[bookport] Re: Realistic Wish List
- From: "Mike Arrigo" <n0oxy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:47:57 -0500
Just curious, have you talked with Springer Design about new hardware,
wonder what they think of the idea since they actually make the product.
----- Original Message -----
From: "LARRY SKUTCHAN" <lskutchan@xxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 6:43 AM
Subject: [bookport] Re: Realistic Wish List
>
>
> Chop chop (there goes your head).
>
> Seriously, we are planning a hardware upgrade before the parts become
> unavailable. I do not have any information yet on time lines or upgrade
> paths, but you good folks on this list will be the first to know.
>
> >>> dogriver@xxxxxxxx Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:49:00 PM >>>
> I may get beheaded again, but I'd like to know just how old the guts of
>
> the BP are, and how likely it is that the components that make up said
>
> guts are still going to be available cheaply in the future.
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> Bruce Toews
> E-mail and MSN/Windows Messenger: dogriver@xxxxxxxx
> Web Site (including info on my weekly commentaries):
> http://www.ogts.net
> Info on the Best TV Show of All Time: http://www.cornergas.com
>
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Richard Ehrler wrote:
>
> > I'm fairly certain that Larry Skutchan mentioned on one of his
> podcasts
> > that there may be a redesign of the BookPort at some future time
> that
> > would give the unit more horsepower. Don't know if that would mean
> > dropping the old model or just adding a second model to meet the
> needs of
> > some users. Maybe Larry could jump in here and give us some idea of
> > direction, knowing that he probably couldn't give specifics. In
> this
> > case, a discussion of wish lists could be of use to let APH know
> things
> > some of us would like to see. While I don't agree with every idea
> others
> > have come up with, we can all get some input into the process if they
> do
> > update the unit.
> > Richard Ehrler
> > On 2005-08-17 rick.alfaro@xxxxxxxxxxx said:
> > I think the problem with this discussion is that those that are
> > wanting additional functionality are fully aware of the fact that
> > basically, it is a new BookPort that is being envisioned, and not
> > the current device. Folks that like the device the way it is are
> > going to be fine, because it would be a totally new model. With
> > regard to technology, the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't
> fix
> > it!" can't apply. If it did, we would still be back in the dark
> > ages.
> > I also agree that the current BookPort is absolutely wonderful.
> > However, I can easily envision a new model with more horse power,
> > and the ability to do just about everything I have seen mentioned
> > here.
> > I also think that one shouldn't assume that you have to sacrifice
> > size and weight to gain functionality. With today's technology,
> I
> > don't believe one has to make that sacrifice. Just my 2 cents
> > worth of course.
> > --Best regards,
> > --Rick Alfaro
> >
> >
> >
>
Other related posts:
