I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.

I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!

It is likely to be used a lot in regions of poor 2G signal coverage and
so when in use will be transmitting at or near maximum power.

My jaundiced view of the present mobile phone market is that touch
screen all singing all dancing web browser things are now de rigeur. Not
what I want at all. Even considering buying another 6303 secondhand
which would at least give me something I know my way around.

A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).

Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
Talk Standby / hours
Samsung XCover 19 1000
Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
Nokia 206 20 680
Nokia C5 12 600
Nokia C7 5 650

All in theory with better figures than the 6303.

I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all. I
never get anything like the makers claimed standby life on mine.

Any other suggestions for well built classic mobiles with *really* good
battery life (or with extended life aftermarket batteries)?

Any experience of these phones and suggestions of which to avoid?
(some come in various flavours with variations in battery life)

In theory the Samsung XCover would appear to be a good candidate and
would have survived the dunking that killed its predecessor.
It is a bit on the chunky side though...

Thanks for any enlightenment.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:

I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.

I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!

It is likely to be used a lot in regions of poor 2G signal coverage and
so when in use will be transmitting at or near maximum power.

My jaundiced view of the present mobile phone market is that touch
screen all singing all dancing web browser things are now de rigeur. Not
what I want at all. Even considering buying another 6303 secondhand
which would at least give me something I know my way around.

A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).

Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
Talk Standby / hours
Samsung XCover 19 1000
Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
Nokia 206 20 680
Nokia C5 12 600
Nokia C7 5 650

All in theory with better figures than the 6303.

I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all. I
never get anything like the makers claimed standby life on mine.

Any other suggestions for well built classic mobiles with *really* good
battery life (or with extended life aftermarket batteries)?

Any experience of these phones and suggestions of which to avoid?
(some come in various flavours with variations in battery life)

In theory the Samsung XCover would appear to be a good candidate and
would have survived the dunking that killed its predecessor.
It is a bit on the chunky side though...

Thanks for any enlightenment.

I bought a nokia 2610 off EBay (which looked brand new) but found I
couldn't read anything on the screen outdoors. I couldn't even see the
clock, so it's now languishing in a drawer

In message , Martin Brown
writes
I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all.

I think you might have that the wrong way round. I suspect they test
near a receiver, so the transmit power can be negotiated down.

If it were me, I'd try to get another 6303i, and probably end up
storming out of these useless mobile phone shops.

I like clamshell phones and am fairly happy with my Nokia 2720, which I
bought in an emergency for daughter when she dropped her phone in the
bath. She then lost this one, she bought another, and I inherited this
when it re-appeared.

It bends a bit when I sit on it, but hasn't broken. The battery lasts
from 4 to 7 days, even though it has a relatively small battery
(850mAh?) = fairly quick to charge. The camera is mediocre and, because
of the clamshell, is often behind a hand or finger.

What depresses me is the price. I bought this at £30, the second one was
£40 and they now seem to be £70 or £80, which is ludicrous for a basic
phone.

I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
choice for basic models. I can't understand why clamshells seem so rare.
--
Bill

Martin Brown put finger to keyboard:

I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.

I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!

snip

Look at the Samsung E1200
http://www.tesco.com/direct/sim-free...samsung-e1200-
black/786-3368.prd

I have an earlier model but with the same battery specs (800hr standby,
10hr talk) and I only recharge once every week or two.

On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
....
Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
Talk Standby / hours
Samsung XCover 19 1000
Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
Nokia 206 20 680
Nokia C5 12 600
Nokia C7 5 650

All in theory with better figures than the 6303.

I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all. I
never get anything like the makers claimed standby life on mine.

Any other suggestions for well built classic mobiles with *really* good
battery life (or with extended life aftermarket batteries)?

Any experience of these phones and suggestions of which to avoid?
(some come in various flavours with variations in battery life)

I had the Nokia C5, mainly because it was the one of the few phones for
which I could get a carrier that would link it into my car's hands free
system and built-in aerial. I then kept forgetting to take it out of the
car when I got out, so it usually ended up staying in my shirt pocket,
linked to the car by Bluetooth, instead. I have quite a lot of low
signal areas around here and I doubt that being inside a car improves
reception. I never had any problems with battery life while putting it
on charge once or twice a week.

Colin Bignell

On Thursday, 18 April 2013 11:33:48 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!


Can I at least raise the question of "Ludditery"? My wife thought the same as you do, but (despite not being a twitter or facebook user) now loves her poor-battery-life smartphone.

She takes the benefits from it (integrated sat nav, emails out and about, ease of use, voice activation, bluetooth capabilities, sports-tracking, game playing, app using etc etc) and has made adaptations to her concept of required charging - puts it on to charge overnight, puts it in a car charger when she is driving etc etc. For those small penalties, she gets the additional benefits.

It might be a bit like taking a look at Ford Model-T early last century and complaining that it doesn't work well when fed with grass and shod with iron shoes from the black-smiths...

(You may have a perfectly good reason for looking for a more traditional mobile phone, but I thought I'd raise the question at least!)

Matt

On 18/04/2013 11:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:33:48 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!

Sounds like you are in the market for an *old* mobile phone

Got SWMBO an HTC Wildfire last year. It came preloaded with Facebook, and
unless you go through some quite technical hoops, it can't be removed.

I wouldn't recommend that. I had one and it needed charging every day to
ensure it didn't run out of juice. I didn't use it very heavily.

On 18/04/2013 13:55, larkim wrote:
On Thursday, 18 April 2013 11:33:48 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!

Can I at least raise the question of "Ludditery"? My wife thought the same as you do, but (despite not being a twitter or facebook user) now loves her poor-battery-life smartphone.

You can raise it - yes.

I have access to an Android smartphone and 3G dongles but what I want
from this phone is absolute longevity in fairly adverse conditions.

Bluetooth is useful, WiFi would be nice, but battery life is paramount!
I'd prefer it to have a decent (for a phone) 3Mpixel camera but would
happily compromise on that to get longer battery life.

She takes the benefits from it (integrated sat nav, emails out and about, ease of use, voice activation, bluetooth capabilities, sports-tracking, game playing, app using etc etc) and has made adaptations to her concept of required charging - puts it on to charge overnight, puts it in a car charger when she is driving etc etc. For those small penalties, she gets the additional benefits.

It might be a bit like taking a look at Ford Model-T early last century and complaining that it doesn't work well when fed with grass and shod with iron shoes from the black-smiths...

Or today looking at showrooms that only offer insane overweight SUV gas
guzzlers with bulldozer, crane and cherry picker attachments fitted as
standard when what you want is a sleek motorbike to get from A to B.

(You may have a perfectly good reason for looking for a more traditional mobile phone, but I thought I'd raise the question at least!)

Matt

If I could have a smartphone that would do 600+ hours on standby then I
would quite happily use one. I am not a Luddite by any means, but
neither am I someone who buys the latest model of phone because it has a
fancier case, 100 more pixels or a 2% increase in processor speed.

I know how often the smartphone needs recharging and I don't want that!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 18/04/2013 14:20, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Bluetooth is useful, WiFi would be nice, but battery life is paramount!

Why? I just charge mine overnight using a £20 bedside clock radio.

Don't get me wrong - I'd happily pay for the convenience of long life
batteries. But that's all it is to me - an inconvenience that can be
overcome quite easily.

Rob

Bill wrote:

What depresses me is the price. I bought this at £30, the second one was
£40 and they now seem to be £70 or £80, which is ludicrous for a basic
phone.

I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
choice for basic models.

Try a supermarket instead:
http://www.tesco.com/direct/sim-free...349&pageLevel=
Nineteen quid.

which I found from he
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08...ors/print.html

I can't understand why clamshells seem so rare.

Lack of demand?

Different things are popular around the world. IIRC the clamshell
is more popular in the East, BICBW. An example I am more confident
of is that the USA really *likes* (or liked) little stubby aerials
coming out of the top of their mobe, and the Europeans really
*disliked* such.

Martin Brown wrote:
I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well.
[snip]

http://www.doro.co.uk/

Simple phones, big buttons, long battery life.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:33:48 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!

It is likely to be used a lot in regions of poor 2G signal coverage and
so when in use will be transmitting at or near maximum power.

Buy a phone for its features, and power it from one of these:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0098EO61S

12000mAh in your shirt pocket should see you OK, and you'll find a plethora of uses for it.

I use one of these, had it for a couple of years:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000NDQ92W

Charge it from your computer's USB port.

--
Terry Fields

In message , at 14:11:46 on Thu, 18 Apr
2013, chris remarked:
Got SWMBO an HTC Wildfire last year. It came preloaded with Facebook, and
unless you go through some quite technical hoops, it can't be removed.

I wouldn't recommend that. I had one and it needed charging every day
to ensure it didn't run out of juice. I didn't use it very heavily.

If you disable GPS, wifi and 3G (use just 2G) and attach a "pregnant"
battery, it'll last a week. Probably; mine does.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Fevric J. Glandules
writes
Bill wrote:

What depresses me is the price. I bought this at £30, the second one was
£40 and they now seem to be £70 or £80, which is ludicrous for a basic
phone.

I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
choice for basic models.

Try a supermarket instead:
http://www.tesco.com/direct/sim-free...ack/326-4349.p
rd?skuId=326-4349&pageLevel= Nineteen quid.

which I found from he
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08...iors/print.htm
l

That Tesco site for the Nokia 100 says

Power
Standby Time (hrs) 840
Talk Time (hrs) 432

which surely cannot be right.

And I went to Tesco looking for a clamshell phone. They had nothing
suitable.

And I have a Sony Xperia which is great for listening to internet radio
at home via wifi, but would be hopeless carried round in my pocket with
the keys, coins, tape measure etc etc. Its battery lasts 48 hours at
most, and it never makes a phone call.
--
Bill

On 18/04/2013 15:55, Bill wrote:
In message , Fevric J. Glandules
writes
Bill wrote:

What depresses me is the price. I bought this at £30, the second one was
£40 and they now seem to be £70 or £80, which is ludicrous for a basic
phone.

I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
choice for basic models.

Try a supermarket instead:
http://www.tesco.com/direct/sim-free...ack/326-4349.p
rd?skuId=326-4349&pageLevel= Nineteen quid.

which I found from he
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08...iors/print.htm
l

That Tesco site for the Nokia 100 says

Power
Standby Time (hrs) 840
Talk Time (hrs) 432

which surely cannot be right.

And I went to Tesco looking for a clamshell phone. They had nothing
suitable.

And I have a Sony Xperia which is great for listening to internet radio
at home via wifi, but would be hopeless carried round in my pocket with
the keys, coins, tape measure etc etc. Its battery lasts 48 hours at
most, and it never makes a phone call.


Standby time (2G): 609.3 h
Talk time (2G): 6.7 h

http://www.nokia.com/gb-en/phones/ph...pecifications/

--
Rod

In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown wrote:
A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).

Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
Talk Standby / hours
Samsung XCover 19 1000
Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
Nokia 206 20 680
Nokia C5 12 600
Nokia C7 5 650

Nokia 105:
talk 12.5
standby 842
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pho...1133526/review
and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.

Theo

On 18/04/2013 16:13, Theo Markettos wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown wrote:
A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).

Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
Talk Standby / hours
Samsung XCover 19 1000
Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
Nokia 206 20 680
Nokia C5 12 600
Nokia C7 5 650

Nokia 105:
talk 12.5
standby 842
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pho...1133526/review
and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.

