There's an App For That

alan_m snipped-for-privacy@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote

Mine doesnt

The best smartphones use facial recognition that doesnt have that problem

That is interesting. I can now get FTTP but would lose my landline and mobile reception round here is appalling (WiFi calling saves the day), a number that masquerades as a mobile would be brilliant.

Can you give me any links so I can read up on it?

Thanks!

You're only supposed to sandpaper the wood!

Mine is hosted at Andrews and Arnold and costs about £1.40/month, with just incoming SMS there are no extra (call) charges. It's dead easy to set up but if you want some help then just E-Mail their support.

I also occasionally use it for sending SMS from my computers, that can be quite handy too (it does cost a penny or two of course)..

It's way the system (rather vaguely) being discussed in the UK would (appear to) work. ("It's not a BritCard!")

I'm talking about what supermarkets and off licences *might* choose to do (rather than use their common sense as they do now).

Haven't you ever found that Google Play says that an app you want to install on your phone won't as it's not compatible with the Android version on your phone?

A way to make fake vodka is to dilute industrial methylated spirits with water and put it in bottles labelled "Vodka".

Max Demian <max snipped-for-privacy@bigfoot.com wrote

Irrelevant to the ignorant claim that it can only work with a smartphone

Irrelevant to the ignorant claim that it can only work with a smartphone

I use applepay with doesnt have that problem

But that doesnt happen in britain so your probably is wrong

Well there's your problem. Anyone who 'grew up with tech' is used to a proper keyboard and a monitor with plenty of real estate[1]. It's hardly surprising if we find a smart phone to be like a tiny toy - impossible to do serious stuff on one. The yoof grew up with smart phones, and that is how they have always 'done stuff'.

As modern as that ?

Unlikely. Banking software written in the 1970s was probably of first rate quality.

The latter could be problem for people that don't change their smartphone, say, every five years.

I've had one company update their app and which then failed to work on my phone because the OS was too old and could not be updated.

Easier, cheaper and safer to just make up a turbo yeast wash with 6kg of sugar and run it through a pot still (you can get a reflux still if you are post and can afford the water). been doing it for years

alan_m snipped-for-privacy@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote

The obvious solution is to not use such a f***ed app

I have just had my Galaxy Tab9 update to Android 15 whereupon all the home screens now have a border round them that can't be adjusted or removed. Google shows it is a known issue with no fix. I have ordered another one with Android 14 and have instructions on how to stop it updating. I may have a play with the old one and see if there's an unofficial way to get it back to 14.

Looks like Android has reached Windows Vista stage.

Except when Windows reached Vista, there was a credible alternative. Not that anyone cared.

Windows Vista ran fine if you gave it 2GB RAM. Microsoft downgraded the minimum requirements to 1GB when manufacturers whinged about their profit margins.

Not because it would run on 1GB then :-)

MS was always notorious for understating hardware requirements. It wasn't so much that they developed software to run on computers which they expected to be widely available when the next OS was released, which was the right thing to do, but that they always overestimated the economic progress of hardware.

So when the new Windows appeared, computers to run it optimally did exist but were still far too expensive to re-equip entire businesses with. So only the chosen few got them, and the rest of the business survived on very slow computers.

Windows also slowed down during its lifetime. I recall that a version of Windows, XP, I think, ran fine on 256MB of RAM until suddenly, I started seeing them run very slowly. Doubling the RAM fixed them. I had at the time a suspicion that MS had started including a 'new technology' after an update, maybe a cut-down SQL Server, that needed a lot more RAM.

I worked for a company who were putting their DOS-based software (written in assembler) into a windows wrapper for the new age.

When we hit a problem where 4Mb wasn't enough for Foxpro, and we needed

As one developer grumbled "How come when we run out of memory we have to recode, when the "windows boys" run out we buy a new machine".

It was a sign of things to come.

The guys managed to get a 12% bump in available memory by creating a procedure that used the extra bit for parity in the database for storage.

Surely no-one will need more than 650 kB of RAM?