Cell Phone Weirdness

[art...@yahoo.com]

A week or so ago, I attempted to recharge my phone and it immediately went to zero (from about 10-15% charged). I thought my battery was dead, but then I used a different charger and it can charge. (Apparently I am not the only one to experience this). However, I had called my brother and left a message and he claimed he couldn't hear it. I then verified that with another person. I was thinking of getting a new battery, but I do know if it will solve that problem. I am not sure I want to do what it takes to install it myself and the local cell phone place charges a fair amount to install a new battery.
Should I just break down and get a new phone? Has this happened (loss of ability to leave voice messages while keeping the ability to talk on the phone) to anyone else here?

[Boron Elgar]

What kind of phone?
How old is it?
Are you wearing a smartwatch that is linked to it?
Who is your carrier?

I say all this because a similar event happened to me today and it
took awhile and some online digging around to realize the smartwatch
had decided that it was boss and primary instrument for
making/receiving calls and leaving/picking up voicemails. Once I
turned off/adjusted the watch and rebooted the phone, all was well.

Battery replacement is often even cheaper than generic cell stores at
kiosks in shopping malls. Whether it is worth the price to replace it
depends on how old the phone is, if there is anything else wrong or
close to wrong with it, or if there are features on newer phones you
would like.

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 3:00:55 PM UTC-4, Boron wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:32:03 -0700 (PDT), "art...@yahoo.com"
> <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >A week or so ago, I attempted to recharge my phone and it immediately went to zero (from about 10-15% charged). I thought my battery was dead, but then I used a different charger and it can charge. (Apparently I am not the only one to experience this). However, I had called my brother and left a message and he claimed he couldn't hear it. I then verified that with another person. I was thinking of getting a new battery, but I do know if it will solve that problem. I am not sure I want to do what it takes to install it myself and the local cell phone place charges a fair amount to install a new battery.
> > Should I just break down and get a new phone? Has this happened (loss of ability to leave voice messages while keeping the ability to talk on the phone) to anyone else here?
>
> What kind of phone?

Kyocera
> How old is it?
about 2.5 years

> Are you wearing a smartwatch that is linked to it?

no
> Who is your carrier?
T-Mobile

[Boron Elgar]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:18:01 -0700 (PDT), "art...@yahoo.com"

Sounds as if the battery might be going belly-up, which is not
untowards after 2.5 years in a phone.

I do miss the days when the batteries were user replaceable.

T-Mobile has several inexpensive phones on their site - might be
cheaper than a battery update.

[danny burstein]

In <embktd5l3jfskj181...@4ax.com> Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> writes:

[lots snipped]

>Sounds as if the battery might be going belly-up, which is not
>untowards after 2.5 years in a phone.

Some pretty wierd things happen when you're down
to ten percent battery capacity. Doubly so if
the battery is (loosely speaking) worn down and
can't supply the fully needed current.




--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 6:47:43 PM UTC-4, danny burstein wrote:
> In <embktd5l3jfskj181...@4ax.com> Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> [lots snipped]
>
> >Sounds as if the battery might be going belly-up, which is not
> >untowards after 2.5 years in a phone.
>
> Some pretty wierd things happen when you're down
> to ten percent battery capacity. Doubly so if
> the battery is (loosely speaking) worn down and
> can't supply the fully needed current.

Thanks, I suspected that might be true.

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-4, Boron wrote:

> Sounds as if the battery might be going belly-up, which is not
> untowards after 2.5 years in a phone.

Yeah, I guess I need a new phone.

[Howard]

danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:

> In <embktd5l3jfskj181...@4ax.com> Boron Elgar
>

> [lots snipped]
>
>>Sounds as if the battery might be going belly-up, which is not
>>untowards after 2.5 years in a phone.
>
> Some pretty wierd things happen when you're down
> to ten percent battery capacity. Doubly so if
> the battery is (loosely speaking) worn down and
> can't supply the fully needed current.

Adding two bits, sometimes power saving routines can go goofy and make
weird decisions about what they let you do. And sometimes a huge power
drain is caused by malware or just a regular app that is going nuts.
Sometimes rooting the phone and installing a different version of
Android will fix these things, but from the little bit I've dabbled with
this stuff, it can be time consuming and frustrating.

[Howard]

The power input on my five year old phone is failing, it's still running an
old Android and it's getting slowly balkier and more stubborn, so I've
realized it's time to send it to a farm.

I'm not willing to shell out major iPhone or top of the line Samsung bucks,
but while shopping around Nokia and Motorola have some nice looking phones
in the $200-$350 range, which seems reasonable to me if I manage to keep
the new one going for at least a couple of years.

[HVS]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 12:49:52 +0000 (UTC), Howard <how...@yayoo.com>
wrote:

I've been extremely pleased with my Motorola - a Moto G4 Plus which
I've had for a couple of years. (They're now up to the G6, I think,
but I've not had any need to upgrade.)

It bought it online for (IIRC) £180 (unlocked of course); it was
*way* cheaper than a SAMSUNG. My wife recently bought one of their
budget phones (a Moto E5 Play) for £80, and it was similarly
excellent value.

I'd have no hesitation to recommend the brand.

[BillT...@billturlock.com]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 12:49:52 +0000 (UTC), Howard
<how...@yayoo.com> wrote:

I have a Sams Glx S4. Every time I think that the power
connection on the phone is getting wonky, I discover that it's
really the charger wire end which has shat itself. Try a new
charger or connection cord first. And batteries are available
<$10. 'Course, it's Android 4.4.4, though

--
"Situational Ethics" is redundant — Bill Turlock

[Howard]

BillT...@BillTurlock.com wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 12:49:52 +0000 (UTC), Howard
>

>>"art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 6:41:27 PM UTC-4, Boron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sounds as if the battery might be going belly-up, which is not
>>>> untowards after 2.5 years in a phone.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I guess I need a new phone.
>>
>>The power input on my five year old phone is failing, it's still
>>running an old Android and it's getting slowly balkier and more
>>stubborn, so I've realized it's time to send it to a farm.
>>
>>I'm not willing to shell out major iPhone or top of the line Samsung
>>bucks, but while shopping around Nokia and Motorola have some nice
>>looking phones in the $200-$350 range, which seems reasonable to me if
>>I manage to keep the new one going for at least a couple of years.
>
> I have a Sams Glx S4. Every time I think that the power
> connection on the phone is getting wonky, I discover that it's
> really the charger wire end which has shat itself. Try a new
> charger or connection cord first. And batteries are available
> <$10. 'Course, it's Android 4.4.4, though

I thought at first it might be the cord, but it happens with every cord.

I wouldn't have a problem using the old Android, but it seems like
browsers get increasingly RAM hungry, or processor hungry, or something,
and it's getting harder and hard to get by -- I think the phone only has
800 M or something like that.

The camera is pretty mediocre, too, compared to newer phones. I don't
need something on a par with a $1,000 phone, but I'd like an upgrade.

[Greg Goss]

Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Whether it is worth the price to replace it [the battery]

>depends on how old the phone is, if there is anything else wrong or
>close to wrong with it, or if there are features on newer phones you
>would like.

And some features vanish that you would never expect to.

Apparently none of the new Samsungs will send texts to cars anymore. I
had no problems with my previous S5, and my off-brand HT17 could send
texts when its bluetooth wasn't being otherwise flakey. But my new A8
and is great at podcasts or phone calls to the car, but refuses to
send texts to be read out by my car. My telco store says that most
new phones don't do that any more.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Sounds as if the battery might be going belly-up, which is not
>untowards after 2.5 years in a phone.

It's odd. Some batteries age; some don't. My first digital cell
phone, a CDMA StarTac had better battery life at year 4 than it did
when new. (I worked near a major passenger ferry terminal and they
were always adding cell tower capacity there). My fourth digiital
phone (Nokia MusixXpress) still had perfect battery life when I kept
coming back to it after breaking or discarding-in-disgust various
smartphones. The phone finally started getting flakey in other ways
sometime well after year 5.

I've had the charge socket go bad on one phone, and ran into network
flakiness on several, but I don't think I've ever had a battery go bad
since the arrival of digital. My S5 was pushing 4 when I killed its
second screen.

[Greg Goss]

HVS <use...@REMOVE-THISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:


>> I'm not willing to shell out major iPhone or top of the line Samsung bucks,
>> but while shopping around Nokia and Motorola have some nice looking phones
>> in the $200-$350 range, which seems reasonable to me if I manage to keep
>> the new one going for at least a couple of years.
>
>I've been extremely pleased with my Motorola - a Moto G4 Plus which
>I've had for a couple of years. (They're now up to the G6, I think,
>but I've not had any need to upgrade.)
>
>It bought it online for (IIRC) £180 (unlocked of course); it was
>*way* cheaper than a SAMSUNG. My wife recently bought one of their
>budget phones (a Moto E5 Play) for £80, and it was similarly
>excellent value.
>
>I'd have no hesitation to recommend the brand.

In 2013, I bought a used MotoLuxe, a phone designed at the teen
economy market. It had disastrously poor connectivity at the
low-signal place I was working, and I had to go back to the
MusicXpress I had replaced by it. For a while I was carrying the Luxe
as a book reader and the MX as a phone

[Greg Goss]

Howard <how...@yayoo.com> wrote:

>I wouldn't have a problem using the old Android, but it seems like
>browsers get increasingly RAM hungry, or processor hungry, or something,
>and it's getting harder and hard to get by -- I think the phone only has
>800 M or something like that.

I tried using my S2 as a book reader when my S5 was charging, but
DropBox refused to talk to that version of Android.

When my then-wife bought a 3/4 year old phone once (I think it was a
Moto), it had a 3 year old OS in it. (Eclair when everyone else was
moving to Jellybean). The book reader we used refused to load from
Play Store, but the publisher emailed us an install pack that loaded
into it.

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 10:45:44 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:

> Apparently none of the new Samsungs will send texts to cars anymore. I
> had no problems with my previous S5, and my off-brand HT17 could send
> texts when its bluetooth wasn't being otherwise flakey. But my new A8
> and is great at podcasts or phone calls to the car, but refuses to
> send texts to be read out by my car. My telco store says that most
> new phones don't do that any more.
>

I didn't know that. YRDLSH

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 12:21:54 PM UTC-4, HVS wrote:

> I've been extremely pleased with my Motorola - a Moto G4 Plus which
> I've had for a couple of years. (They're now up to the G6, I think,
> but I've not had any need to upgrade.)

I bought a Motorola E5 Plus. It wasn't too pricey.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 20:22:20 GMT, "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I had no idea cars were that "smart" . Hey ho, cue "living in the past"
Jethro Tull.

"I can't let you do that Dave"

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

[BillT...@billturlock.com]

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/heres-why-new-phone-batteries-die-faster-than-old-ones-and-how-to-keep-yours-alive/?ftag=TREe01923b&bhid=19787236879386465009962438897675

don't you dare call that a naked url!

http://tinyurl.com/y6ux8xc3

[Greg Goss]

The car is a 2013 Ford. The entertainment and everything else that
goes through the center screen is proudly "Microsoft". Like any
early-gen Microsoft product it's flakey.

The voice command works OK for dialling the phone, but not for
anything else. The GPS expects you to use voice commands, so won't
let you key stuff in while driving even if you're the passenger.
Typed input only works in "park". Try to speak-find a song by artist
or title and it works half the time.

Receive a text on your Samsung S5, and a pop-up appears on the center
screen offering to read it to you. It then has a very small number of
canned texts you can send back. On an A8? Doesn't happen.

>"I can't let you do that Dave"

--

[Greg Goss]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>"Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 20:22:20 GMT, "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 10:45:44 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently none of the new Samsungs will send texts to cars anymore. I
>>>> had no problems with my previous S5, and my off-brand HT17 could send
>>>> texts when its bluetooth wasn't being otherwise flakey. But my new A8
>>>> and is great at podcasts or phone calls to the car, but refuses to
>>>> send texts to be read out by my car. My telco store says that most
>>>> new phones don't do that any more.
>>>>
>>> I didn't know that. YRDLSH
>>
>>I had no idea cars were that "smart" . Hey ho, cue "living in the past"
>>Jethro Tull.
>
>The car is a 2013 Ford. The entertainment and everything else that
>goes through the center screen is proudly "Microsoft". Like any
>early-gen Microsoft product it's flakey.

http://www.syncsucks.com/

[Howard]

I was thinking about that phone, but the screen seemed like it might be too
big to fit in a pocket, especially with a case. Is the size OK in your
view?

[art...@yahoo.com]

It seems OK. Alas, they did not have a case to fit it. I will have to go the mall. It also seems a bit slow.

[Howard]

I just got a Nokia 7.1 to replace my 5-6 year old Samsung.

All of the reviews carefully note that it is a midrange phone, it can't
compare with the top of the line Apples and Samsungs, but I have to say
using it is like night and day. When I click on something like Google Maps,
it actually opens fairly promptly instead of spinning for a minute.

Also nice is that it comes with almost no bloatware, unlike my old Samsung
-- no Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Skype, no games, no specialty apps... I
can just load stuff if I need it, instead of having some phone company load
it up with crap on the assumption that somebody, somewhere needs three
different photo viewing apps.

The Finns might actually be on to something there.

[Boron Elgar]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 00:03:54 +0000 (UTC), Howard <how...@yayoo.com>

Tech for a 5-6 yr old phone is ancient history in comparison to newer
units. One sees similar diffs in replacing an older car with a newer
one, too.

I have avoided bloatware, granted, somewhat expensively, by getting a
Pixel phone direct from Google. I get no more than the usual crap that
any Android phone comes with, but it is tamable. I no longer have to
deal with things like a John Madden NFL game that I cannot remove
without bricking.

Even so, there are some apps on the phone that I never use but DH
does. Vice versa, of course.

Photo capabilities are one the biggest selling points of phones these
days.SM postings depend on all those selfies done 12 ways to Sunday.

What those photo capabilities have also done,however, is cut deeply
into real camera choices. Now, I don't have any trouble finding
high-end DSLRs, nor those tiny, tiny point and shoots, but for some
photographic adventures, I prefer a mid-range camera with both screen
and viewfinder and a high quality zoom lens built in . Scarcer than
hen's teeth these days.

[Howard]

Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote

> I have avoided bloatware, granted, somewhat expensively, by getting a
> Pixel phone direct from Google. I get no more than the usual crap that
> any Android phone comes with, but it is tamable. I no longer have to
> deal with things like a John Madden NFL game that I cannot remove
> without bricking.

Pixel and Nokia have Android One, which is intentionally basic, and
Nokia guarantees two years of Android upgrades (Pixel may have more).

I wouldn't be surprised if it's a bit of a poke in the eye by Google
aimed at Facebook. Digging into Facebook's user numbers, it looks like a
major percentage is made up of phone owners who have it preloaded but
never use it, except for FB's accounting one activity or other triggers
a supposed "use" of Facebook. If Pixel and Nokia and other phone
companies can make a case for skipping preloading of FB (and young
customers may make that a reasonable bet) then Facebook is going to look
at more problems with advertisers and its stock price.

> Photo capabilities are one the biggest selling points of phones these
> days.SM postings depend on all those selfies done 12 ways to Sunday.
>
> What those photo capabilities have also done,however, is cut deeply
> into real camera choices. Now, I don't have any trouble finding
> high-end DSLRs, nor those tiny, tiny point and shoots, but for some
> photographic adventures, I prefer a mid-range camera with both screen
> and viewfinder and a high quality zoom lens built in . Scarcer than
> hen's teeth these days.

I've been looking around, and new ones are still being introduced. It
looks like Sony is the top company for both small sensor/big zoom
cameras and medium sensor/medium zoom cameras, but Canon, Nikon and
Panasonic all have well-rated cameras too. I have a 5 or 6 year old
Canon 50x zoom which I like a lot. It has both back screen and
viewfinder, but no wireless connectivity like newer cameras, which would
be nice.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bit of a rebound effect helping
cameras with good zoom as phones take better pictures. Some people's
expectations are going to increase, and they'll want an alternative to
the digital zoom you get with phones. New phones can take very nice
photos, but the digital zoom gets crummy pretty fast.

[Tim Wright]

I recently purchased a Nikon D900 for my wife. Screen and viewfinder,
and 83X optical zoom. I don't really think of $600 as being mid range,
YMMV. Zoom demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQeoyWLoNg

She used it to take >1000 photos during her recent trip to Italy.

--
It's beginning to look a lot like ChrismaHannaKwanzakah.

[Boron Elgar]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 16:21:36 +0000 (UTC), Howard <how...@yayoo.com>
wrote:

>Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> I have avoided bloatware, granted, somewhat expensively, by getting a
>> Pixel phone direct from Google. I get no more than the usual crap that
>> any Android phone comes with, but it is tamable. I no longer have to
>> deal with things like a John Madden NFL game that I cannot remove
>> without bricking.
>
>Pixel and Nokia have Android One, which is intentionally basic, and
>Nokia guarantees two years of Android upgrades (Pixel may have more).
>
>I wouldn't be surprised if it's a bit of a poke in the eye by Google
>aimed at Facebook. Digging into Facebook's user numbers, it looks like a
>major percentage is made up of phone owners who have it preloaded but
>never use it, except for FB's accounting one activity or other triggers
>a supposed "use" of Facebook. If Pixel and Nokia and other phone
>companies can make a case for skipping preloading of FB (and young
>customers may make that a reasonable bet) then Facebook is going to look
>at more problems with advertisers and its stock price.

Most of the true bloatware I have gotten on phones is from Verizon,
not the phone manufacturer.

>
>> Photo capabilities are one the biggest selling points of phones these
>> days.SM postings depend on all those selfies done 12 ways to Sunday.
>>
>> What those photo capabilities have also done,however, is cut deeply
>> into real camera choices. Now, I don't have any trouble finding
>> high-end DSLRs, nor those tiny, tiny point and shoots, but for some
>> photographic adventures, I prefer a mid-range camera with both screen
>> and viewfinder and a high quality zoom lens built in . Scarcer than
>> hen's teeth these days.
>
>I've been looking around, and new ones are still being introduced. It
>looks like Sony is the top company for both small sensor/big zoom
>cameras and medium sensor/medium zoom cameras, but Canon, Nikon and
>Panasonic all have well-rated cameras too. I have a 5 or 6 year old
>Canon 50x zoom which I like a lot. It has both back screen and
>viewfinder, but no wireless connectivity like newer cameras, which would
>be nice.

I've been working with a Sony with a terrific Zeiss lens for about 5+
years. The view screen on the back somehow got damaged and I cannot
get the same one as a replacement part, even if I really did want to
dismantle the thing.

Actually, I found there is an updated version of it and I am keeping
my eyes open for it on eBay. It is not a new camera at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Cyber-shot_DSC-HX400V

It is the shape of it with its handgrip I am very fond of, too. My
main camera is Canon, and they have nothing that sits in my hand the
same way right now for the smaller version. Neither does Panasonic or
Nikon. I have spent the last 6 months trying them all on. Even that
has become problematic, and gotten me to the rare, well-stocked
photography stores around here, because places like Best Buy and
Costco have no depth of line anymore.

I

[BillT...@billturlock.com]

--
"Avoid cliches like the plague." — William Safire

[BillT...@billturlock.com]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 10:23:47 -0600, Tim Wright
<tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>I recently purchased a Nikon D900 for my wife. Screen and viewfinder,
>and 83X optical zoom. I don't really think of $600 as being mid range,
>YMMV. Zoom demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQeoyWLoNg

DYMTS Nikon P900?

--
L.E.D. Zeppelin were ahead of their time

[Tim Wright]

On 11/12/2018 12:23, BillT...@BillTurlock.com wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 10:23:47 -0600, Tim Wright
> <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>> I recently purchased a Nikon D900 for my wife. Screen and viewfinder,
>> and 83X optical zoom. I don't really think of $600 as being mid range,
>> YMMV. Zoom demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQeoyWLoNg
>
> DYMTS Nikon P900?
>

Yes. I promise I'm not lexdisic.

[Boron Elgar]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 10:23:47 -0600, Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That is a very good camera and has been on my short list.

[Boron Elgar]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 10:23:27 -0800, BillT...@BillTurlock.com wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 10:23:47 -0600, Tim Wright
><tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>>I recently purchased a Nikon D900 for my wife. Screen and viewfinder,
>>and 83X optical zoom. I don't really think of $600 as being mid range,
>>YMMV. Zoom demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQeoyWLoNg
>
>DYMTS Nikon P900?

That is what I assumed he meant. The Nikon D line is DSLR.

[Les Albert]

Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I recently purchased a Nikon D900 for my wife. Screen and viewfinder,
>and 83X optical zoom. I don't really think of $600 as being mid range,
>YMMV. Zoom demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQeoyWLoNg
>She used it to take >1000 photos during her recent trip to Italy.

Will we get to see some of the photos?

Les

[Greg Goss]

Howard <how...@yayoo.com> wrote:

>All of the reviews carefully note that it is a midrange phone, it can't
>compare with the top of the line Apples and Samsungs, but I have to say
>using it is like night and day. When I click on something like Google Maps,
>it actually opens fairly promptly instead of spinning for a minute.
>
>Also nice is that it comes with almost no bloatware, unlike my old Samsung
>-- no Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Skype, no games, no specialty apps... I
>can just load stuff if I need it, instead of having some phone company load
>it up with crap on the assumption that somebody, somewhere needs three
>different photo viewing apps.
>
>The Finns might actually be on to something there.

A few years back, I bought a "MotoLuxe" phone used. It was a
current-tech phone, but built to be affordable for teens. It was
loaded to the gills with bloat. As an affordable phone it was pretty
short on memory.

When I loaded a few of the apps I actually needed, it started to
choke. I took it to a phone store to ask them how to clear out the
stuff I didn't need. Their answer was that if they helped people
remove bloat, they'd lose the right to buy parts for their main
(repair) business. I never considered Moto after that. (Besides, it
was crappy as a phone. I was working in a rural basement at the time,
and had to go back to my 2008 Nokia to get signal. For a while I
carried my MotoLuxe around as a book reader and WiFi web browser while
using my MusicXpress as an actual phone.)

[Howard]

Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 10:23:47 -0600, Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com>:

It's pretty bulky but I've seen some really amazing shots taken with it,
including photos of the International Space Station that were pixilated,
but with enough definition that you could still make out the major
components of it.

There's a new version of it with even more zoom, but it's significantly
bigger. Probably a lot of fun to play around with, though.

[Tim Wright]

I'll check with her and see if she's posted any.

[Boron Elgar]

Chacun son goût.

I had various Motorolas for years before the Pixels came out. Never
had a problem with apps or memory with any of them.

One thing I always do before I buy a phone is make sure it has onboard
or add on memory capability to run anything special I have.

Granted, my phones have always been tools I have used to access work
files/programs/apps and so were usually as souped up as were made at
the time.

[Boron Elgar]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 19:08:14 +0000 (UTC), Howard <how...@yayoo.com>
wrote:

>Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 10:23:47 -0600, Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On 11/12/2018 07:52, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> What those photo capabilities have also done,however, is cut deeply
>>>> into real camera choices. Now, I don't have any trouble finding
>>>> high-end DSLRs, nor those tiny, tiny point and shoots, but for some
>>>> photographic adventures, I prefer a mid-range camera with both screen
>>>> and viewfinder and a high quality zoom lens built in . Scarcer than
>>>> hen's teeth these days.
>>>>
>>>I recently purchased a Nikon D900 for my wife. Screen and viewfinder,
>>>and 83X optical zoom. I don't really think of $600 as being mid range,
>>>YMMV. Zoom demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQeoyWLoNg
>>>
>>>She used it to take >1000 photos during her recent trip to Italy.
>>
>> That is a very good camera and has been on my short list.
>
>It's pretty bulky but I've seen some really amazing shots taken with it,
>including photos of the International Space Station that were pixilated,
>but with enough definition that you could still make out the major
>components of it.

I tend not to carry the more serious camera equipment and lenses
around with me except for very deliberate tasks. Too much weight and
lens changing needed.

>
>There's a new version of it with even more zoom, but it's significantly
>bigger. Probably a lot of fun to play around with, though.

I do a lot of nature photography on the fly, so the zoom and lens
itself are important.

I was nowhere near this guy when I took the pic linked below and the
zoom was fully expended. No retouching by me, but I do not know what
rez tinypic will change it to.

http://i66.tinypic.com/22jnm0.jpg

Hmm, my date on that is March of 2018 and I know I had the camera a
bit before then, so the older Sony that it is breaking my heart to
replace is 6 yrs old, I guess.

[BillT...@billturlock.com]

I've had one for a few years, I think it's an average
quality/features camera with a good, slow telephoto lens built-in

[occam]

On 31/10/2018 23:41, Boron Elgar wrote:
> Sounds as if the battery might be going belly-up, which is not
> untowards after 2.5 years in a phone.
>

> I do miss the days when the batteries were user replaceable.

There are still phones out there where you can do that. I sometimes
think the 'smart' in smart phones refers to the makers who force a
change of phone by making a simple battery change a specialists' job.

[Boron Elgar]

I readily admit to being an electronics junkie. the main reason I
liked replaceable batteries was that I always carried an extra around
with me, or had one in the changer in case I forgot to plug in my
phone

These days there are charger gizmos not much larger than the extra
batteries and they work quite well. In general, the batteries in new
phones are much better than the older ones (Apple's deviousness
notwithstanding) and finding and buying a replacement battery for any
but the more popular phones was always a problem.

As I recall, though, you can get new batteries for iPhone,Galaxy and
similar in specialty mall kiosks these days. They seem to do screens,
too. Again, I assume this is only for the biggest selling models.

[danny burstein]

In <pn4sud9dk5m98p12k...@4ax.com> Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> writes:

>I readily admit to being an electronics junkie. the main reason I
>liked replaceable batteries was that I always carried an extra around
>with me, or had one in the changer in case I forgot to plug in my
>phone

another big point: When you remove the battery pack,
your phone is most assuredly turned off [a].

[a] at least all standard production models.


--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[Boron Elgar]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 04:04:33 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:

>In <pn4sud9dk5m98p12k...@4ax.com> Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>I readily admit to being an electronics junkie. the main reason I
>>liked replaceable batteries was that I always carried an extra around
>>with me, or had one in the changer in case I forgot to plug in my
>>phone
>
>another big point: When you remove the battery pack,
> your phone is most assuredly turned off [a].
>
>[a] at least all standard production models.

Oh, look! Apple does not like you to be able to repair your stuff.....

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-right-repair-20181116-story.html

[BillT...@billturlock.com]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 04:04:33 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:

>In <pn4sud9dk5m98p12k...@4ax.com> Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>I readily admit to being an electronics junkie. the main reason I
>>liked replaceable batteries was that I always carried an extra around
>>with me, or had one in the changer in case I forgot to plug in my
>>phone
>
>another big point: When you remove the battery pack,
> your phone is most assuredly turned off [a].
>
>[a] at least all standard production models.

Then there's the little tiny one that powers some of the special
memory and the secret GPS snooping chip that lets them listen to
and locate you at ANY time!

--
"We require a monarchy" — Ayn Rand, paraphrased, poorly