Theo

BINGO!! Thanks Theo - that looks like it should hit the spot.
(and at that price it is easy enough to take a punt on it)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 18/04/2013 15:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:11:46 on Thu, 18 Apr
2013, chris remarked:
Got SWMBO an HTC Wildfire last year. It came preloaded with Facebook,
and
unless you go through some quite technical hoops, it can't be removed.

I wouldn't recommend that. I had one and it needed charging every day
to ensure it didn't run out of juice. I didn't use it very heavily.

If you disable GPS, wifi and 3G (use just 2G) and attach a "pregnant"
battery, it'll last a week. Probably; mine does.

Kind of defeats having a smartphone, though. Useful to know, however, as
I've passed it onto my wife.

I used it primarily for 3G and wifi, she won't.

On Apr 18, 4:22*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 18/04/2013 16:13, Theo Markettos wrote:









In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown wrote:
A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).

Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *Talk * *Standby / hours
Samsung XCover * * * * *19 * * *1000
Samsung GT S5260 II * * *7 * * * 900
Nokia Asha201 * * * * * *7 * * * 890 *(alpha keypad)
Nokia 206 * * * * * * * 20 * * * 680
Nokia C5 * * * * * * * *12 * * * 600
Nokia C7 * * * * * * * * 5 * * * 650

Nokia 105:
talk 12.5
standby 842
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pho...okia-105-11335...
and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.

Theo

BINGO!! Thanks Theo - that looks like it should hit the spot.
(and at that price it is easy enough to take a punt on it)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I got a Nokia 201 recently (£40) and have been seriously impressed by
how long I get without having to charge it. My requirements were much
like the OP's and it has satisfied them with the only drawback being
that it pushes the width of the phone pocket in my jacket a bit.

Rob

In uk.telecom.mobile Martin Brown wrote:
BINGO!! Thanks Theo - that looks like it should hit the spot.
(and at that price it is easy enough to take a punt on it)

And a note about the Samsungs... I don't know the XCover and whatever OS it
runs, but I've used their CDMA featurephones (SGH-something) which look a
bit like the E1200. The OS drove me up the wall - simple things like
turning off the keypad tones seemed to be impossible, so my pocket made
beeping sounds as I walked around. And they have a navpad where the central
click doesn't do anything - you have to press a separate button to the left
to accept/OK/whatever. A truly horrid experience, and I was happy to get
back to a basic Nokia asap.

Theo

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

It is likely to be used a lot in regions of poor 2G signal coverage and
so when in use will be transmitting at or near maximum power.


Get an old 6310? Probably the best phone I've ever used for reception.

No fancy internet or anything, just a solid phone. Probably why they still
demand decent money :-(

http://www.nokia6310i.co.uk/

(never used these people btw, no idea on how good/bad they might be!)

Darren

On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:

Thanks for any enlightenment.

Got a Samsung GT-C3350. Battery life is _weeks_. Supposed to be
waterproof, though I haven't tested it.

Andy

Martin Brown wrote:
I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well.

Thanks for any enlightenment.


Nokia 105?

Tim

In message , at 18:42:02 on
Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Peter remarked:
All the fancier models have relatively crap battery life because the
screens use so much power.

It's also because 3G takes much more power than 2G. How quickly people
forget that the first tranche of 3G phones were much delayed because
they couldn't get the battery life up to an acceptable level (8-10hrs
standby perhaps).
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
says...
That Tesco site for the Nokia 100 says

Power
Standby Time (hrs) 840
Talk Time (hrs) 432

which surely cannot be right.



If you take that "Talk Tine" as minutes rather than hours, it sounds
about right, so it's a typo.

--
Sam

In article ,
says...

On 18/04/2013 16:13, Theo Markettos wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown wrote:
A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).

Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
Talk Standby / hours
Samsung XCover 19 1000
Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
Nokia 206 20 680
Nokia C5 12 600
Nokia C7 5 650

Nokia 105:
talk 12.5
standby 842
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pho...1133526/review
and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.

