sd card

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

i cannot decide what size card to buy?

i intend to use tomtom & some sort of os type map, both will need to be
installed at once.
i dont know how much space these maps need!
am i better getting say 2 x 128M cards, on for each application, or 1 x 128,
256, 512 card?

any advice?

roy

--
Wouldn't it be nice if whenever we messed up our life we could simply press
Ctrl Alt Delete and start all over?
Come visit me www.roycollingwood.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"Roy Collingwood" <roy@roycollingwood.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_b_Dc.5305$2q2.55931073@news-text.cableinet.net...
> i cannot decide what size card to buy?

As big as your wallet can afford - you'll always end up using it.

HTH,

Flib

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

A good price break point at the moment is at the 256meg cards... larger
cards will have a significant jump in price but will come down in the
future when you exceed the 256meg limit... ecost.com catalogue currently
shows one for $35 after rebate, order# 1880812

Shop as the prices vary greatly, and be sure to budget an SD "card
reader" for your PC to use for transferring files as they are blindingly
fast compared to activesync transfers.

Been surviving on a 256meg for a year that includes a large number of
map files albeit not TomTom maps.

Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

I found the SD cards quite slow compared to CF card, I tried to use Streets
and Trips maps from an SD card on an iPaq 2215 and found the lag to be
noticeable compared to internal and CD card memory.
Patrick
"Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote in
message news:eh2pyBVXEHA.2940@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> A good price break point at the moment is at the 256meg cards... larger
> cards will have a significant jump in price but will come down in the
> future when you exceed the 256meg limit... ecost.com catalogue currently
> shows one for $35 after rebate, order# 1880812
>
> Shop as the prices vary greatly, and be sure to budget an SD "card
> reader" for your PC to use for transferring files as they are blindingly
> fast compared to activesync transfers.
>
> Been surviving on a 256meg for a year that includes a large number of
> map files albeit not TomTom maps.
>
> Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Roy Collingwood wrote:
> i cannot decide what size card to buy?
>
> i intend to use tomtom & some sort of os type map, both will need to
> be installed at once.
> i dont know how much space these maps need!
> am i better getting say 2 x 128M cards, on for each application, or 1
> x 128, 256, 512 card?
>
> any advice?
>
> roy

Bah, just go for the 1gb SD card. You can put more movies on it. =)

Ryan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:06:43 -0400, "DarkSheer"
<rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote:

Yeha but by the time they can afford enough films to go on a 1GB, the
price will have dropped to that for a 256 🙂 Might as well hold off 6
months hehe.
>
>Bah, just go for the 1gb SD card. You can put more movies on it. =)
>
>Ryan
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Neil Smith [MVP Digital Media] wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:06:43 -0400, "DarkSheer"
> <rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote:
>> Bah, just go for the 1gb SD card. You can put more movies on it. =)
>>
>> Ryan
>
> Yeha but by the time they can afford enough films to go on a 1GB, the
> price will have dropped to that for a 256 🙂 Might as well hold off 6
> months hehe.

Price? Your talking like money is worth something, jeeze.

Ryan

Just a sugestion, but please don't top post. You read up to down so why not
post that way? =)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

I guess it's cause I read the post before then add my coments after
snipping to the relevant info ... most peoples quoting on newsgroups
stinks so IMO I prefer top-posting to generate a 'history list' of
comments.

Sometimes I post inline if there are multiple points to answer, but if
it's a single pont to add, I stick it at the top.

I do tend to answer about 120 posts a day on various groups, so it's
really done to speed things up. Sorry if you don't like it, I guess
it's a preference thing.

Regards - Neil

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:25:00 -0400, "DarkSheer"
<rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote:
>
>Just a sugestion, but please don't top post. You read up to down so why not
>post that way? =)
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"DarkSheer" <rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote in message
news:IIydnbM4K5AQjn7dRVn-uA@dundee.net...
> Neil Smith [MVP Digital Media] wrote:


> Price? Your talking like money is worth something, jeeze.
>
> Ryan
>
> Just a sugestion, but please don't top post. You read up to down so why
not
> post that way? =)
>


That old convention has long gone now. There is no law compelling either top
or bottom posting. It does make sense to follow the flow (whether top or
bottom) that has been used to make threads more readable rather than jump up
and down to get sense out of postings.
It's not a big deal really (although some make it into one), just be
sensible and make the posting readable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

AlanS wrote:
> "DarkSheer" <rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote in message
> news:IIydnbM4K5AQjn7dRVn-uA@dundee.net...
>> Neil Smith [MVP Digital Media] wrote:
>
>
>> Price? Your talking like money is worth something, jeeze.
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> Just a sugestion, but please don't top post. You read up to down so
>> why not post that way? =)
>>
>
>
> That old convention has long gone now. There is no law compelling
> either top or bottom posting. It does make sense to follow the flow
> (whether top or bottom) that has been used to make threads more
> readable rather than jump up and down to get sense out of postings.
> It's not a big deal really (although some make it into one), just be
> sensible and make the posting readable.

Your right. I only made a sugestion, I never demanded. I was just pointing
out that a normal person reads from top to bottom. It just makes more
sence.

Ryan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Makes about as much sense as a monkey with 2 buttholes

Why would I want to see what I just read over and over? When I post the
reader simply opens up their newsreader with a preview pane and viola, they
see the latest addition to the thread without having to scroll down endless
nonsense to get to the newest post...

Bottom posting is a retarded tradition and needs to change.. When the
nerds/geeks (BBS days) decided to bottom post they all used a single text
based newsreader. We don't anymore so it's time to move on.

