NO!! Oxford is FULL of crap - as ALWAYS

Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
news:C36B41EF.9A91F%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com:

> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> stated in post
> 5qma25F10qt2qU1@mid.individual.net on 11/22/07 2:19 PM:
>
>> David Friedman wrote:
>>> In article <5qm2koF10ss2nU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman"
>>> <ask@for.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
>>>> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
>>>> Absurd.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
>>> It's also heavier and more expensive.
>>
>> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution.
>> Indeed a phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice
>> the resolution, released with a glaring defect, can't really be used
>> to argue that the iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing
>> that, but I bring it up nonetheless.
>>
>> Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone
>> and have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then
>> this comment from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge
>> compared to devices which have twice or four times the screen
>> resolution."
>>
> Hey! Do I get to add that claim of his to the list I started with his
> other BS claims:
>


You probably could if he was responding to me, numbnuts.

Damn, Shit- you are clueless.

David Friedman wrote:
> In article <5qm2koF10ss2nU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
> wrote:
>
>> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
>> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
>> Absurd.
>>
>
> The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
> It's also heavier and more expensive.

That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution. Indeed a
phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice the resolution,
released with a glaring defect, can't really be used to argue that the
iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing that, but I bring it up
nonetheless.

Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone and
have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then this comment
from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge compared to devices
which have twice or four times the screen resolution."


--
Mike

In article <5qma25F10qt2qU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
wrote:

> David Friedman wrote:
> > In article <5qm2koF10ss2nU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
> >> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
> >> Absurd.
> >>
> >
> > The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
> > It's also heavier and more expensive.
>
> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution.

Pretty close.

480x320=153,600

800x352=281,600

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in news:5qm8vqFvpqrdU1@mid.individual.net:

> CozmicDebris wrote:
>> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote:
>>>
>>> They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM,
>>> allowed them to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA
>>> iPhone as a first-release would have been a disaster. At least try
>>> to think it through.
>>
>> Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to
>> the FCC long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into
>> development. They also held discussions with Verizon well before
>> AT&T
>
> You don't have any idea what Apple thought. In fact I wouldn't trust
> any of your ideas at this point, based on your recent posting history.


And the amount of distress that will cause me will probably keep me awake
for the next few hours.

>
> The fact is the iPhone is GSM and the carrier of choice in the US is
> AT&T. Deal with it and stop the whining.
>
>


Who's whining, Rainman? The facts are well documented- Apple's original
network of choice was Verizon, and they were shown the door by Verizon.
The original iPhone was designed as a CDMA phone, and submitted to the FCC
as such. Only after being turned down did the GSM phone miraculously
appear.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Tinman wrote:
>> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
>> screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
>> technology LCDs
> Bzzzt. Wrong. You really do your argument a disservice when you make these
> kinds of ridiculous assertions.
> Most phones have half the iPhone's pixel count--and this includes
> recently-introduced "iPhone killers."

You keep on harping on phones, when I am talking about mobile devices.
iPhone, by claiming to be an Internet access device instead of just a
phone, must be compared by the standards of mobile devices.

Nokia N800 has a screen which is only slighty larger than the iPhone, yet
has twice (640x480) the number of pixels as iPhone (320x480). Sony UX
series has a screen which is only slightly larger than that, but is a
whopping 1024x600 pixels.

The difference is density. iPhone has HUGE pixels, and looks like a
newspaper photo. Apple bought some leftover LCDs from that Japanese phone
makers used 3 years ago (I know all about 320x480 phones, they were common
in Japan in late 2004).

While you iPhone fanboys are oohing and aahing over your old technology
LCDs, people with real mobile devices are using real screens. So are
phone users in Japan.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, David Friedman wrote:
>> iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
>> device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
>> inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
>> kicks iPhone butt in this regard.
> But isn't a phone.

It is an Internet access device. And it talks Bluetooth, so it can be
used with any network's phone, not just AT&T and S-L-O-W EDGE. And it has
Wi-Fi.

> And weighs about four times as much as the iPhone.

iPhone 135g
N800 206g

In what system of arithmetic is 206 four times 135?

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

In article
<alpine.WNT.0.99999.0711221917030.4308@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>,
Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, David Friedman wrote:
> >> iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
> >> device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
> >> inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
> >> kicks iPhone butt in this regard.
> > But isn't a phone.
>
> It is an Internet access device. And it talks Bluetooth, so it can be
> used with any network's phone, not just AT&T and S-L-O-W EDGE. And it has
> Wi-Fi.
>
> > And weighs about four times as much as the iPhone.
>
> iPhone 135g
> N800 206g
>
> In what system of arithmetic is 206 four times 135?

