Re: Wakefield (second attempt)

From	Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.sys.acorn.misc
Subject	Re: Wakefield (second attempt)
Date	2012-05-12 12:12 +0100
Organization	timil.com
Message-ID	<528eaca638tim@invalid.org.uk> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <4e38148b52.dougjwebb@doug.j.webb.btinternet.com> <ec3c168b52.chris@o2.co.uk> <528b1a1758charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> <gemini.m3jzre00d0j6400f8.spamhater@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> <f992258b52.BrianFerris@brferris.orpheusmail.co.uk>

Show all headers | View raw

In article <f992258b52.BrianFerris@brferris.orpheusmail.co.uk>, Brian
<brferris@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> If I bought the Tablet to work with a PC I would expect the support
> from the retailer regarding using with the PC as I don't expect them
> to know about an Iyonix?

No. But you could easily buy one from a tablet-only vendor who is not
about to support every PC.

> If I got a product and it worked with an
> Iyonix that would be a bonus.

What does 'work with' mean? What do you expect it to do?

> But as the Tablet shows up as a drive
> just a drive it still doesn't convince me to buy it from RComp.

My digital cameras show up as an external USB drives. Would you feel the
need to buy one from a RISC OS dealer in case it doesn't show up as one?

> That
> was my whole point originally? If the item came with specific drivers
> or stuff to get it to work with an Iyonix

What does this mean?!

> then of course I would get
> it from them if I really wanted the device. BUT as there is no
> technical magic,know how,knowledge its still a premium price? You
> wouldn't do the same thing if the item was an ink cartridge or cable?

Other than the tablet acting as an external drive to exchange files, I am
at a loss to understand how else you think it will interact with RISC OS.

I must be missing something.

The use of Android makes a Google account pretty much mandatory and
therefore things like your address book are synced to the cloud. It is
worthwhile having a gmail account on the tablet which can also be
accessed with NetSurf (m.gmail.com) but for this you won't need a wire
between them, nor can tablets normally be networked via their client USB
port.

-- 
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Share in a better energy supplier: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg
* Share in cheaper ethical telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/

... "Sweets to the sweet; farewell !" Hamlet, Act v, Sc.1

Thread

Wakefield (second attempt) Richard Travers <richtnews@uwclub.net> - 2012-05-02 12:15 +0100
  Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2012-05-02 13:19 +0100
    Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Richard Travers <richtnews@uwclub.net> - 2012-05-02 14:08 +0100
      Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2012-05-04 23:20 +0100
        Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 05:23 +0200
          Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2012-05-05 21:13 +0100
        Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Richard Travers <richtnews@uwclub.net> - 2012-05-05 10:26 +0100
          Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 12:10 +0100
        Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Bryn Evans <d@a.invalid> - 2012-05-05 12:31 +0100
          Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 13:03 +0100
    Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Alan Wrigley <spamhater@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 13:14 +0100
  Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Geoffrey Baxendale <thebears@sarno.freeserve.co.uk> - 2012-05-03 16:51 +0100
    Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2012-05-03 18:57 +0100
      Re: Wakefield (second attempt) M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2012-05-03 20:08 +0100
        Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Thomas Milius <Thomas-Milius@t-online.de> - 2012-05-03 21:46 +0200
          Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Thomas Milius <Thomas-Milius@t-online.de> - 2012-05-03 22:04 +0200
        Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Chris Evans <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> - 2012-05-04 16:48 +0100
      Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2012-05-03 21:22 +0200
    Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Richard Travers <richtnews@uwclub.net> - 2012-05-04 09:20 +0100
    Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Brian <brferris@orpheusmail.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 12:11 +0100
      Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Doug Webb <doug.j.webb@btinternet.com> - 2012-05-05 12:39 +0100
        Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 13:01 +0100
          Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Doug Webb <doug.j.webb@btinternet.com> - 2012-05-05 13:18 +0100
            Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2012-05-12 11:34 +0100
      Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 12:31 +0100
        Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Brian <brferris@orpheusmail.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 13:32 +0100
          Re: Wakefield (second attempt) charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 13:43 +0100
            Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Brian <brferris@orpheusmail.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 15:06 +0100
              Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Doug Webb <doug.j.webb@btinternet.com> - 2012-05-05 15:23 +0100
              Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 16:41 +0100
                Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 18:59 +0200
                Re: Wakefield (second attempt) druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2012-05-06 11:28 +0100
                Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> - 2012-05-06 14:58 +0100
                Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Dev <spam-addy@no.spam.invalid> - 2012-05-06 15:04 +0100
                Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-05-06 20:00 +0200
              Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 18:50 +0200
              Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 19:43 +0100
            Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Alan Wrigley <spamhater@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 15:18 +0100
              Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Brian <brferris@orpheusmail.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 15:48 +0100
                Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Alan Wrigley <spamhater@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 17:54 +0100
                Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2012-05-12 12:12 +0100
                Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-05-12 22:05 +0100
                Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2012-05-13 06:53 +0100
                Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-05-13 13:14 +0200
                Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2012-05-15 11:40 +0100
          Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 16:36 +0100
            Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2012-05-12 11:54 +0100
        Re: Wakefield (second attempt) Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-05-05 18:28 +0200
  Re: Wakefield (second attempt) charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2012-05-03 17:36 +0100

csiph-web