Buying an old iPhone 3G
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Andrew Templeman on 24 Jun 2010 04:53 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > Great looking thing, isn't it? The screen is my primary wossname for > wanting an iPhone4. I'm expecting the camera to be a little better > too. > > Cheers - Jaimie Looks like the camera is improved. http://powazek.com/posts/2503 "The iPhone 4 Camera Rocks" -- Andy Templeman <http://www.templeman.org.uk/>
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 24 Jun 2010 05:05 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:53:09 +0100, andy(a)templeman.org.uk (Andrew Templeman) wrote: >Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > > >> Great looking thing, isn't it? The screen is my primary wossname for >> wanting an iPhone4. I'm expecting the camera to be a little better >> too. >> >> Cheers - Jaimie > >Looks like the camera is improved. > >http://powazek.com/posts/2503 "The iPhone 4 Camera Rocks" It really is, too. Looks remarkably good. I thought the iPhone 2g camera was remarkably good (for a 2mp phone cam) too, with the 3GS camera being nonremarkably similar but 3mp, and now the 4 seems to take very nice pics indeed. Splendid! Cheers - Jaimie -- Homeopaths suffer from dilutions of grandeur
From: Ric on 25 Jun 2010 10:02 On 24 June, 10:05, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:53:09 +0100, a...(a)templeman.org.uk (Andrew > > Templeman) wrote: > >Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > > >> Great looking thing, isn't it? The screen is my primary wossname for > >> wanting an iPhone4. I'm expecting the camera to be a little better > >> too. > > >> Cheers - Jaimie > > >Looks like the camera is improved. > > >http://powazek.com/posts/2503"The iPhone 4 Camera Rocks" > > It really is, too. Looks remarkably good. > > I thought the iPhone 2g camera was remarkably good (for a 2mp phone > cam) too, with the 3GS camera being nonremarkably similar but 3mp, and > now the 4 seems to take very nice pics indeed. Splendid! > > Cheers - Jaimie > -- > Homeopaths suffer from dilutions of grandeur Just had a play with an iPhone 4. First impressions - the screen is outstanding. Really very nice indeed. The camera is excellent, and the camcorder output looked particularly clear. HD video playback (some random file in the iTunes library) looked similarly good. The industrial design? Quite nice, although nothing like as special as I was expecting, given all the talk of "like an old Leica" from Steve. Could get the signal to drop noticeably by holding in left hand instead of right, which was a bit odd. The OS springboard felt a bit pokey after running Android for a few months. I didn't come away with screaming gadget lust, which is just as well given I've about 18 months to run on my HTC Desire's contract...!
From: zoara on 25 Jun 2010 10:19 Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-23 13:08:09 +0100, Jim said: > >> On 2010-06-23, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> > > wrote: >>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/22/iphone-4-review/ >>>>>>> Scroll about 1/3rd of the way down and there's a comparison of > > > > > > > the Maps >>>> icon. The difference is startling. >>>>> Great looking thing, isn't it? The screen is my primary wossname > > > > > for >>> wanting an iPhone4. I'm expecting the camera to be a little better >>> too. >>> Battery life is supposedly much improved as well. I think Engadget > > > reported >> 38 hours of 'normal' use. Not bad. > > That seems slightly outrageous. And/or unlikely! In which direction? I suspect that Engadget's "normal" use of a smartphone is heavier than average, so I'd expect them to get a lower-than-average figure here. But if you think it's too high that might be because you think of the "use" as the time in your hands actually doing something, whereas that figure is actually from the time they took it off the charger to the time it died - ie with plenty of standby time going on. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Chris Ridd on 25 Jun 2010 11:31
On 2010-06-25 15:19:28 +0100, zoara said: > Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: >> On 2010-06-23 13:08:09 +0100, Jim said: >> >>> On 2010-06-23, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> >>> wrote: >>>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/22/iphone-4-review/ >>>>>>>> Scroll about 1/3rd of the way down and there's a comparison of >>>>>>>> the Maps >>>>> icon. The difference is startling. >>>>>> Great looking thing, isn't it? The screen is my primary wossname >>>>>> for >>>> wanting an iPhone4. I'm expecting the camera to be a little better >>>> too. >>>> Battery life is supposedly much improved as well. I think Engadget >>>> reported >>> 38 hours of 'normal' use. Not bad. >> >> That seems slightly outrageous. And/or unlikely! > > In which direction? I'd expect a shorter battery life. > I suspect that Engadget's "normal" use of a smartphone is heavier than > average, so I'd expect them to get a lower-than-average figure here. So would I. But "normal" to me means games, videos, etc and that would be *much* harder on the battery. > But if you think it's too high that might be because you think of the > "use" as the time in your hands actually doing something, whereas that > figure is actually from the time they took it off the charger to the > time it died - ie with plenty of standby time going on. Maybe the A4 chip really is that good? -- Chris |