Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Camera JPEG engines

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Camera JPEG engines

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2012
On 11/23/2012 4:55 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>>>> But the batteries aren't replaceable by the user yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> so what? it's not just apple. most ultrabooks are like that.
>>>>
>>>> Ah; I know people who have abandoned Apple over that, since the new
>>>> extended batteries don't approach what they got with two batteries
>>>> before.
>>>
>>> bullshit.
>>>
>>> the macbooks prior to the versions with internal batteries got about
>>> 4-5 hours of runtime, compared with 7-10 on the newer models.

>>
>> That may be what the specs say, but I know what my friends say.

>
> then they either have a defective battery (it happens) or they're lying.
>
> the new macbooks get substantially longer battery life than the older
> ones. this is easily measured, and has been in many, many reviews.
>
> furthermore, apple is very conservative on battery ratings. anandtech
> got over 8 hours on a macbook that was rated at 7 hours. the ipad is
> rated at 10 hours and many reviewers got 11 hours or more. that's a
> *really* long time on a single charge.
>
> <http://www.anandtech.com/show/2783/a...ro-battery-lif
> e-to-die-for/4>
> Eight, freakin, hours. I couldn't believe it. In my lightest test,
> the new 15-inch MacBook Pro lasted eight hours and eight minutes.
> That's with the screen at half brightness (completely usable) and no
> funny optimizations. The notebook is just playing music and surfing
> through a lot of my old reviews. There's no way this could be right.
> Maybe my test was too light?
>
> he then tested it with flash, which drains the battery faster, and
> found the new model was almost *twice* as long as the old one:
>
> Six and a half hours, out of a 5.5 lbs notebook. For comparison, the
> older MacBook Pro could only manage 3 hours and 17 minutes in the
> same test. The new notebook lasted almost twice as long.
> Mathematically, this doesn't make sense. There's only a 46% increase
> in battery capacity, there shouldnąt be a ~100% increase in battery
> life...ever.
> ...
> The battery tests are repeatable however. I saw anywhere from a 50 -
> 100% improvement in battery life over the old MacBook Pro. Given the
> increase in battery capacity alone, you should see no less than a 46%
> increase in battery life. Exactly what is accounting for the expanded
> life above and beyond that, I'm not sure.
>
> Either way, Apple's 7 hour claim is well within reason. For light
> workloads, even on WiFi, you can easily expect 6.5 - 8 hours out of
> the new 15-inch MBP. As I write this article on that very system I'm
> told that I have nearly 8.5 hours left on my charge. If you do a lot
> of writing on your notebook, the new MBP is exactly what you'll want;
> it will easily last you on a cross-country flight if you need to get
> work done
> ...
> A quick search shows that even Dell's Studio 15 only offers a battery
> rating of up to 5.5 hours. It looks like, once again, other notebook
> makers will have to play catch up to Apple in this department.
>
>>>>> the result is longer battery run time and a thinner, lighter and more
>>>>> reliable laptop. that is something that benefits users every day.
>>>>
>>>> Until their battery goes dead, either from use or age.
>>>
>>> which will likely be after the laptop is no longer particularly useful.
>>> as i said, the battery will outlast the laptop (or other device).

>>
>> Never been my experience, and many friends have also talked about
>> needing to replace laptop batteries mid-life.

>
> what is 'mid-life' ? 1-2 years? if so, it's likely under warranty and
> replacement is free.
>
> and as i said, if you want to replace the battery, you either grab a
> screwdriver or take it to the store and they do it while you wait, for
> no additional cost. it's not a big deal.
>
> meanwhile, every day you use the laptop, you don't have to lug extra
> batteries and the laptop is lighter and thinner and more reliable, all
> things that make using it that much more pleasant, versus being able to
> pop a battery out *once* in a few years.
>
>>> however, for those who insist on using older computers well past their
>>> useful life and despite the fact that older computers won't be able to
>>> run whatever software will then be current or have security updates
>>> which puts the user at risk, they can still replace the battery and
>>> keep using it anyway, or have the battery replaced if they can't handle
>>> a screwdriver (or know someone who does). or they can just use the
>>> laptop plugged in.

>>
>> The Thinkpad T60 I bought used and which my wife is still using is on
>> its second battery, but it still gets OS upgrades from Microsoft, and
>> could run at least two generations newer OS if there were any reason we
>> wanted to (dunno about 8, but it could definitely run Windows 7).

>
> are you talking about xp?
>
>> Maybe if you've got money drooling constantly out some bodily orifice
>> beyond your control you would replace your laptop every couple of years,
>> but I'd rather drink more good wine or something.

>
> who said every couple of years?
>
> the battery in macbooks are rated at *five* years. most people will
> replace their computer well before that.
>
> look back at laptops from 2007 or so. many of those won't run vista or
> win7 (or *really* poorly, if they can at all), so anyone wanting to run
> modern software that requires vista or 7 will be buying a new laptop.
>
> and you are not surprisingly ignoring that apple isn't the only one who
> is doing this. most ultrabooks have internal batteries and many
> smartphones (not just the iphone) have internal batteries, as do many
> other consumer products, such as bluetooth headsets. like it or not,
> that's what users want. most users (95 % as per npd) do *not* buy spare
> batteries. it's silly to cater to the remaining 5%.
>
>>>>> plus, flash cards are very reliable and i'm not particularly worried
>>>>> about data loss if i didn't have anywhere to copy it. sometimes i take
>>>>> just the camera and a bunch of cards and copy them when i get home.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, not THAT bad a risk. Certainly less risky than unexposed film --
>>>> the difference being that I had *no choice* about the film not being
>>>> backed up. (And in fact wedding photographers went to huge amounts of
>>>> trouble to get shots on multiple rolls and to send those rolls to the
>>>> lab on different days so they couldn't all be lost in one equipment
>>>> failure.)
>>>
>>> when i shot film, the lab i used offered $100 if they botched a roll of
>>> film. that won't replace lost photos, but it's a *lot* better than
>>> giving someone a free roll of film which is what most places offered.
>>> it is also a vote of confidence that they won't screw up, and they
>>> didn't.

>>
>> Notice I said "wedding photographers". A wedding photographer can
>> potentially get hit with a suit requiring them to rent the venue again,
>> decorate, it, get the flowers, bring all the family and guests back
>> paying transport, hotel, and food, and reshoot the whole thing. $100 a
>> roll doesn't go very far at all towards that kind of cost.

>
> it won't, but it goes farther than a $10 roll of film does that most
> labs would give you (which costs them even less). in other words,
> you're trusting your precious photos to a $5 guarantee.
>
> as i said, it's a vote of confidence. the lab wouldn't offer $100 if
> they were careless, which is a *lot* more than most labs did.
>



When did
apple start allowing Flash on the iPad?
<http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/>
Of course the article could not possibly be a phoney.
Sheesh!

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2012
In article <50aff447$0$10807$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> i can't remember a flight in the past year or two that *didn't* have
> >> wifi. before that it was most of the time, but that was when they were
> >> installing the hardware.
> >>
> >> there are over 1500 planes that currently have wifi, including on air
> >> canada, airtran, alaska airlines, american airlines, delta, frontier,
> >> united, us airways and virgin america.
> >>
> >> <http://www.gogoair.com/gogo/cms/airlines.do>

> >
> > Oh, I see them advertising it; I just don't see it on the actual planes
> > I fly.
> >
> > I didn't see it back 2005-2008 flying out to California every month,
> > either, but maybe that was too early. (I have a theory it might happen
> > more on longer flights.)
> >

> Another accurate statement from nospam. with over 3,00 planes flying in
> the US during the day, the chances of getting one with WiFi is less than
> 50%. I wonder if that percentage is "very likely."


math fail. over 1500 planes with wifi versus over 3000 total is about
50%. it could be 49% just as easily as it can be 51%, and more planes
are getting wifi every day (it's about 8 hours to install).

more importantly, many of those 3000 flights are international routes
where wifi is not offered (and pax know this in advance) or puddle
jumpers where you're only in the air for 30-60 minutes and it's
pointless to offer wifi. i mentioned both, which you are conveniently
ignoring.

> And of course, the service is free, courtesy of the airline. Perhaps
> nospam, our frequent flyer, can tell use the cost. i'm confident that
> information is right at his fingertips.


i didn't mention cost at all, only that it's offered.

if you want to know cost, go to gogo's site. they list all of the
plans. there are also the occasional promo codes for discounts.
sometimes it's a few dollars and sometimes it's even free.

if tony's wife flies on an airline that charges to pick a seat or for a
soda, then paying for wifi is no big deal.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2012
In article <50aff57f$0$10811$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> When did
> apple start allowing Flash on the iPad?
> <http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/>
> Of course the article could not possibly be a phoney.
> Sheesh!


learn to read before spewing stupid comments.

nowhere did the article i quoted nor did i say anything about ipads
running flash.

do you just make this stuff up or what?
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2012
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:28:17 -0800, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>if tony's wife flies on an airline that charges to pick a seat or for a
>soda, then paying for wifi is no big deal.


I guess that's a compliment to my wife since you are saying that my
wife's choice of airlines is the standard by which what is a
reasonable charge is determined.

I'm not sure if there is much of an advantage in being able to reserve
a seat position unless you have bladder problems and need an aisle
seat. A reserved seat may put you next to a squalling infant, a man
with a severe body odor problem, or some prat who is compiling a
market survey report on his Macbook. You can pick the location, but
not your seatmates.