Mitch


"DarkSheer" <rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote in message
news:xbGdnYAExIEBLXnd4p2dnA@dundee.net...
> Your right. I only made a sugestion, I never demanded. I was just
pointing
> out that a normal person reads from top to bottom. It just makes more
> sence.
>
> Ryan
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Mitch_A wrote:
> Makes about as much sense as a monkey with 2 buttholes
>
> Why would I want to see what I just read over and over? When I post
> the reader simply opens up their newsreader with a preview pane and
> viola, they see the latest addition to the thread without having to
> scroll down endless nonsense to get to the newest post...

See, your thinking about yourself. You have obviously never been in a 300+
thread before have you. It's so much easier to see what your replying to.
Multi-part posts are easier to see what is being replied to and who said
what when everyone bottom posts.

> Bottom posting is a retarded tradition and needs to change.. When the
> nerds/geeks (BBS days) decided to bottom post they all used a single
> text based newsreader. We don't anymore so it's time to move on.

Ya, and so is the english language. Lets just thow it away and type any way
we want to.

> Mitch
>
>
> "DarkSheer" <rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote in message
> news:xbGdnYAExIEBLXnd4p2dnA@dundee.net...
>> Your right. I only made a sugestion, I never demanded. I was just
>> pointing out that a normal person reads from top to bottom. It just
>> makes more sence.
>>
>> Ryan

See how cluttered and inconsistant this is?

Ryan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

my 2 cents

access a long thread with the device that this forum supports and your
opinion of top posting will probably change

Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

It doesnt matter how big the thread gets. Top posting is more efficient.


"DarkSheer" <rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote in message
news:jqmdndeiK-OrPnvdRVn-hQ@dundee.net...
> Mitch_A wrote:
> > Makes about as much sense as a monkey with 2 buttholes
> >
> > Why would I want to see what I just read over and over? When I post
> > the reader simply opens up their newsreader with a preview pane and
> > viola, they see the latest addition to the thread without having to
> > scroll down endless nonsense to get to the newest post...
>
> See, your thinking about yourself. You have obviously never been in a
300+
> thread before have you. It's so much easier to see what your replying to.
> Multi-part posts are easier to see what is being replied to and who said
> what when everyone bottom posts.
>
> > Bottom posting is a retarded tradition and needs to change.. When the
> > nerds/geeks (BBS days) decided to bottom post they all used a single
> > text based newsreader. We don't anymore so it's time to move on.
>
> Ya, and so is the english language. Lets just thow it away and type any
way
> we want to.
>
> > Mitch
> >
> >
> > "DarkSheer" <rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote in message
> > news:xbGdnYAExIEBLXnd4p2dnA@dundee.net...
> >> Your right. I only made a sugestion, I never demanded. I was just
> >> pointing out that a normal person reads from top to bottom. It just
> >> makes more sence.
> >>
> >> Ryan
>
> See how cluttered and inconsistant this is?
>
> Ryan
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

I agree, I realy get irratated having to scroll down to the bottom of
a '300 message thread' just to find a 'me too' reply on 1/2 a line.

Top posting is the way of the future ;-)

Cheers - Neil

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 16:53:01 GMT, "Mitch_A" <naman-nospam@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>It doesnt matter how big the thread gets. Top posting is more efficient.
>
>
>"DarkSheer" <rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote in message
>news:jqmdndeiK-OrPnvdRVn-hQ@dundee.net...
>> Mitch_A wrote:
>> > Makes about as much sense as a monkey with 2 buttholes
>> >
>> > Why would I want to see what I just read over and over? When I post
>> > the reader simply opens up their newsreader with a preview pane and
>> > viola, they see the latest addition to the thread without having to
>> > scroll down endless nonsense to get to the newest post...
>>
>> See, your thinking about yourself. You have obviously never been in a
>300+
>> thread before have you. It's so much easier to see what your replying to.
>> Multi-part posts are easier to see what is being replied to and who said
>> what when everyone bottom posts.
>>
>> > Bottom posting is a retarded tradition and needs to change.. When the
>> > nerds/geeks (BBS days) decided to bottom post they all used a single
>> > text based newsreader. We don't anymore so it's time to move on.
>>
>> Ya, and so is the english language. Lets just thow it away and type any
>way
>> we want to.
>>
>> > Mitch
>> >
>> >
>> > "DarkSheer" <rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote in message
>> > news:xbGdnYAExIEBLXnd4p2dnA@dundee.net...
>> >> Your right. I only made a sugestion, I never demanded. I was just
>> >> pointing out that a normal person reads from top to bottom. It just
>> >> makes more sence.
>> >>
>> >> Ryan
>>
>> See how cluttered and inconsistant this is?
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 20:17:42 +0200, Neil Smith [MVP Digital
Media] wrote
(in article <ef7je0l21pnig97lb1e1g99khe7v657c3h@4ax.com>):

> I agree, I realy get irratated having to scroll down to the bottom of
> a '300 message thread' just to find a 'me too' reply on 1/2 a line.

Funny, I get irritated by people posting 55 line messages with
only 3 lines of their own, that are followed by 52 lines of
which only a few are of relevence to their 3 lines.

You know, there's this thing called "delete" on your keyboard.
It allows you to edit out all stuff you don't want to reply to.
If people do that (even if they're top posting, and not too lazy
to look beyond their own text), we'd have many more short
messages, and better download times in here. Since this
newsgroup is of interest to PDA users, you might want to take
into consideration that some still use pay-per-minute or byte
connections to get their messages. So you'd better make those
bytes relevant, and not a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote
with a senseless Me Too on top.

> Top posting is the way of the future ;-)

I'd say it is a way to a future.

--
Marlof Bregonje
Microsoft MVP - Mobile Devices
http/www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile