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

Groups > comp.misc > #10230 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#10272

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10274

RS Wood wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> RS Wood wrote:
>>
>>> an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen
>>
>> 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.

With e-ink the power should mostly be required for re-painting, I didn't 
see any mention of backlighting.  Sony's website says 2 weeks with WiFi 
enabled not 2 hours. But the DPI seemed somewhat low to me, my kobo aura 
HD is 1440x1080 at ~7"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10280

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 09:38:18 +0300 (EAT)
RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote:

> Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> Wrote in message:
> > Long before any were available, I was saying I wanted a tablet with an
> > A4 sized screen to read PDF reports at their normal size.  
> 
> If they ever produce an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen I will
>  be the first to buy one.  Sadly, I think odds are slim at best. 
>  And I agree with you that the current fetish of full screen apps
>  (cough Gnome 3 cough) isn't useful to me. 

Until you can fold such device and put it in your pocket like you can
regular A4 paper, not interested. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10281

On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Andy K. wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 09:38:18 +0300 (EAT)
> RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> Wrote in message:
>>> Long before any were available, I was saying I wanted a tablet with an
>>> A4 sized screen to read PDF reports at their normal size.
>>
>> If they ever produce an A4 device with a B&W e-ink screen I will
>>  be the first to buy one.  Sadly, I think odds are slim at best.
>>  And I agree with you that the current fetish of full screen apps
>>  (cough Gnome 3 cough) isn't useful to me.
>
> Until you can fold such device and put it in your pocket like you can
> regular A4 paper, not interested. :)
>
That might be a possibility, I don't know about folded, but obviously the 
thickness comes from the driving circuitry (and the need to make it safe) 
rather than because the actual screen is thick.

If they can make keyboards that fold up (and they had them for PDAs), then 
maybe a foldable e-ink screen is in the cards.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10246

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2016-02-02, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> > Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >> On 2/02/2016 4:05 AM, RS Wood wrote:
> >> > ...  Both Apple and Google are really trying to posit their
> >> > platforms for work (iPad Pro, Pixel C), but just as Microsoft is
> >> > having a hard time scaling Windows down for consumption, Apple and
> >> > Google are having trouble scaling their operating systems up for
> >> > work. ...
> >
> >> No real surprises there. The human physical interface is just too
> >> much of a pain to use.
> >
> > Tablets are intended to be _consumption_ devices, not creation devices.
> > Simple as that.  And it is not the OS that they are having trouble
> > "scaling up", it is the physical design and physical form factor that
> > are the limiting issues.
> >

> I've had good luck on tablets in one way: taking notes in meetings,
> or writing reports by the side of the pool. ... With a bluetooth
> keyboard attached, it's pretty nice.

But, see what you did there, you 'fixed' the physical design and form
factor problem to convert the tablet into a mini-laptop (i.e., you
*added* a physical keyboard).  

> It's also useful for reading PDF reports (works best if you buy the
> big, 12" screen tablet).

Yes, but, "reading PDF reports" is a _consumption_ activity, which fits
with the tablets intended use case.

> Panix tried making things like FTP clients for ipads and found they just
> didn't sell.  I can sort of see why.

That would do it.  Plus, they failed to consider all the sub-millenials
with tablets who have zero idea what the acronym FTP even stands for,
nor how to use it.

> Love reading books, even reading usenet on a tablet.

_Consumption_ activity.

> But I prefer to do my posting from home.  So much for the 'post-pc
> revolution'!

_Creation_ activity, better on a computer with more interface than a
mere touch screen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10247

Rich <rich@example.invalid>:

> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> Panix tried making things like FTP clients for ipads and found they just
>> didn't sell.  I can sort of see why.
>
> That would do it.  Plus, they failed to consider all the sub-millenials
> with tablets who have zero idea what the acronym FTP even stands for,
> nor how to use it.

I remember fondly the time (around 1990) when I had an early prototype
built on my Sun workstation, and the pilot customer in France wanted to
try it out. I simply FTP'ed it over to his desktop workstation.

No NATting, no firewalls, plain-text passwords etc.

Innocent, hassle-free bliss.

Today, I have a hard time figuring out how to hand a file over to a
colleague sitting next to me. Tragicomic, really.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10282

On 02/02/2016 11:11, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid>:
>
>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>> Panix tried making things like FTP clients for ipads and found they just
>>> didn't sell.  I can sort of see why.
>>
>> That would do it.  Plus, they failed to consider all the sub-millenials
>> with tablets who have zero idea what the acronym FTP even stands for,
>> nor how to use it.
>
> I remember fondly the time (around 1990) when I had an early prototype
> built on my Sun workstation, and the pilot customer in France wanted to
> try it out. I simply FTP'ed it over to his desktop workstation.
>
> No NATting, no firewalls, plain-text passwords etc.
>
> Innocent, hassle-free bliss.
>
> Today, I have a hard time figuring out how to hand a file over to a
> colleague sitting next to me. Tragicomic, really.

I'm having trouble sending a .exe or .zip file via email.

The gmail system refuses to accept them (if you're lucky, you sometimes 
get a failure message back).

You can get around it by renaming to .eee or .zzz, but then there are 
further instructions to go with it for the non-technical recipient at 
the other end.

I tried dropbox, which sort of works (but is much more fiddly because 
you have to upload, obtain and forward complicated URLs), but because 
the handling is done by browser, it's actually quite tricky to send a 
file which needs to be installed in a certain place. That seems 
astonishingly difficult to do with a file in the download area. It 
expects such files to be simply opened not moved anywhere else.

(With Firefox, it involves right-clicking the file, saying open 
containing folder, then right-clicking the file again and saying Copy; 
then using Explorer to navigate to the right destination, right-clicking 
a blank area, and saying Paste. But the chances of my non-technical 
friend getting it right is somewhat remote.)

We're actually seriously looking at just Fedexing a memory stick with 
the program on it! (Or, more practically, but more work, is for me to 
create an installer which is a .exe that takes a bigger .exe appended to 
the file, and saves that in the right location.)

It used to be so easy: you distributed programs on a floppy disk. They 
could be run from there, or an installation batch file just copied the 
files to the hard drive. User instructions were much more likely to work 
because there weren't a hundred other things go on. Now it's half a 
dozen instructions just to get a console window up.)

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10283

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
<snip>
> I'm having trouble sending a .exe or .zip file via email.
>
> The gmail system refuses to accept them (if you're lucky, you
> sometimes get a failure message back).

Why not use a less picky SMTP server?

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10285

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> <snip>
> > I'm having trouble sending a .exe or .zip file via email.
> >
> > The gmail system refuses to accept them (if you're lucky, you
> > sometimes get a failure message back).

> Why not use a less picky SMTP server?

In BartC's defense, he may have been talking about sending a .exe or
.zip _to_ a gmail recipient, in which case he has no choice if the
repipient uses gmail.

And since _so_ many people voluntarially turn their email over to Goggle
to be scanned and used for adertising, he very well may have been
talking about sending to gmail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10289

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> <snip>
>> > I'm having trouble sending a .exe or .zip file via email.
>> >
>> > The gmail system refuses to accept them (if you're lucky, you
>> > sometimes get a failure message back).
>
>> Why not use a less picky SMTP server?
>
> In BartC's defense, he may have been talking about sending a .exe or
> .zip _to_ a gmail recipient, in which case he has no choice if the
> repipient uses gmail.

Ah, yes, that's a more reasonable reading.  I've always thought of
sub-par email systems as being the receiver's problem, but there will be
cases when you have to send something, so it becomes yours.

However, it did read rather like one of his generic rants about how
everything is so awful now.  But the problems he documents are largely
driven by the fact that so many more people use computing devices these
days.  In the "good old days" of floppy discs, the few people who had
such machines knew how to do more technical things with them -- they had
to.

Presumably there is a software packaging/installation system for Windows
devices.  As BartC says, that's more work for him, but people who've
chosen (or been forced to use) gmail for the primary or only email
account probably need that work done for them.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10291

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> >> <snip>
> >> > I'm having trouble sending a .exe or .zip file via email.
> >> >
> >> > The gmail system refuses to accept them (if you're lucky, you
> >> > sometimes get a failure message back).
> >
> >> Why not use a less picky SMTP server?
> >
> > In BartC's defense, he may have been talking about sending a .exe
> > .or zip _to_ a gmail recipient, in which case he has no choice if
> > .the
> > repipient uses gmail.

> Ah, yes, that's a more reasonable reading.  I've always thought of
> sub-par email systems as being the receiver's problem, but there will
> be cases when you have to send something, so it becomes yours.

> However, it did read rather like one of his generic rants about how
> everything is so awful now.  But the problems he documents are
> largely driven by the fact that so many more people use computing
> devices these days.  In the "good old days" of floppy discs, the few
> people who had such machines knew how to do more technical things
> with them -- they had to.

Yes, most of the issue (beyond the actual reciept of the file) was due
to there being by far fewer technically knowlegable people on the
receiving end of his emails.

And the problems he is having with sending .exe and .zip files is also
due to that lack of knowlege factor.  Most .exe and .zip files sent
into gmail are for trojan horses, and he's just unlucky enough to have
that 1% legimate use, but is getting caught up in the trojan horse
filters.

> Presumably there is a software packaging/installation system for Windows
> devices.  As BartC says, that's more work for him, but people who've
> chosen (or been forced to use) gmail for the primary or only email
> account probably need that work done for them.

Due to the reduction in technical ability in the general populace, he
may have no choice but to put in the effort to build his 'files' as
install packages so that those who have no idea even how to rename a
file could still install whatever it is he is sending them.

This, of course, still does not help the fact that if the receiver uses
gmail (and by far too many will) it will not solve the issue of
actually getting the blob to the recipient so that they can "double
click and answer "yes" to "install now?".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10294

On 06/02/2016 11:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
>
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> <snip>
>>>> I'm having trouble sending a .exe or .zip file via email.
>>>>
>>>> The gmail system refuses to accept them (if you're lucky, you
>>>> sometimes get a failure message back).
>>
>>> Why not use a less picky SMTP server?
>>
>> In BartC's defense, he may have been talking about sending a .exe or
>> .zip _to_ a gmail recipient, in which case he has no choice if the
>> repipient uses gmail.
>
> Ah, yes, that's a more reasonable reading.  I've always thought of
> sub-par email systems as being the receiver's problem, but there will be
> cases when you have to send something, so it becomes yours.
>
> However, it did read rather like one of his generic rants about how
> everything is so awful now.  But the problems he documents are largely
> driven by the fact that so many more people use computing devices these
> days.  In the "good old days" of floppy discs, the few people who had
> such machines knew how to do more technical things with them -- they had
> to.

No, it is more complicated GUIs, as well as more complicated everything 
else. If you're giving instructions by email or support over the phone 
(of which I've had considerable experience), you have to keep a picture 
of what's happening on the user's screen at the other end.

Recently I tried duplicating operations at my end, on the same model of 
netbook, but I assumed they were using Windows 32, in fact they were 
running Windows 7, which explained a lot of perplexing differences!

(In this case, this was trying to get a specialised label-printer 
working, which in the old days would be plugged into a parallel port and 
it would Just Work.

Unfortunately those days are long gone. This printer is still driven by 
instructions in raw text. On Windows that means installing a 'virtual' 
Generic/Text printer, and somehow linking that to the same port as the 
label printer is, which is one of the USB ports. And then selecting that 
Text printer in the application.

Now /I/ hardly understand how it works, and I don't have the printer 
(it's thousands of miles away), but I have to make it work at the other 
end of the phone line.

It doesn't help that the trick of linking the Generic/Text printer only 
works with one USB printer at a time, and the client of course has two 
slightly different models in use.)

 > However, it did read rather like one of his generic rants about how
 > everything is so awful now.

That's because a lot of it is. If a printer didn't work in 1985, it 
might have been one of handful of things (not plugged in, not on-line, 
out of paper etc, all obvious). Now it could be a million things, few of 
which are obvious.

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10290

On 06/02/2016 01:19, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> <snip>
>> I'm having trouble sending a .exe or .zip file via email.
>>
>> The gmail system refuses to accept them (if you're lucky, you
>> sometimes get a failure message back).
>
> Why not use a less picky SMTP server?

Because the recipient uses gmail. I wouldn't anyway know which others 
would be any better. (One I use is paid-for; another is tied to my ISP. 
And I don't know how easy their web interfaces are.)

But this isn't the point, which is that it's become much harder to do 
something as simple as send someone a program. While GUIs have become 
next to impossible.

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10284

On 2016-02-06, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> I'm having trouble sending a .exe or .zip file via email.
> The gmail system refuses to accept them (if you're lucky, you sometimes 
> get a failure message back).

Why on Earth are you using gmail for your business?

You can use FastMail, with your own domain and use their Web client. No
ads, no bullshit. 

You could use a hosted Exchange and Microsoft Outlook combo for
business-class email. 

You could use hosted Zimbra, which is very similar to Exchange and even
has ActiveSync for a fee if you need all the regular bells and whistles
like active sync for calendar, contacts and so on. 

I've used all three and they each work fairly well depending on what you
want. 

-- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10286

Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
> On 2016-02-06, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> > I'm having trouble sending a .exe or .zip file via email.
> > The gmail system refuses to accept them (if you're lucky, you sometimes 
> > get a failure message back).

> Why on Earth are you using gmail for your business?

If one is running a business, then the proper question is "why are you
not hosting your own SMTP server".