Personally, if I'm booking a flight, I pick the airline that gets me
from where I am to where I want to go in the least amount of time,
connections, and trouble getting to the airport.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >if tony's wife flies on an airline that charges to pick a seat or for a
> >soda, then paying for wifi is no big deal.

>
> I guess that's a compliment to my wife since you are saying that my
> wife's choice of airlines is the standard by which what is a
> reasonable charge is determined.


no, your wife is picking a cheap ass airline that nickel and dimes
customers.

it costs an airline nothing to offer standard amenities such as seat
selection, printing your own boarding pass, etc. it's a customer
hostile policy. also, allegiant has several inches less legroom than
many other airlines, making for a less comfortable flight, except
perhaps, for midgets.

it's like how banks charge for using an atm, when it's actually saving
them money.

maybe you don't mind being treated like **** when you fly. others do
not like it and won't put up with it. airlines like allegiant and
spirit are getting a lot of backlash for those policies.

> I'm not sure if there is much of an advantage in being able to reserve
> a seat position unless you have bladder problems and need an aisle
> seat. A reserved seat may put you next to a squalling infant, a man
> with a severe body odor problem, or some prat who is compiling a
> market survey report on his Macbook. You can pick the location, but
> not your seatmates.


location matters, as do individual seats.

seats toward the front are generally quieter than seats towards the
rear plus you get off the plane quicker which may matter for tight
connections. window seats forward of the wing usually have a better
view than ones over the wing or behind it. sometimes window seats
aren't even windows, it's solid metal for structural members of the
fuselage, or you get delightful view *of the engine* and nothing more
(plus the noise since you're next to it).

exit rows offer the most legroom outside of the f/j cabins, but the
seats may not recline. exit rows can also be colder because of the exit
door and the seat cushions aren't usually as comfortable. some planes
have economy+ or equivalent, which has additional legroom, without the
drawbacks of the exit rows.

not all seats have seat power, which matters to those with battery
hungry devices. bulkhead seats generally have no underseat storage,
which may be an inconvenience especially if the overhead bins fill by
the time you board. nobody wants middle seats unless they're a family
taking the entire row.

for premium cabins, being able to choose which seat can mean the
difference in first and last choice in meals, and for the main cabin,
you might not get any choice way in the back because they ran out, plus
it's that much later that they get to you.

planes also vary in seat configuration. a solo traveler might want the
1 seat side and get both a window and an aisle at the same time. three
people traveling together will likely want a 3 seat side not the 2 seat
side and split up. good luck to the poor soul who is in the middle of a
5 seat row, but a family of 5 might prefer that.

picking left or right side of the plane can matter depending if you
want the sun in your face (even in an aisle seat), depending on
direction of travel and time of day. which side can also matter if you
want to see a particular sight along the way.

so yes, seat selection absolutely does matter.

> Personally, if I'm booking a flight, I pick the airline that gets me
> from where I am to where I want to go in the least amount of time,
> connections, and trouble getting to the airport.


comfort isn't even a consideration? why am i not surprised.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2012
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:54:56 -0800, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> >if tony's wife flies on an airline that charges to pick a seat or for a
>> >soda, then paying for wifi is no big deal.

>>
>> I guess that's a compliment to my wife since you are saying that my
>> wife's choice of airlines is the standard by which what is a
>> reasonable charge is determined.

>
>no, your wife is picking a cheap ass airline that nickel and dimes
>customers.


She picked the most convenient airline from origination to
destination. I don't even know if the cost was more than another
airline. I don't pay attention to nickels and dimes.

If she had picked a different airline, she would have flown out of ORL
instead of SFB. More cost to get there and back to our house. She
would have had to either rent a car from Chicago to Rockford or take
the bus. More cost, more time. The schedule was convenient.

>it costs an airline nothing to offer standard amenities such as seat
>selection, printing your own boarding pass, etc. it's a customer
>hostile policy. also, allegiant has several inches less legroom than
>many other airlines, making for a less comfortable flight, except
>perhaps, for midgets.


Damn close. My wife is barely over 5'.

Wifi costs the airline pennies per passenger, but many charge for
wifi.

>maybe you don't mind being treated like **** when you fly. others do
>not like it and won't put up with it. airlines like allegiant and
>spirit are getting a lot of backlash for those policies.


Treated like ****? The flight crew were pleasant.
>
>> I'm not sure if there is much of an advantage in being able to reserve
>> a seat position unless you have bladder problems and need an aisle
>> seat. A reserved seat may put you next to a squalling infant, a man
>> with a severe body odor problem, or some prat who is compiling a
>> market survey report on his Macbook. You can pick the location, but
>> not your seatmates.

>
>location matters, as do individual seats.


Matters to whom? You can pre-choose a seat and be next to some obese
woman eating cheese and farting and behind a squalling infant with a
dirty diaper. Or, you can walk down the aisle and pick a seat next to
some quiet adult.

>seats toward the front are generally quieter than seats towards the
>rear plus you get off the plane quicker which may matter for tight
>connections.


The flight, as I said, was a direct non-stop.

>window seats forward of the wing usually have a better
>view than ones over the wing or behind it. sometimes window seats
>aren't even windows, it's solid metal for structural members of the
>fuselage, or you get delightful view *of the engine* and nothing more
>(plus the noise since you're next to it).


A view? I thought you were a frequent flyer and airborne laptop
preference survey taker. You think the view for the first few minutes
and the last few minutes of a flight is exciting? Are you six
years-old? Orlando to Rockford doesn't fly over the Grand Canyon, you
know. I held a private pilot's license for years. I know what the
top of a cloud looks like.
>
>exit rows offer the most legroom outside of the f/j cabins, but the
>seats may not recline. exit rows can also be colder because of the exit
>door and the seat cushions aren't usually as comfortable. some planes
>have economy+ or equivalent, which has additional legroom, without the
>drawbacks of the exit rows.


Jeez, what a whiner.

>not all seats have seat power, which matters to those with battery
>hungry devices.


My wife read a (real) book on both flight legs. Books don't need
batteries.

>bulkhead seats generally have no underseat storage,
>which may be an inconvenience especially if the overhead bins fill by
>the time you board. nobody wants middle seats unless they're a family
>taking the entire row.
>
>for premium cabins, being able to choose which seat can mean the
>difference in first and last choice in meals, and for the main cabin,
>you might not get any choice way in the back because they ran out, plus
>it's that much later that they get to you.
>
>planes also vary in seat configuration. a solo traveler might want the
>1 seat side and get both a window and an aisle at the same time. three
>people traveling together will likely want a 3 seat side not the 2 seat
>side and split up. good luck to the poor soul who is in the middle of a
>5 seat row, but a family of 5 might prefer that.
>
>picking left or right side of the plane can matter depending if you
>want the sun in your face (even in an aisle seat), depending on
>direction of travel and time of day. which side can also matter if you
>want to see a particular sight along the way.
>
>so yes, seat selection absolutely does matter.


We've flown to Europe several times, to Mexico, to Central America, to
Africa once, and to several Caribbean destinations. I used to belong
to all those clubs when I was flying a few times a month on business.
I've still got Admirals Club and the Eastern club luggage tags on some
old suitcases. Maybe a Delta one, too.

I've had a seat problem once: on a trip I took by myself to
Luxembourg I took Icelandic Air because it was incredibly cheap. On
the return, we stopped in Reykjavik where that obese, cheese-eating,
farting lady plopped down in the seat beside me. She wasn't on the
flight from Luxembourg to Reykjavik; she was Reykjavik to NYC.

I suppose it could be worse. I could select a seat and find you next
to me and have to listen to you bitch about everything and natter on
about Apple D Sub Connectors not being overpriced.

>> Personally, if I'm booking a flight, I pick the airline that gets me
>> from where I am to where I want to go in the least amount of time,
>> connections, and trouble getting to the airport.

>
>comfort isn't even a consideration? why am i not surprised.


We're not whiners like you. You're all about the petty ****. We get
on board, sit down, and read a book. The only discomfort, other than
the mob going through the metal detectors, is now having to get to
the airport ridiculously early and sit in those Departure area
uncomfortable seats. I liked the old days when I could run into the
airport minutes before my flight.

I've never timed it, but unless you're flying coast-to-coast, I
suspect you spend more time getting to the airport and in the airport
than you do in the air. Certainly, if you have to change planes and
add the additional in the airport time.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2012
On 11/23/2012 5:28 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <50aff447$0$10807$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>> i can't remember a flight in the past year or two that *didn't* have
>>>> wifi. before that it was most of the time, but that was when they were
>>>> installing the hardware.
>>>>
>>>> there are over 1500 planes that currently have wifi, including on air
>>>> canada, airtran, alaska airlines, american airlines, delta, frontier,
>>>> united, us airways and virgin america.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.gogoair.com/gogo/cms/airlines.do>
>>>
>>> Oh, I see them advertising it; I just don't see it on the actual planes
>>> I fly.
>>>
>>> I didn't see it back 2005-2008 flying out to California every month,
>>> either, but maybe that was too early. (I have a theory it might happen
>>> more on longer flights.)
>>>

>> Another accurate statement from nospam. with over 3,00 planes flying in
>> the US during the day, the chances of getting one with WiFi is less than
>> 50%. I wonder if that percentage is "very likely."

>
> math fail. over 1500 planes with wifi versus over 3000 total is about
> 50%. it could be 49% just as easily as it can be 51%, and more planes
> are getting wifi every day (it's about 8 hours to install).
>
> more importantly, many of those 3000 flights are international routes
> where wifi is not offered (and pax know this in advance) or puddle
> jumpers where you're only in the air for 30-60 minutes and it's
> pointless to offer wifi. i mentioned both, which you are conveniently
> ignoring.
>
>> And of course, the service is free, courtesy of the airline. Perhaps
>> nospam, our frequent flyer, can tell use the cost. i'm confident that
>> information is right at his fingertips.

>
> i didn't mention cost at all, only that it's offered.
>
> if you want to know cost, go to gogo's site. they list all of the
> plans. there are also the occasional promo codes for discounts.
> sometimes it's a few dollars and sometimes it's even free.
>
> if tony's wife flies on an airline that charges to pick a seat or for a
> soda, then paying for wifi is no big deal.
>


According to YOUR cite, the number equals 1,500. That means not greater
than 1,500. I gave the number of DOMESTIC FLIGHTS, ONLY. Check the
meaning of your words, AND ASSUME ARGUENDO that 70% of the domestic
flights have WiFi, which they do not, then there is a 30% chance of
catching a flight without WiFi. I do not consider only a 70% chance of
success to be: "very likely." Maybe you do, but then again maybe you're
the person who keeps casinos in business by betting a single throw 7. Do
you think your chance of winning if you just make that bet is "very
likely." FYI house advantage on that bet is 16.9% Compare 16.9 with 30.
Not very likely you will win.


As to cost, I am not a wealthy as you. Therefore, if I had to pay $20
for a gallon of gas, for me it would be the same as no gas being
available. (I fully expect you will not understand that analogy.)


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2012
On 11/23/2012 5:28 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <50aff57f$0$10811$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> When did
>> apple start allowing Flash on the iPad?
>> <http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/>
>> Of course the article could not possibly be a phoney.
>> Sheesh!

>
> learn to read before spewing stupid comments.
>
> nowhere did the article i quoted nor did i say anything about ipads
> running flash.
>
> do you just make this stuff up or what?
>


Uh Huh!

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2012
On 11/23/2012 8:54 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:54:56 -0800, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>> if tony's wife flies on an airline that charges to pick a seat or for a
>>>> soda, then paying for wifi is no big deal.
>>>
>>> I guess that's a compliment to my wife since you are saying that my
>>> wife's choice of airlines is the standard by which what is a
>>> reasonable charge is determined.

>>
>> no, your wife is picking a cheap ass airline that nickel and dimes
>> customers.

>
> She picked the most convenient airline from origination to
> destination. I don't even know if the cost was more than another
> airline. I don't pay attention to nickels and dimes.
>
> If she had picked a different airline, she would have flown out of ORL
> instead of SFB. More cost to get there and back to our house. She
> would have had to either rent a car from Chicago to Rockford or take
> the bus. More cost, more time. The schedule was convenient.
>
>> it costs an airline nothing to offer standard amenities such as seat
>> selection, printing your own boarding pass, etc. it's a customer
>> hostile policy. also, allegiant has several inches less legroom than
>> many other airlines, making for a less comfortable flight, except
>> perhaps, for midgets.

>
> Damn close. My wife is barely over 5'.
>
> Wifi costs the airline pennies per passenger, but many charge for
> wifi.
>
>> maybe you don't mind being treated like **** when you fly. others do
>> not like it and won't put up with it. airlines like allegiant and
>> spirit are getting a lot of backlash for those policies.

>
> Treated like ****? The flight crew were pleasant.
>>
>>> I'm not sure if there is much of an advantage in being able to reserve
>>> a seat position unless you have bladder problems and need an aisle
>>> seat. A reserved seat may put you next to a squalling infant, a man
>>> with a severe body odor problem, or some prat who is compiling a
>>> market survey report on his Macbook. You can pick the location, but
>>> not your seatmates.

>>
>> location matters, as do individual seats.

>
> Matters to whom? You can pre-choose a seat and be next to some obese
> woman eating cheese and farting and behind a squalling infant with a
> dirty diaper. Or, you can walk down the aisle and pick a seat next to
> some quiet adult.
>
>> seats toward the front are generally quieter than seats towards the
>> rear plus you get off the plane quicker which may matter for tight
>> connections.

>
> The flight, as I said, was a direct non-stop.
>
>> window seats forward of the wing usually have a better
>> view than ones over the wing or behind it. sometimes window seats
>> aren't even windows, it's solid metal for structural members of the
>> fuselage, or you get delightful view *of the engine* and nothing more
>> (plus the noise since you're next to it).

>
> A view? I thought you were a frequent flyer and airborne laptop
> preference survey taker. You think the view for the first few minutes
> and the last few minutes of a flight is exciting? Are you six
> years-old? Orlando to Rockford doesn't fly over the Grand Canyon, you
> know. I held a private pilot's license for years. I know what the
> top of a cloud looks like.
>>
>> exit rows offer the most legroom outside of the f/j cabins, but the
>> seats may not recline. exit rows can also be colder because of the exit
>> door and the seat cushions aren't usually as comfortable. some planes
>> have economy+ or equivalent, which has additional legroom, without the
>> drawbacks of the exit rows.

>
> Jeez, what a whiner.
>
>> not all seats have seat power, which matters to those with battery
>> hungry devices.

>
> My wife read a (real) book on both flight legs. Books don't need
> batteries.


I thought he said his batteries last for hours. Certainly longer than
any transcontinental flight.

>
>> bulkhead seats generally have no underseat storage,
>> which may be an inconvenience especially if the overhead bins fill by
>> the time you board. nobody wants middle seats unless they're a family
>> taking the entire row.
>>
>> for premium cabins, being able to choose which seat can mean the
>> difference in first and last choice in meals, and for the main cabin,
>> you might not get any choice way in the back because they ran out, plus
>> it's that much later that they get to you.
>>
>> planes also vary in seat configuration. a solo traveler might want the
>> 1 seat side and get both a window and an aisle at the same time. three
>> people traveling together will likely want a 3 seat side not the 2 seat
>> side and split up. good luck to the poor soul who is in the middle of a
>> 5 seat row, but a family of 5 might prefer that.
>>
>> picking left or right side of the plane can matter depending if you
>> want the sun in your face (even in an aisle seat), depending on
>> direction of travel and time of day. which side can also matter if you
>> want to see a particular sight along the way.
>>
>> so yes, seat selection absolutely does matter.

>
> We've flown to Europe several times, to Mexico, to Central America, to
> Africa once, and to several Caribbean destinations. I used to belong
> to all those clubs when I was flying a few times a month on business.
> I've still got Admirals Club and the Eastern club luggage tags on some
> old suitcases. Maybe a Delta one, too.
>
> I've had a seat problem once: on a trip I took by myself to
> Luxembourg I took Icelandic Air because it was incredibly cheap. On
> the return, we stopped in Reykjavik where that obese, cheese-eating,
> farting lady plopped down in the seat beside me. She wasn't on the
> flight from Luxembourg to Reykjavik; she was Reykjavik to NYC.


That's worse than sitting next to a screaming kid. Enough of us
complained that the mother was warned that she would be moved to the
back of the plane if the disturbance continued. She managed to keep the
kid under control for the rest of the flight.
>
> I suppose it could be worse. I could select a seat and find you next
> to me and have to listen to you bitch about everything and natter on
> about Apple D Sub Connectors not being overpriced.
>
>>> Personally, if I'm booking a flight, I pick the airline that gets me
>>> from where I am to where I want to go in the least amount of time,
>>> connections, and trouble getting to the airport.

>>
>> comfort isn't even a consideration? why am i not surprised.

>
> We're not whiners like you. You're all about the petty ****. We get
> on board, sit down, and read a book. The only discomfort, other than
> the mob going through the metal detectors, is now having to get to
> the airport ridiculously early and sit in those Departure area
> uncomfortable seats. I liked the old days when I could run into the
> airport minutes before my flight.
>
> I've never timed it, but unless you're flying coast-to-coast, I
> suspect you spend more time getting to the airport and in the airport
> than you do in the air. Certainly, if you have to change planes and
> add the additional in the airport time.
>


He can recharge his iPad, or laptop, while waiting for the connecting
flight.
--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> >if tony's wife flies on an airline that charges to pick a seat or for a
> >> >soda, then paying for wifi is no big deal.
> >>
> >> I guess that's a compliment to my wife since you are saying that my
> >> wife's choice of airlines is the standard by which what is a
> >> reasonable charge is determined.

> >
> >no, your wife is picking a cheap ass airline that nickel and dimes
> >customers.

>
> She picked the most convenient airline from origination to
> destination. I don't even know if the cost was more than another
> airline. I don't pay attention to nickels and dimes.


nor do i. i buy tickets on the better airlines who include all the
usual stuff *without* any extra fees.

i heard of a new scam recently - fuel surcharges. you buy your ticket,
but if the price of fuel goes up between the time you buy it and when
you are supposed to leave, they charge you *more* when it comes time to
actually fly.

> If she had picked a different airline, she would have flown out of ORL
> instead of SFB. More cost to get there and back to our house. She
> would have had to either rent a car from Chicago to Rockford or take
> the bus. More cost, more time. The schedule was convenient.


great, so it worked out for you. meanwhile millions of others fly from
other airports. you aren't the only person in this world who flies.

> >it costs an airline nothing to offer standard amenities such as seat
> >selection, printing your own boarding pass, etc. it's a customer
> >hostile policy. also, allegiant has several inches less legroom than
> >many other airlines, making for a less comfortable flight, except
> >perhaps, for midgets.

>
> Damn close. My wife is barely over 5'.


put her in an overhead bin.

> Wifi costs the airline pennies per passenger, but many charge for
> wifi.


drinks cost the airline pennies per passenger but allegiant charges for
it, along with seat selection ($0), printing boarding passes at home
($0), etc. some of those even save the airline money, yet they charge
for it.

> >maybe you don't mind being treated like **** when you fly. others do
> >not like it and won't put up with it. airlines like allegiant and
> >spirit are getting a lot of backlash for those policies.

>
> Treated like ****? The flight crew were pleasant.


you said you've never flown allegiant.

changing your story, again?

> >> I'm not sure if there is much of an advantage in being able to reserve
> >> a seat position unless you have bladder problems and need an aisle
> >> seat. A reserved seat may put you next to a squalling infant, a man
> >> with a severe body odor problem, or some prat who is compiling a
> >> market survey report on his Macbook. You can pick the location, but
> >> not your seatmates.

> >
> >location matters, as do individual seats.

>
> Matters to whom?


it matters to the vast majority of those who fly.

there are sites that rate the seats so you know what you're going to
find before you get there and there are even sites that let you set
alerts so you can find out when a better seat becomes available.

almost all airlines offer seat selection, because customers want to
preselect their seats. families want to sit together. business
travelers want to talk business during the flight. most don't want luck
of the draw and be stuck in a middle or split up.

> You can pre-choose a seat and be next to some obese
> woman eating cheese and farting and behind a squalling infant with a
> dirty diaper.


or you can be next to a manager in a company and make a business deal.
or next to a someone famous. or next to someone interesting to talk to
for a few hours. i've had all of those happen.

> Or, you can walk down the aisle and pick a seat next to
> some quiet adult.


you can do that on any airline if there's a seat available, and the f/a
will reseat you if there isn't and there's really a problem.

you can also swap seats if the other person is amenable to it, which
they usually are so two people traveling together can sit together.

> >seats toward the front are generally quieter than seats towards the
> >rear plus you get off the plane quicker which may matter for tight
> >connections.

>
> The flight, as I said, was a direct non-stop.


connections aren't always to other flights. it could be to ground
transport which runs infrequently.

some shuttles run every hour, sometimes every 2 or 3 hours for more
distant locations. a couple of minutes can sometimes make a big
difference, and after a long flight, an extra hour or two can seem like
eternity. you could also miss the last shuttle of the night. then it's
spend the night at the airport or pay exorbitant fees for a taxi.

maybe you don't mind standing in line or waiting for a shuttle, but
normal people want to get to where they're going without any additional
delays.

> >window seats forward of the wing usually have a better
> >view than ones over the wing or behind it. sometimes window seats
> >aren't even windows, it's solid metal for structural members of the
> >fuselage, or you get delightful view *of the engine* and nothing more
> >(plus the noise since you're next to it).

>
> A view? I thought you were a frequent flyer and airborne laptop
> preference survey taker. You think the view for the first few minutes
> and the last few minutes of a flight is exciting? Are you six
> years-old? Orlando to Rockford doesn't fly over the Grand Canyon, you
> know. I held a private pilot's license for years. I know what the
> top of a cloud looks like.


there you go twisting things again. i never said anything about what my
seat preferences were.

i only said that different seats have different features. someone who
wants a view is not going to be happy over the wing. someone who wants
to sleep is not going to be happy sitting near the bathroom or galley
because of the noise. it's really very simple.

also, the grand canyon isn't the only cool thing to see. a friend of
mine was on a flight when mount st. helens erupted about 8 years ago.
the pilot made a special detour and flew so that *both* sides of the
plane could see it. bummer for those in the aisles though.

> >exit rows offer the most legroom outside of the f/j cabins, but the
> >seats may not recline. exit rows can also be colder because of the exit
> >door and the seat cushions aren't usually as comfortable. some planes
> >have economy+ or equivalent, which has additional legroom, without the
> >drawbacks of the exit rows.

>
> Jeez, what a whiner.


who are you talking about? certainly not me, since i'm not whining.

i'm describing the differences between different seats. that's all.
different people prefer different things.

you are as usual, trying to turn it into something else.

> >not all seats have seat power, which matters to those with battery
> >hungry devices.

>
> My wife read a (real) book on both flight legs. Books don't need
> batteries.


ebooks are very real (and will one day be the only option), ipads last
longer than anywhere allegiant flies (as well as most other airlines)
and a kindle will last even longer than that (weeks), but a kindle
lacks the ability to do other stuff like play games, watch movies, web
surf, etc. also, many flights have seat power so there isn't a need for
batteries anyway. even on a transpac flight, you'll probably want to
sleep and eat, which means an ipad will last for the entire flight, no
seat power required.

> >bulkhead seats generally have no underseat storage,
> >which may be an inconvenience especially if the overhead bins fill by
> >the time you board. nobody wants middle seats unless they're a family
> >taking the entire row.
> >
> >for premium cabins, being able to choose which seat can mean the
> >difference in first and last choice in meals, and for the main cabin,
> >you might not get any choice way in the back because they ran out, plus
> >it's that much later that they get to you.
> >
> >planes also vary in seat configuration. a solo traveler might want the
> >1 seat side and get both a window and an aisle at the same time. three
> >people traveling together will likely want a 3 seat side not the 2 seat
> >side and split up. good luck to the poor soul who is in the middle of a
> >5 seat row, but a family of 5 might prefer that.
> >
> >picking left or right side of the plane can matter depending if you
> >want the sun in your face (even in an aisle seat), depending on
> >direction of travel and time of day. which side can also matter if you
> >want to see a particular sight along the way.
> >
> >so yes, seat selection absolutely does matter.

>
> We've flown to Europe several times, to Mexico, to Central America, to
> Africa once, and to several Caribbean destinations. I used to belong
> to all those clubs when I was flying a few times a month on business.
> I've still got Admirals Club and the Eastern club luggage tags on some
> old suitcases. Maybe a Delta one, too.


luggage tags won't let you into the clubs. you need a membership, a day
pass or an f/j ticket (and not upgraded either).

> I've had a seat problem once: on a trip I took by myself to
> Luxembourg I took Icelandic Air because it was incredibly cheap. On
> the return, we stopped in Reykjavik where that obese, cheese-eating,
> farting lady plopped down in the seat beside me. She wasn't on the
> flight from Luxembourg to Reykjavik; she was Reykjavik to NYC.


once. oh no.

i once got upgraded to f because of an extremely overweight person. you
may have heard how some airlines want to charge double for fat people
who use two seats. this guy took up 3 seats - the entire row. the f/a
noticed i stopped just before the row and asked me if i was seated
there. i said yes, and she said come with me and put me in f. i had a
delicious breakfast and a very comfortable seat.

> I suppose it could be worse. I could select a seat and find you next
> to me and have to listen to you bitch about everything and natter on
> about Apple D Sub Connectors not being overpriced.


more idiocy. i've had some very interesting conversations with people,
almost none of which were about computers. one guy was a photographer
and we showed each other our favourite photos.

> >> Personally, if I'm booking a flight, I pick the airline that gets me
> >> from where I am to where I want to go in the least amount of time,
> >> connections, and trouble getting to the airport.

> >
> >comfort isn't even a consideration? why am i not surprised.

>
> We're not whiners like you.


i'm not whining.

you are once again, trying to turn it into an ad hominem attack, since
you have *nothing* else to do.

> You're all about the petty ****. We get
> on board, sit down, and read a book.


that's nice.

> The only discomfort, other than
> the mob going through the metal detectors, is now having to get to
> the airport ridiculously early and sit in those Departure area
> uncomfortable seats. I liked the old days when I could run into the
> airport minutes before my flight.


ridiculously early?

i get there about the same time i've always gotten there, about an hour
or so before the flight. that hasn't changed in years.

there is a bit more idiocy now at the checkpoint than before but it's
not that hard to minimize it (or avoid it entirely).

> I've never timed it, but unless you're flying coast-to-coast, I
> suspect you spend more time getting to the airport and in the airport
> than you do in the air. Certainly, if you have to change planes and
> add the additional in the airport time.


wrong again.

it takes me anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour to get to or from an
airport, depending on which airport.

not only that but spending time in airports doesn't bother me. i can
usually get online and do work, or post to usenet.
 
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: Camera JPEG engines tony cooper Digital Photography 7 12-09-2012 06:17 PM
Re: Camera JPEG engines Martin Brown Digital Photography 2 11-29-2012 06:08 PM
Re: Camera JPEG engines nick c Digital Photography 0 11-19-2012 04:22 PM
Re: Camera JPEG engines David Taylor Digital Photography 0 11-19-2012 07:22 AM
Re: Camera JPEG engines ray Digital Photography 1 11-19-2012 03:07 AM



Advertisments