WOW, you're in the mid-70's? I remember that - bell bottoms, orange appliances, folk music, the Pacer!! How'd you get there?? Did you drive a Delorean?
J Cheers, Don From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Fitzsimmons Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 5:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Treo] buyer as beta tester` I am in the mid 70's and still enjoy keeping up with the new tech. To: [email protected] <mailto:treo%40yahoogroups.com> From: [email protected] <mailto:don%40ferguson.us> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:57:24 -0700 Subject: RE: [Treo] buyer as beta tester` What's your theory, youngster? I'm 52 and showing no signs of slowing down on my willingness to jump into the pool of new technology, hoping it has water in it! Then again I do this for a living, so I might not be a typical sample. Now SOME new technologies still evade me a bit. Forex, I understand the value of Twitter in numerous circumstances (earthquakes come to mind today) but I can't for the life of me get all enthusiastic about tweeting about every little thing (or even big thing) I do! Going on vacation might be a good reason to update my status on Twitter, but then I leave myself open to people knowing that I'm out of town, and so getting my house burgled. Anyway, I absolutely LOVE new technology, for the capabilities it can give us that we didn't have before! Does that help? Cheers, Don From: [email protected] <mailto:treo%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:treo%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Craig Froehle Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 2:41 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:treo%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [Treo] buyer as beta tester` Just curious. Those of you who agree, what are your ages (w/in 5 years)? I have a theory about aging and its effect on willingness to adopt new technology, and you all might help reinforce, or refine, that theory if you don't mind sharing. On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Bob Fitzsimmons <[email protected] <mailto:greyfox75%40q.com> <mailto:greyfox75%40q.com> > wrote: > > I do agree about the best email. So when my contract runs out I might just go with the PRE. Now using a PRO and it is good but not the best. > > > > To: [email protected] <mailto:treo%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:treo%40yahoogroups.com> > From: [email protected] <mailto:ldouglas%40gmail.com> <mailto:ldouglas%40gmail.com> > Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:43:19 -0500 > Subject: RE: [Treo] buyer as beta tester` > > > > > > Best. Email. Ever. > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Messeder <[email protected] <mailto:jmesseder%40comcast.net> <mailto:jmesseder%40comcast.net> > > Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 12:30 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:treo%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:treo%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [Treo] buyer as beta tester` > > Maybe the Pre will be the one I hold onto for awhile. > Time was I enjoyed building my own machines and tinkering with > them as new ideas and capabilities came along. I'm getting out of that > mode, sort of. > I moved to the Treo600 because I'd long wanted a phone/PDA. > Then came the 650 with Bluetooth. Gone was the wired earbud. > Then the 680, that was really nice but ... the apps I had learned > to love just wouldn't behave together on the 680. What I really wanted > was something closer to multi-tasking, that I wasn't all the time > rebooting to get back my resources. > Treo Pro was Windows. Silly me, I thought that would mean having > in my hand what was on my PC, at least sort of. Turned out sort of > wasn't close enough, especially with the aggravation regularly involved > in ActiveSync. > Came the Pre. It's been out close to a year, and people who have > it love it, now me included. Even with its shortcomings, but one thing > I've long wanted was ability to upgrade the OS. The Pre's got it. > Add in - and if not for this point, I'd still have the T-Pro, with > which I'd come to a sort of detente - Spring coverage has improved > amazingly, and they were going to charge me significantly less than I > was paying AT&T for what I really needed. > I keep a spreadsheet of our four-line family usage, and AT&T's > attitude was if I could find something better, go there - so I did. > > But the big market change - the one with which I started this thread, > was that back in the day, there were no promises. Everyone was a geek > and vendors didn't make (at least as many) promises they knew they > couldn't keep. I've long been impressed with knowing more than the sales > folk about what I was trying to buy, but most of them at least tried to > stay with the conversation. Computer sellers tended to be at least > marginally interested in computers. > That's changed, and not just with smartphones. Sales Associates > are just that: SALES Associates. Most of them no longer even pretend to > know what they are selling. > Manufacturers lead you to believe the thing they're selling will > do stuff, and when you get it, you find it won't. You call customer > support and wade into a menu, beginning with "Listen carefully as our > menu options have changed," to "Your call is important to us, but we are > experiencing higher than normal call volume," to "Live support is not > available. We apologize for the inconvenience." > Thing is, I'm already "old school." I'm in a shrinking population > of customers who think we shouldn't be treated that way, and can > remember when we weren't. > > Rant off. (I like that, whoever used it first.) > I'm going to the local ski slope to get some video of Wounded > Warriors doing what most of us can still take for granted, or at least > legitimately imagine taking for granted. Video'll be online this > evening. Might even shoot a little with the Pre. > > On 2/27/2010 11:10 AM, Harold M. Goldner wrote: >> >> >> I am so there; could not have said it better myself. > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