But I suspect BartC was talking about sending towards Gmail, not using
Gmail to transmit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10287

On 2016-02-06, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>> On 2016-02-06, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> > I'm having trouble sending a .exe or .zip file via email.
>> > The gmail system refuses to accept them (if you're lucky, you sometimes 
>> > get a failure message back).
>
>> Why on Earth are you using gmail for your business?
>
> If one is running a business, then the proper question is "why are you
> not hosting your own SMTP server".
>
> But I suspect BartC was talking about sending towards Gmail, not using
> Gmail to transmit.

In that case, I'd suggest a 3rd party transfer agent like WeTransfer.

-- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10288

Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com>:

> On 2016-02-06, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> But I suspect BartC was talking about sending towards Gmail, not
>> using Gmail to transmit.
>
> In that case, I'd suggest a 3rd party transfer agent like WeTransfer.

I suggest placing your file on your Web server and sending a link by
mail. The file could be encrypted with, say, GPG to ensure
confidentiality, prevent MitM attacks and bypass unwanted security
measures. (Don't put the encryption password in the mail together with
the link, though.)


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10292

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com>:

> > On 2016-02-06, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> But I suspect BartC was talking about sending towards Gmail, not
> >> using Gmail to transmit.
> >
> > In that case, I'd suggest a 3rd party transfer agent like WeTransfer.

> I suggest placing your file on your Web server and sending a link by
> mail. The file could be encrypted with, say, GPG to ensure
> confidentiality, prevent MitM attacks and bypass unwanted security
> measures. (Don't put the encryption password in the mail together with
> the link, though.)

A perfect solution, for the technically knowlegable.

But for the folks BartC was referencing, who have trouble following an
instruction to rename program.eee to program.exe or something.zzz to
something.zip, they will likely be unable to use gpg to decrypt the
file that they download from his web server.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10240

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Rich wrote:

> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> On 2/02/2016 4:05 AM, RS Wood wrote:
>>> ...  Both Apple and Google are really trying to posit their
>>> platforms for work (iPad Pro, Pixel C), but just as Microsoft is
>>> having a hard time scaling Windows down for consumption, Apple and
>>> Google are having trouble scaling their operating systems up for
>>> work. ...
>
>> No real surprises there. The human physical interface is just too
>> much of a pain to use.
>
> Tablets are intended to be _consumption_ devices, not creation devices.
> Simple as that.  And it is not the OS that they are having trouble
> "scaling up", it is the physical design and physical form factor that
> are the limiting issues.
>
>
Yes.

I got  a netbook in 2009, thinking that was the way to go.  Or rather, I 
looked at what else there was for portable stuff, and that seemed it. 
PDAs had mostly disappeared, either low end or high end remaining.  I 
thought of getting an iPod, they had advanced by then, but didn't like 
Apple's control over things.  But the netbook didn't work out so well, I 
remember using wifi on a street corner and while it could sit on the palm 
of my hand, it was hard to type then.

I got a Blackberry Playbook tablet in 2012, thinking that if I was going 
to get an ebook reader, might as well spend a bit more and get a full blown 
tablet.  That was fine for using wifi at the mall, yes for consuming 
information.  They are fine so long as you don't have to type much.

Then 2014, I won a Microsoft Surface 2, which is somewhat larger, and 
definitely zippier.  I haven't taken it out of the house.  I didn't get 
DSL until October of 2012, but once I got that (and wifi), a tablet is 
incredibly useful, take it to where you need the information, rather than 
having to go to the desk to check something.

I even found a bluetooth keyboard in the garbage when the students moved 
out, intended for an iPad but it works fine.  But I've never bothered with 
it, if I am typing (like now to Usenet) it is time to go to the desktop.

The Surface 2 has been abandoned more or less.  So I can see a point in 
the future where it will have to be replaced, prematurely.  But I can't 
imagine living without a tablet.  High speed internet makes things like 
ebook delivery and newspapers practical, and tablets make those things 
viable.  I like being able to curl up with the tablet to read.  But I sure 
won't live without a desktop.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10245

On 2016-02-02, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

>
> I even found a bluetooth keyboard in the garbage when the students moved 
> out, intended for an iPad but it works fine.  But I've never bothered with 
> it, if I am typing (like now to Usenet) it is time to go to the desktop.

Having had several Psions in daily use from circa 1992 to circa 1998
(the later ones broke within warranty so I gave up on them), I can and do
use a bluetooth keyboard, but only when I have a desk or table handy.
In any other situation, entry via the on-screen keyboard is physically
easier.

-- 
An invention needs to make sense in the world in which it's finished,
not the world in which it's started.                  -- Ray Kurzweil

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web