Realistic PDA/smartphone choices?

No - there was just too much for you to take the time to respond to, which is a shame, as I honoured your response properly. Again, attitude/feelings obvious.

You're right - on first pass through your response, I did miss 'hideous inconsistent mess'. Surely that's down to the user though? So if people

Interestingly, a Google for 'fanboi' yields around 253,000 results. A Google for 'fanboy' yields over 4.5 million. You seem fond of the 'niche' usage. Not sure what that says - so no point slating me for the observation. Do you spend a lot of time fighting this corner?

Also, in your previous post, you said 'Like Linux'. You do realise that Android uses a modified version of the Linux kernel? As you'll know from other posts of mine, I'm no Linux or open-source fan (though your comment about your *open source* newsreader betrays the fact that it passed you by). For me personally, it doesn't excel on the desktop, but does on servers, and as I've now found to my benefit, it excels on smartphones. So thumbs up to another Linux 'win'. It's miles better than Symbian or Windows Mobile. By the way, didn't I say 'open architecture', and not 'open source'? I guess you missed that! Good old Windows Live Mail handles 'long' posts admirably.

Anyway, to sum up, I'm definitely no Android fanboy (that's fanboi to you! :) ). But it is a really really good implementation of Android on my HTC Legend.

JW

Not at all, you're just prattling on too mutchand INN doesn't let one reply to excessive rambling posts. There's no point anyway, you don't have an open mind and you've already admitted to being a bigot.

I'm always nice but rarely nice enough.

That's a ludicrous statement. What you're saying in other words is that if technology was difficult to write it should be difficult to use.

The majority of Apple users that I know are far more aware of OS and infrstructure issues than the kiddies who play with Windows. And if you look beneath the GUI MacOS is a proper Unix, not something written by a kid in his bedroom.

The only one having a religious war is Mr Whitworth. People who want an HTC phone are welcome to them, but someone who gives advice after declaring a religious conviction that they hate a particular phone maker yet demands others to provide full technical details of their dislike of a particular technology is skating in thin ice.

Should have been clearer, more concerned with Apples reject rate for apps , its a walled orchard with a very high wall.

Firefox for instance will not be making an appearance on iphone/touch/ pad.

Unix of course being a registered trademark....

Cheers Adam

A religious war? No, I posted a throwaway comment about Apple-bashing, and you took it to heart. Who is the real fanboy around here?

Anyway, I've no time for you any more. We had some bad, real life news this morning. So you know what you can do with your iPhone. And if you want me to shove my Legend up there too, you've only to ask. Will you be able to find your apps still?

Except you - who took my comment about open architecture to mean open source, and then went barking up all the wrong trees. Numpty!

No, that's a lie. I posted that the Android was a waste of components you had a cow.

You.

Not My Problem, I Don't Care.

Petulant little brat, aren't you?

Keep the .sig, it suits you.

Errrr, this seems to be a bit of a childish over-reaction! Please grow up, you're giving i-phone users a bad name.

A lot of the ones I've seen are happy to connect to pretty much any MP3 player through the headphone socket.

You'll not be able to use a remote control or the on-dock controls.

You will, on the other hand, have the advantage (with most 'other' brands) of just being able to drag and drop music, photos and videos without having to 'sync' using iTunes.

In what way is it "an over reaction"? Mr Whitworth wants to drag in his personal life seemingly as an excuse for acting like a fool. To do so in a discussion, such as it is, on Usenet is even more foolish. His life isn't my problem, it's his.

I don't have an iPhone.

And all you have contributed is name calling.

you really love it don't you Steve? ;>))))

I hope you are wrong there because I just forked out for a new nano after my nephew assured me he just drags and drops into his nano and has never used itunes...

shurely a shtrange turn of phrashe for shomeone that now claimsh to actually "have had" one?! "i used to have an XXX" would make more shenshe?....unlesh it's all jusht more pompoush mishchief....?

ho ho - laugh? I nearly shat myshelf ;>))

Jim K

You really like walking into these don't you?

In the end they captured all unencrypted WiFi data, which is *bound* to include some email contents and some passwords, since people who don't even enable WEP for their access point are unlikely to enable TLS in their email client. The data probably includes fragments of illegal pr0n too, maybe they should be sued for possessing indecent images?

time it's not Orlowski.

Read the French article that's the source for the Reg. Even that doesn't get this as far wrong.

Google didn't snoop WiFi passwords, or crack encrypted WiFi networks. They did record some traffic, although it's claimed that this was just a rolling buffer and they didn't even store it beyond that. They didn't attack SSL traffic over these links.

So if by "password" you mean plaintext traffic, over an unsecured web protocol, over an unsecured wireless link, then yes, they probably did filter-feed a few out of all that volume. But if you mean "Google set out to break wireless networks" as you'd clearly like to frighten us into believing, then it's still bollocks.