[bookport] Re: against a proprietary battery pack
- From: "Otto Zamora" <8zamora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 03:34:42 -0400
Hello,
I posted with much the same thoughts Mary, but for whatever it's worth, I
find it necessary to say that I agree with you.
I just hope that those of us who choose not to, will still be able to use
the old units if another revision comes out.
On this one, I will go with my professor who used to say that newer, is not
necessarily better.
Otto
-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mary Otten
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:11 PM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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:
