|
Motorola Razers had the mini-USB - I was always impressed by mine. Unlike most other brands (including N series Nokias) they don't fall to bits after 12 months.
|
|
That's useful to know. Are all Motorola's miniUSB charged?
|
|
Not sure - mine was - welcome to have it if you want. It needs a new battery.
|
|
Newer phones are moving to mini USB for charging - in fact they have to soon due to an EU directive I think.
|
Newer phones are moving to mini USB for charging - in fact they have to soon due to an EU directive I think.
I'm not sure it;s actually a directive but to all intents and purposes that's the case, although it's micro not mini that's being 'standardised' :-
news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39616...m
|
|
|
|
Unlike most other brands (including N series Nokias) they don't fall to bits after 12 months.
My N70 is approx 3½ years old now. The only thing not original is the battery as it was part of the so called batch that could catch fire, so Nokia kindly sent me a free replacement, and a month later they sent me another one as well.
|
|
Maybe now I've retired I can stop chucking my phone about - Three Blackberries since February - not encouraging.
|
BBs do seem fragile. My old one "lost" the letter T from its keyboard. Kept it for a while but it became difficult to confirm the daes, imes and locaions of appoinmens and oher meeings.
New one seems OK so far.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 08/10/2009 at 20:20
|
|
He he!
|
|
Funnily enough Humph it was the letter T that broke on my Bold a week after I had it and inbetween Mrs P dying and the funeral which made it a nightmare, I had to revert to my N73...
|
Hmmm. They swore I had got it wet and that's why it wasn't working. I knew I hadn't but......
Wonder if the "T" problem is known?
|
Hmmm. They swore I had got it wet and that's why it wasn't working. I knew I hadn't but......
If you check inside most phones ( under or near the battery for example) you'll see one or more little sticky white labels on the PCB - about 3mm by 2 mm - if these have turned red then they've been immersed in water. That's the usual check a shop will use.
Edited by SpamCan61 {P} on 09/10/2009 at 09:33
|
|
|
|
|
PU, sorry to hear you have suffered a bereavement, perhaps I missed that in my absence from the site ... ... just searched and found your post, I am so sorry ... ... ...
|
|
|
|
This threading business is getting beyond a joke now. I posted a humourous reply to a posting above and it has appeared (here) under a posting which, had I left it, would have made it seem crass, so I have edited it completely.
I've not known this happen on IHAQ threads which normally have been immune to the random threading gremlin.
Sort it out chaps.
Edited by Nsar on 09/10/2009 at 00:01
|
It is working as it always has. How the tree structure of the forum gets collapsed into a flat representation depends on what has been posted, when etc. Nothing to fix.
It probably does not happen so much in IHAQ because most replies are to the last post. It's when a newer reply is made to an older post higher in the thread that this happens. And when there are multiple replies to one post with lots of follow up ones to one of them.
This is how the forum works and always has done.
Edited by rtj70 on 09/10/2009 at 00:19
|
This is how the forum works and always has done. >>
in reply to rtj:
I agree entirely. I find it baffling that so many backroomers who are quite obviously of a high intellect yet find the threaded/flat tree structure of the forum difficult to follow.
One solution is obviously to quote part of the post you are replying to, and further to avoid doubt as to who you are replying to, preface it as recommended by the Webmaster (or is it by HJ himself ?):
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=33...4
"Replying to posts and quoting posts
Sometimes it is helpful to give an indication of who you are replying to. However, this doesn?t mean you need to copy and paste the entire post into yours. Simply write "in response to xxxx's post" or take a couple of seconds to snip and summarise the post in which you're replying to; leaving only the relevant text.
As we're on the subject of quoting replies, there are one or two people who quote the original message AFTER their reply, rather than BEFORE their reply - (which is called "top posting" in cyberland). Books aren't meant to be read back to front, so please don't make readers of this forum read things back to front either.
Edited by jbif on 09/10/2009 at 00:50
|
|
|
That's odd because I posted at 22.56. There isn't another posting in this thread even close to that time.
This posting was in reply to RT's not jbif's and yet it has appeared below jbif's!
I don't think anyone's seriously losing sleep over this, but it is annoying and makes some threads seem disjointed and had I not edited my posting above it would have appeared very crass adjacent to the posting above it.
Edited by Nsar on 10/10/2009 at 00:02
|
|
jbif and you replied to my post. His was yesterday. Therefore in time order his is above yours. Both are replies to the thread and appear where they should. You have tried clicking to see the threaded view haven't you? All should be clearer if you viewed this threaded now.
|
>>You have tried clicking to see the threaded view haven't you?<<
I'd respectfully suggest that if the solution to having a logical flow of postings ie the reply appears under the posting being replied to, that should be the default, not one that users have to opt to use.
|
... don't think anyone's seriously losing sleep over this, but it is annoying....
Agreed, and the random nature makes it even more so.
To me, if I click 'reply to this message' then that's where the message should go, without fail.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it goes a couple down the thread, and sometimes it goes at the end.
A classic example of WYSIWYDG - what you see is what you don't get.
I'm grateful to the mods and others for trying to explain about trees, branches, flat and threaded view.
But there should be a simple method of plonking a new post where you want it, yet there isn't.
|
If there is more than one reply to a message - how can they all end up just under the post!?!?!? Only one can directly follow the post can't it. And the list of replies is then shown in time/date order. Simple really.
What amounts to the "random" position is when you reply to a message and there is a long thread of replies to another reply. Due to yours being later than the other one then it appears lower down - and it is not random.
Focus' description explains how it works.
|
>>how can they all end up just under the post!?!?!?<<
One post, two replies. The latter one goes under the original posting on the basis that this is new information.
