Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > warehouse kindle

Reply
Thread Tools

warehouse kindle

 
 
JohnO
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2012
On Sunday, 9 September 2012 12:53:39 UTC+12, Enkidu wrote:
<snip>
> I find the 7" screen too small on the e-readers. Books are easier to
> read on the iPade.
>

The Kindle DX has a 10" e-ink display.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed), JohnO says...
>
> On Monday, 10 September 2012 17:16:07 UTC+12, Gordon wrote:
> > On 2012-09-09, JohnO <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, 9 September 2012 12:53:39 UTC+12, Enkidu wrote:

> >
> > ><snip>

> >
> > >> I find the 7" screen too small on the e-readers. Books are easier to

> >
> > >> read on the iPade.

> >
> > >

> >
> > > It's a similar size to a page of a paperback novel and I only read fiction on Kindle. Recent software updates have finally allowed switching to landscape which makes it bigger.

> >
> > >

> >
> > > The problems with an iPad for book reading are eye fatigue after an hour or less reading and short battery life. Take your power adapter with you for a rainy weekend away whereas Kindles last for weeks.

> >
> >
> >
> > Could I ask that you warp you postings at 80 lines max?

>
> Sorry mate - it's GoogleGroups and they have absolutely buggered it in the new release of it. As far as I can see there's nothing I can do but manually correct it which as a total PITA. I think Google are intentionally trying to kill it off by making it awful.


Looks just fine in Microplanet Gravity - until you go and 'reply' to a
message - and your text appears as one big long line LOL.


--
Duncan.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Dee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2012
Dave Doe wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed), JohnO says...
>> Gordon wrote:


>>> Could I ask that you warp you postings at 80 lines max?


I guess Gordan had meant to type "wrap" & 80 characters, not lines. But
I kind of like "warp" anyway

>> Sorry mate - it's GoogleGroups and they have absolutely buggered
>> it in the new release of it. As far as I can see there's nothing
>> I can do but manually correct it which as a total PITA. I think
>> Google are intentionally trying to kill it off by making it
>> awful.


It wasn't too flash to begin with.

> Looks just fine in Microplanet Gravity - until you go and 'reply'
> to a message - and your text appears as one big long line LOL.


Glad to see Xnews here, auto-corrects those long lines when replying.

--
dee
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mike Dee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Dave Doe wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed), JohnO says...
>>> Gordon wrote:
>>>> Could I ask that you warp you postings at 80 lines max?

>I guess Gordan had meant to type "wrap" & 80 characters, not lines. But
>I kind of like "warp" anyway
>>> Sorry mate - it's GoogleGroups and they have absolutely buggered
>>> it in the new release of it. As far as I can see there's nothing
>>> I can do but manually correct it which as a total PITA. I think
>>> Google are intentionally trying to kill it off by making it
>>> awful.

>
>It wasn't too flash to begin with.


In fact it was so broken I only tried it for 2 days before totally giving up
on it. It couldn't thread/group posts worth a damn, was slow, cubersome and
ugly, and allowed (nay, encouraged) formatting.
That was a couple of years ago now, but what I've seen posted from it since
gives me no reason to change my mind.

Some people filter out everything posted from google groups. I can see why.


 
Reply With Quote
 
JohnO
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2012
On Wednesday, 12 September 2012 10:43:50 UTC+12, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
<snip>
>
> In fact it was so broken I only tried it for 2 days before totally giving up
> on it. It couldn't thread/group posts worth a damn, was slow, cubersome and
> ugly, and allowed (nay, encouraged) formatting.
> That was a couple of years ago now, but what I've seen posted from it since
> gives me no reason to change my mind.


Well, it is now worse in the "new" look :-O

But I still prefer it to Agent and Gravity which are far too slow in the way they download headers and expand thread trees. GG is fast and does display thread trees if you configure that - I'm not sure why you had issues there.

But yes, it is ugly and more so now to boot.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, Dave Doe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed), JohnO says...
>> On Wednesday, 12 September 2012 10:43:50 UTC+12, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > In fact it was so broken I only tried it for 2 days before totally giving

> up
>> > on it. It couldn't thread/group posts worth a damn, was slow, cubersome and
>> > ugly, and allowed (nay, encouraged) formatting.
>> > That was a couple of years ago now, but what I've seen posted from it since
>> > gives me no reason to change my mind.

>> Well, it is now worse in the "new" look :-O




>> But I still prefer it to Agent and Gravity which are far too slow in the way

> they download headers and expand thread trees. GG is fast and does display
> thread trees if you configure that - I'm not sure why you had issues there.


I had *problems* with it because it didn't thread.


>> But yes, it is ugly and more so now to boot.

>Jeez... I get Gravity to pull everything from all the groups I'm on - so
>it's already expanded and the data (posts) are already there for me to
>instantly read.


I'm using an old program (news express) that works fine and fast. No one who
has used GG would ever complain about the speed of any real news reader.








 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed), JohnO says...
>
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2012 10:43:50 UTC+12, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > In fact it was so broken I only tried it for 2 days before totally giving up
> > on it. It couldn't thread/group posts worth a damn, was slow, cubersome and
> > ugly, and allowed (nay, encouraged) formatting.
> > That was a couple of years ago now, but what I've seen posted from it since
> > gives me no reason to change my mind.

>
> Well, it is now worse in the "new" look :-O
>
> But I still prefer it to Agent and Gravity which are far too slow in the way they download headers and expand thread trees. GG is fast and does display thread trees if you configure that - I'm not sure why you had issues there.
>
> But yes, it is ugly and more so now to boot.


Jeez... I get Gravity to pull everything from all the groups I'm on - so
it's already expanded and the data (posts) are already there for me to
instantly read.

--
Duncan.
 
Reply With Quote
 
JohnO
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2012
On Wednesday, 12 September 2012 15:41:05 UTC+12, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> I'm using an old program (news express) that works fine and fast. No one who
> has used GG would ever complain about the speed of any real news reader.


I just wonder where your speed issue comes from - I don't see any speed issue with GG - it seems to always open stuff more or less instantly. The problems I have are all with design and function.
 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2012
Somewhere on teh intarwebs JohnO wrote:
[snippage]
> A sim module..........


Does that come with a PIN number or do you just get it at the ATM machine?


--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2012
JohnO wrote:

> I just wonder where your speed issue comes from - I don't see any speed
> issue with GG - it seems to always open stuff more or less instantly. The
> problems I have are all with design and function.


My experience is that GG in firefox is now very sensitive to available RAM.
Back from my dial-up days I've been accustomed when perusing a group to go
through the list of threads ("headers") clicking on those I want to read, to
start them loading in new tabs. (Perhaps before tabs it was windows, I
can't remember.) For some groups, firefox would claim 250-300 MiB *per tab*
initially, settling back to 50-60 MiB *per tab* after the threads finished
loading. As I had only 850 MB altogether (1 GiB less about 150 MiB for on
board graphics) my system would commence thrashing on opening a few threads,
but I could click on maybe a dozen and provoke serious swapping. Indeed,
diagnosing the situation was difficult because monitoring attempts would be
so slow running until the tabs had finished loading that I wouldn't see the
spike in RSS size. It was only monitoring using a light, non-gui tool (top)
that I saw what was happening.

I take the same multiple tabs approach in other forums without trouble. I
tried GG in rekonq briefly, and it seemed to suffer from the same problem,
but that was booting from a live CD and it was really slow anyway.

So, maybe that's where the speed issue came from.


--
John Little, Auckland, New Zealand
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Soft phone for Kindle Fire HD (PeteCresswell) UK VOIP 0 01-20-2013 03:29 PM
Amazon Kindle Paperwhite 3G Becky Front Page News 0 10-02-2012 05:19 PM
kindle/e-books in NZ JohnO NZ Computing 41 02-13-2012 09:55 PM
Amazon Kindle formatting - helpful links and advice Mountaineer HTML 0 05-14-2011 09:19 PM
Re: No Kindle for New Zealand Simon NZ Computing 2 10-09-2009 08:54 AM



Advertisments