Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.misc > #10272

Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets

From Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
Newsgroups comp.misc
Subject Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets
Date 2016-02-03 12:59 -0500
Organization National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Message-ID <alpine.LNX.2.02.1602031256530.27112@darkstar.example.org> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <dhb12lF5c71U1@mid.individual.net> <nad6oc-fs82.ln1@news.chingola.ch> <dhdlilFpu4gU1@mid.individual.net> <y6CdnWHGqoe6ky_LnZ2dnUU78V-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <n8tapn$4q4$1@solani.org>

Show all headers | View raw


On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, RS Wood wrote:

> Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> Wrote in message:
>> RS Wood wrote:
>>
>>> If they ever produce an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen
>>> I will be the first to buy one.
>>
>> Near enough?
>>
>> <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1179696-REG/sony_dpts1_digital_paper_system.html>
>>
>>
>
> Yes! But the price tag of USD 799 - yikes!
> And the battery life
> seems to be about 2 hours according to the comments.  I guess
> given the size of the screen that's to be expected but still

I seem to recall that the Radio Shack Model 100 laptop was close to that 
price when it came out about 1983.  40 characters across, I think 8 lines, 
but at least the keyboard was good.  Luckily Radio Shack had regular sales 
on their stuff, so I think I got mine for around $400.

Yes, it's expensive, but not so much compared to what we used to spend, on 
stuff that was so much simpler.  I paid $500 for my first printer in the 
fall of 1982, dot matrix that didn't do descenders, could never qualify as 
even close to near letter quality, and was slow and noisy.  But it was 
about as cheap as I could get back then, and I made good use of it.

Nowadays, I'd never spend five hundred dollars for a printer.  I can't 
even bring myself to buy a new computer off the shelf, I'll be getting 
something that was refurbished.

   Michael

Back to comp.misc | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-02-01 17:05 +0000
  Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-02 14:26 +1100
    Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-02 03:41 +0000
      Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-02-02 06:36 +0000
        Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:24 +0000
          Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-02-02 09:33 +0000
            Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-02-02 12:55 +0100
        Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-02-02 11:34 +0100
          Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> - 2016-02-03 09:38 +0300
            Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-02-03 11:59 +0100
              Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-03 11:38 +0000
              Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:55 -0500
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-03 18:02 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 15:42 -0500
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-03 21:02 +0000
            Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-03 14:26 +0000
              Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-02-03 19:46 +0300
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-03 16:51 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 13:01 -0500
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-03 19:19 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:59 -0500
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-03 17:57 +0000
            Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets "Andy K." <andy.k466@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 08:37 +0100
              Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-04 11:29 -0500
        Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-02 11:03 +0000
          Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-02-02 13:11 +0200
            Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-06 00:57 +0000
              Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-06 01:19 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-06 03:23 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-06 11:21 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-06 14:31 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-06 16:54 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-06 14:16 +0000
              Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-02-05 18:36 -0800
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-06 03:24 +0000
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-02-05 21:56 -0800
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-02-06 08:41 +0200
                Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-02-06 14:34 +0000
      Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-02 03:15 -0500
        Re: Report suggests users averse to doing "real work" on tablets Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-02-02 11:39 +0100

csiph-web