Or you could change the text to read "reply to this message (sort of, but you might have to ferret about a bit to connect what you're reading to the author's true meaning" :)
|
But if someone has replied to the first reply... and then to the reply to the reply etc. The second post has to be lower down.
The simple way around this is to quote part of the message you are replying to. This ensure the context is understood.
How the forum works is not going to change. A lot of others are simply flat with all replies going to the end.
|
>>The second post has to be lower down.<< The logical solution then would be for two replies to a posting to be placed in time order under the original posting.
That simply doesn't happen.
>>How the forum works is not going to change<< It is the right of the owner of this site to adopt this policy. It is a shame though that a forum which rubs along pretty well because of a genial, collaborative spirit engendered by the owner, the mods AND the users in equal measure feels unable to aknowledge even minor frustrations amongst its users.
|
I agree it can be frustrating nsar. But this is how it works.
The way the forum works does let us have threads like IHAQ though - a flat forum would not.
|
OK....I give in, I'll come quietly :)
|
...How the forum works is not going to change...I agree it can be frustrating nsar. But this is how it works...
Which is a polite way of saying: ''If you don't like it, lump it.''
At least we all know where we stand, even if none us really know where our posts are going. :)
|
even if none us really know where our posts are going. :)
Speak for yourself! :-)
|
even if none us really know where our posts are going. :)
Speak for yourself! :-)
Ah, fair point, I should have excluded you tree fellers, or however many of you there are, who understand how this works.
I see jbif's now brought nests into the equation, so we've now got trees, branches and nests.
All we need is a couple of overhead power lines and we'll have a full forest.
|
Ah fair point I should have excluded you tree fellers or however many of you there are who understand how this works.
To be honest I'm hardly ever bothered where the post appears because I just quote a bit of what I'm replying to.
|
At least we all know where we stand, even if none us really know where our posts are going. :) >>
At least I know where I stand, even if some of the threaded-view challenged backroomers cannot work out why their posts are going where they are correctly going!
Simples.
|
I take pleasure in noting that jbif replied at 12.29 to a posting at 12.28, yet his reply appears below one posted at 12.33!
|
|
It's all clear to me. Look at the threaded view. The 12.29 is a reply to the 12.14 not the 12.28 !
|
So this should be above my last post below at 14:07/14:08.
And the mods have no say in how the forum works - that's down to Khoo Systems who developed the software.
|
|
Because the structure behind the postings is not flat - it's hierarchical. I give in explaining this. The flat view is a flattened representation of the threaded view....
|
It is the right of the owner of this site to adopt this policy. It is a shame though that a forum which rubs along pretty well because of a genial, collaborative spirit engendered by the owner, the mods AND the users in equal measure feels unable to aknowledge even minor frustrations amongst its users. >>
I find the threaded view shows the placing of replies clearly enough, and I can see that the flat view can be confusing, and it is bound to so in a flat view.
Some boards do allow a "nested" view to be obvious in the manner that I think Nsar and others are asking for, e.g. see
www.jamesallenonf1.com/2009/10/briatore-to-take-mo...s
If you look at comment no. 3 there by Harveyeight [October 7th, 2009 @ 7:13 pm], you can see nested boxes separating out the various responses, and responses to the responses to that comment.
That sort of presentation would be "nice to have", but I expect the cost of changing the format may be prohibitive for the benefit to be gained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was mini USB as it is so prevalent now, i.e. the same cable would charge my TomTom, phone, etc. I am pretty sure the new Nokia N97 Mini has a mini USB connector for sync and charge.
Anyway, had a look at the T-Mobile website and there's not a lot of choice is there for a basic phone. Maybe you can get some credit instead?
A way of getting cheap mobiles that are already unlocked is Carphone Warehouse (not 3G phones) as they only carry phones that can be used on all networks (so unlocked). You do have to buy a PAYG SIM though.
|
|
|
|
It's probably survived for so long as it's almost always in a £2.99 leather case.
|
|
Blackberry now lives in an Otterbox case - looks awful but is pretty robust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are taking the phones abroad and using a sim card from that country then I do not believe you need to get your phones unlocked. It's worth checking on a mobile phone forum.
The alternative could be to buy a very cheap PAYG phone and take that abroad e.g. Carphone have a Nokia 1112 - which is very basic - for £4.95!
|
|
I have the N85 and that uses a mini USB charger :)
|
|
But I think the poster is right and they are moving to micro USB.... :-( I have so many Mini USB cables and quite a few devices that use these.
|
|
Actually thinking about it I am not sure if its micro or mini USB. Its not the same as the mini USB you get on a digital camera, its probably a micro USB one. Seen it on other things too so I am sure its not a Nokia standard.
|
|
The Motorola I had has the same charger socket as my current Blackberry
|
|
|
|
If you cannot plug in the USB cable for a camera or scanner or ... its micro USB then ;-)
|
Just checked the Nokia specs and it is the Microusb one :). I never seen the printer cables as mini USB before, always known as USB A and USB B.
I think this charging idea is great though it will make the entire thing standard and hopefully much easier to charge phones when in public. I got caught out in London when I had left my sat nav at home, ended up using my phone as a sat nav which drained the battery.
|
I never seen the printer cables as mini USB before, always known as USB A and USB B.
Who mentioned printers? I said scanner I think. My Canon scanner uses mini USB for data and power.
Back to the question asked about phones....
|
|
|
|
I assume Micro rather than Mini was chosen due to the smaller size placing less constraints on phone stlying, in the same way as some (most?) Nokias have the smaller co-ax charging socket these days. Certainly I've got far more USB A to Mini leads knocking around at home than Micro.
|
It would help if people replied to the right post, instead of just tacking things on to the bottom of a thread every time.
At least we don't have the problem I have on another forum, where we get email notice of replies. The email usually goes to the wrong person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