I looked it up on Amazon.com and it gave "Weight: 1.32 pounds" under
"technical details" (not under "shipping weight"). That's about four
times the iPhone's weight.

Checking another source it gives 7.3 oz, which is about your figure.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.

Nor does it emerge from attempts to create a single authoritative voice
on scientific truth--which is part of what irritates me about the IPCC.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Tinman wrote:
>>> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times
>>> the screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some
>>> old technology LCDs
>> Bzzzt. Wrong. You really do your argument a disservice when you make
>> these kinds of ridiculous assertions.
>> Most phones have half the iPhone's pixel count--and this includes
>> recently-introduced "iPhone killers."
>
> You keep on harping on phones, when I am talking about mobile devices.

That makes you a fool for participating in this discussion: no one but you
was talking about that.


> iPhone, by claiming to be an Internet access device instead of just a
> phone, must be compared by the standards of mobile devices.
>

"Must be" in your mind only. To everyone else--or at least those not
inflicted with an unhealthy hatred of the device--it's a phone.


> Nokia N800 has a screen which is only slighty larger than the iPhone,

And any laptop blows that toy out of the water.

You are merely making yourself look foolish with these kind of assertions.
But as I recall this isn't the first time...


--
Mike

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, David Friedman wrote:
> I looked it up on Amazon.com and it gave "Weight: 1.32 pounds" under
> "technical details" (not under "shipping weight"). That's about four
> times the iPhone's weight.

FYI, there are three weights to consider, each successively greater:

(1) the weight of the unit itself.

(2) the weight of the unit in its box with all the accessories, manuals,
and packaging.

(3) the shipping weight, which adds the shipping container, shipping
packaging, advertising fliers, invoice, etc.

Amazon quotes you the latter two weights. Thus, Amazon's weight for iPod
Touch is 13 ounces. That does not make iPod Touch twice as heavy as the
Nokia N800.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Tinman wrote:

> Mark Crispin wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Tinman wrote:
>>>> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times
>>>> the screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some
>>>> old technology LCDs
>>> Bzzzt. Wrong. You really do your argument a disservice when you make
>>> these kinds of ridiculous assertions.
>>> Most phones have half the iPhone's pixel count--and this includes
>>> recently-introduced "iPhone killers."
>>
>> You keep on harping on phones, when I am talking about mobile devices.
>
> That makes you a fool for participating in this discussion: no one but you
> was talking about that.

Wrong, bunkie. If you're talking about phones, then the war is over.

As a phone, the iPhone is a loser. It is GSM/EDGE only (no 3G), is
locked, is ridiculously overpriced, has mediocre voice performance, and
lacks important features that are standard on all but the most bottom-line
phones.

Apple fanboys glom onto iPhone's web browser, Wi-Fi, and 320x480 screen,
without realizing that those capabilities HAVE NO VALUE for a phone.
Those are mobile device features.

The moment you start talking about mobile devices, you have to judge the
product by the standards of mobile devices. And by those standards iPhone
is also inferior.

One way, it's a shitty phone. The other way, it's a shitty mobile device.
Either way, it is overpriced.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim "it's a phone, so you can't
judge it by the standards of mobile devices" then turn around and say
"it's a mobile device, which makes it better than a less expensive phone
with greater phone capabilities."

> "Must be" in your mind only. To everyone else--or at least those not
> inflicted with an unhealthy hatred of the device--it's a phone.

I don't really care about iPhone at all. My disdain is for fanboys.

I don't want to kill Apple as a company either. Apple serves an important
purpose; it keeps Microsoft honest. Apple also provides an unending
source of amusement with its silly fanboys.

>> Nokia N800 has a screen which is only slighty larger than the iPhone,
> And any laptop blows that toy out of the water.

Of course. That goes without saying. Nobody in his right mind would
claim that a Nokia N800 is a contender in the laptop market. It's much
too slow with completely inadequate memory and storage.

The mobile devices that crossover to laptops are the UMPCs, such as the
Sony UX. But UMPCs have their own disadvantages; they are too large and
heavy for much mobile device use, and are too cramped for laptop use.

iPhone is also a crossover, this time between phones and mobile devices.
If it is priced competitively and unlocked, it might have a future;
although that low-resolution screen needs to be upgraded sooner rather
than later. Nonetheless, it is neither the ultimate phone nor the
ultimate mobile device, except in the feverish minds of fanboys.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.