[bookport] Re: against a proprietary battery pack
- From: "Mark Lee" <lee.mark@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 20:03:55 -0500
I personally like the battery situation as it is. For one thing, the unit
is small enough now that a thinner unit would not add too much in the way of
portability. Secondly, even if a rechargeable battery pack was available
commercially, it would most certainly cost more than regular batteries.
Plus, the unit would be on down time while it had to charge.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "albert griffith" <albertgriffith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 4:17 PM
Subject: [bookport] Re: against a proprietary battery pack
> I'd favor the proprietary battery pack if the new power supply could be
> obtained without sending the unit back to APH.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mary Otten" <maryotten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:10 PM
> Subject: [bookport] Re: against a proprietary battery pack
>
>
> : Whatever you'd gain in thinness would be more than made up for by
> inconvenience of having a proprietary built in inflexible system. The bp
> isn't all that thick now. Flexibility beats a reduction in thickness imho.
> Smaller
> : isn't necessarily better; and what happens when the built in proprietary
> battery dies? Send it back for a costly fix? No thanks. The nice thing
> about
> these units as they are now is that its really easy to swap batteries,
> : and we already have the ability to use nimh if we so choose.
> : Mary
> : mary
> :
> :
> :
> :
>
>
>
Other related posts:
