in some shop or other nearby, and most of the time a LOT
cheaper than on the net.

Princess Morgiah

"Princess Morgiah" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> By implementing these best practice procedures, I have seen what is needed
> to set up a secure environment - and I have also had the privilige to see
> how others did not do that. That's one reason for not trusting online
> transactions.

Yes - very true - a lot of places obviously aren't bothered - but these are
relatively easy to spot and I wouldn't shop there anyway. In the same way I
wouldn't shop in certain shops in town for various reasons.

> Another reason is the fact that I find it easier to complain to a real
shop
> when something goes wrong, whereas you're talking to an online entity. In
a
> real shop, I am a real person which they have to satisfy or get rid of. As
a
> client, I always get my way so that second option is not an option for a
> real shop.

Very true. I can't argue with that.

> The last reason is that I have no need for shopping on the net - I can
find
> everything I need in some shop or other nearby, and most of the time a LOT
> cheaper than on the net.

I usually find to find somewhere competitive to a good online shop (of which
I can search hundreds very quickly for the best price) I usually have to
travel several hundred miles, and often the online shop is just an online
front to a real shop and the reason it's cheaper is that you're not paying
delivery charges. I'm not saying online is always cheaper - I'm just saying
I find it very rare that I can find something cheaper in relatively few
shops I can access in my local city than I can find online, or second hand
on eBay. For example, I bought my Cark 126 with all the bits (aerial
connector, etc) from Expansys for £60 plus P&P, I've yet to find it cheaper
than £100 in a shop, and I've been in many.

Adam

hear, hear...


"Richard Colton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Martin Crosbie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Richard Colton" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Martin Crosbie" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > <much snippage>
> > > > Long term posters here will recognise my anti luddite ramblings.
> > >
> > > No ****! Really? Couldn't say I'd noticed! :-)
> > >
> > > > I'm not
> > > > trying to be personally insulting here, but I find your request for
> 'as
> > > > little features as possible' highly offensive.
> > >
> > > Cost vs performance. Why buy a Ferrari Enzo when all you need it for
is
> > to
> > > transport the groceries?
> >
> > because even a supermarket has single women :-)
>
> Now, on that one, I really can't argue. ;-)
>
> <snip>
> > It just annoys me the way nokia's prime feature seems to be xpress-on
> > covers, rather than pushing the limits forward. a few years ago, nokia
> > released 2 phones. the 7110, and the 3310. the 3310 did absolutely
nothing
> > but change colour, while the 7110 did everything
>
> Including crashing on a regular basis, being riddled with bugs and having
a
> slide mechanism that was extremely prone to damage and wear. Added to
that,
> the price at the time was extremely high.
>
> >, but even the super stylish
> > click/swish couldn't stop the incredible sales that the 3310 had. almost
> > everyone had one. at one point out of a dozen people in my team at work,
7
> > had 3310/30's.
>
> And it worked well - the main design flaw being that the screen was way
too
> close to the fascia making it prone to damage if dropped. On the other
> hand, if it was dropped and just the casing damaged, it was, and is a
simple
> matter of changing the cover - not a simple matter on the 7110.
>
> > it became so prolific, and shifted nokia's design team into
> > the paris fashion show it is now, rather than the high tech future
pushing
> > things we could have.
>
> Maybe, but it was, and still is cheap. It does what most people require
and
> demonstrates what can be achieved (sales-wise) by providing what the
buying
> public wants rather than a host of features that are useless to the vast
> majority of people.
>
> > I blame my grandparents.
>
> Steady! I'll tell them! ;-)
>
> > every time I go to their house I have to retune
> > their TV, or set the clock on their video. why do many people find new
> > technology so repulsive?
>
> I have the same problem with my parents. In some cases, it's simply
because
> the technology is so inaccessible. You have to remember that the older
> generation were brought up in a world without electronic devices - life
was
> simpler. The way many devices are designed hardly promotes easy usage.
>
> > The world we have now is great,
>
> Do you really believe that?
>
> > but there seems so
> > much going wrong that slows it down, because many people make no effort
to
> > even try and push the envelope.
>
> Ever heard the saying "don't try to run before you can walk"?
>
> > how many times have you heard someone say
> > they won't get a 3G mobile, because there is no-one to make a video call
> > to - it's self defeating, since if everyone says that, then no-one will
> ever
> > be able to.
>
> No, it;ll come when the time is right, and when people can see tangible
> benefits of the technology. I've got a 3G phone, and at present it's of
> little use except as a means to make cheap phone calls. Video calling is
in
> its infancy and the quality makes it nothing but a gimmick. Give it time,
> and the technology will mature. Try to reduce the development time too
> much, and problems will arise.
>
> > High costs don't help, and this is the manufacturers fault alone, or
> rather
> > , the distributors.
>
> Absolutely!
>
> > Corporate benefit rather than consumer benefit.most
> > would rather make cheap crap than something really useful that actually
> > benefits us. Logomanager, and oxygen both spend vast amounts of time
> effort
> > and money on improving their products far more than Nokia themselves do.
> why
> > can't every company work like this?
>
> Because most companies are profit driven. They will provide the barest
> minimum possible at the highest price that people will bear. Capitalism
at
> its worst.
>
> --
> >>> Unlock Your Phones Potential <<<
> >>> http://www.thephonelocker.co.uk <<<
> >>> http://www.uselessinfo.org.uk <<<
>
>

Hello Richard,

> slide mechanism that was extremely prone to damage and wear. Added to
that,
> the price at the time was extremely high.
IMO, the price was the most important point to keep people away from the
7110.

> And it worked well - the main design flaw being that the screen was way
too
> close to the fascia making it prone to damage if dropped. On the other
The 3210 had the same problem, IIRC, true the 51xx were far better
protected, but thicker, too. BTW, I must admit the 33xx LCDs are way too
easy to replace, when 51xx ones would rather be a "you must know-how" job.
Not really a design fault, rather a good thing, considering I got my current
3310 that way :-)
Hey, no one to agree 51xx were good phones ? :-)

Regards,
--
G.T
[email protected]
205 Diesel & turbo-Diesel : http://205d.fr.st

"G.T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello Richard,
>
> > slide mechanism that was extremely prone to damage and wear. Added to
> that,
> > the price at the time was extremely high.
> IMO, the price was the most important point to keep people away from the
> 7110.
>
> > And it worked well - the main design flaw being that the screen was way
> too
> > close to the fascia making it prone to damage if dropped. On the other
> The 3210 had the same problem, IIRC, true the 51xx were far better
> protected, but thicker, too. BTW, I must admit the 33xx LCDs are way too
> easy to replace, when 51xx ones would rather be a "you must know-how" job.
> Not really a design fault, rather a good thing, considering I got my
current
> 3310 that way :-)
> Hey, no one to agree 51xx were good phones ? :-)
>
> Regards,
> --
> G.T
> [email protected]
> 205 Diesel & turbo-Diesel : http://205d.fr.st
>
>

I got a 5110 still workin bloody good phone considering its been dropped,
squashed and looped over and over

cheers

"a_dude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "G.T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hello Richard,
> >
> > > slide mechanism that was extremely prone to damage and wear. Added to
> > that,
> > > the price at the time was extremely high.
> > IMO, the price was the most important point to keep people away from the
> > 7110.
> >
> > > And it worked well - the main design flaw being that the screen was
way
> > too
> > > close to the fascia making it prone to damage if dropped. On the
other
> > The 3210 had the same problem, IIRC, true the 51xx were far better
> > protected, but thicker, too. BTW, I must admit the 33xx LCDs are way too
> > easy to replace, when 51xx ones would rather be a "you must know-how"
job.
> > Not really a design fault, rather a good thing, considering I got my
> current
> > 3310 that way :-)
> > Hey, no one to agree 51xx were good phones ? :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > G.T
> > [email protected]
> > 205 Diesel & turbo-Diesel : http://205d.fr.st
> >
> >
>
> I got a 5110 still workin bloody good phone considering its been
dropped,
> squashed and looped over and over

Solid little phones. I've no idea if mine still works, but it did last time
I used it. still around somewhere. Ran for that long period when mobiles
were just really coming into play, until we started to use then more. I'd
say the 6110 was the star of this era though - IRDA and built in modem, as
opposed to the 'data suite' option of the 5110, which I never tried.

Martin Crosbie

Hello,

Huh, at least two people thinking like me : 51xx were good phones :-)

> were just really coming into play, until we started to use then more. I'd
> say the 6110 was the star of this era though - IRDA and built in modem, as
> opposed to the 'data suite' option of the 5110, which I never tried.
True, and the 6110 was very similar to 5110 - plus it was dual-band, IIRC.
But the price wasn't the same, of course. The 5110 (or 5130, BTW was there a
5120, if so GSM950 ?) was an employee's phone, the 6110 a boss phone :-)

Regards,
G.T
[email protected]
205 Diesel & turbo-Diesel : http://205d.fr.st