Theo

BINGO!! Thanks Theo - that looks like it should hit the spot.
(and at that price it is easy enough to take a punt on it)

I agree, but as far as I can tell it's not available in the UK.

I did see a review which said
"Set to launch at the end of March, we're still awaiting UK pricing and
availability for the Nokia 105"
but "launch" may refer to some other country, not here.

--
Sam

In article , Bill
scribeth thus
In message , Martin Brown
writes
I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all.

I think you might have that the wrong way round. I suspect they test
near a receiver, so the transmit power can be negotiated down.

If it were me, I'd try to get another 6303i,


Got one of they and its now on it's original battery for some 3
years;!...

and probably end up
storming out of these useless mobile phone shops.

Yes most useless establishments they are..


I like clamshell phones and am fairly happy with my Nokia 2720, which I
bought in an emergency for daughter when she dropped her phone in the
bath. She then lost this one, she bought another, and I inherited this
when it re-appeared.


Used to have a Motorola clam shell but it was involved in an accident. I
survived it didn't;!,...

It bends a bit when I sit on it, but hasn't broken. The battery lasts
from 4 to 7 days, even though it has a relatively small battery
(850mAh?) = fairly quick to charge. The camera is mediocre and, because
of the clamshell, is often behind a hand or finger.

What depresses me is the price. I bought this at £30, the second one was
£40 and they now seem to be £70 or £80, which is ludicrous for a basic
phone.

Shows that their good then.

I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
choice for basic models. I can't understand why clamshells seem so rare.


Suppose the is the market as perceived by the makers they never think of
those who just need a simple phone!...

--
Tony Sayer

It's definitely NOT what the OP was asking, but here's my 2p worth ...

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:42:02 +0100, Peter
wrote:

The best phone ever is indeed the 6310i and you may as well get
another one.

I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.

All the fancier models have relatively crap battery life because the
screens use so much power.

Yes, but the important word there is relatively.

In fact ALL the smartphones are crap on battery life, compared to the
6310i and other phones from that era, but most people have accepted
that, in return for the multimedia functionality.


Yes.

Having actually dispensed with mobiles altogether for a number of
years, I approached buying a new one with a very great deal of
scepticism. However, I needed one while I was between houses, and
bought a Samsung Galaxy II GT-N7100, together with a car charger, and
now I wouldn't want to be without it.

While I was between houses, I was able to read email, browse the web,
check my bank account, etc. If only because the phone had an
unfamiliar interface, it wasn't as hassle free as being back in my own
home and using ADSL and a laptop is now once more, but at the time
such a phone was absolutely essential for managing my life. I was
able to keep it charged up using the car charger as I drove around
looking at houses.

Now, I simply charge it overnight next to my bed, and its alarm will
wake me in the morning.

Besides being just a phone, there are so many other things I find
useful about it ...

+++ I can read most things on it without glasses, and certainly all
the important things.

+++ It seems to be fairly robust. I thought that it might break when
I dropped it, and/or the screen scratch really easily. I've dropped
it onto tarmac from around chest height, and, although I had to clip
some of the back into place, it seems none the worse for it. I'm
quite careful about protecting the screen as far as possible. I
either put it in a pocket with nothing else in it, or at least ensure
the screen is facing the material of which the pocket is made. After
six months, it's virtually pristine - there are a couple of very
small blemishes in one corner, probably from the drop, but otherwise,
still smooth and shiny, which is much better than I expected.

+++ The excellent camera. It's really surprisingly good and
versatile, again much better than I ever expected it to be.

Although I still use a torch and mirror to see into inaccessible
places, the camera is also very good at that too.

Photos of the labels on the underside of my laptops, scanner, etc, so
that I have readable and permanent proof of ownership. Yes, I could
do that with my digital camera, but the batteries don't last two
minutes.

Photos of events on the notice-board outside the local shop. Photos
of the local chippy's opening times.

Happly holiday snap pictures in all sorts of lighting conditions, even
driving rain at dusk (as long as you don't get water on the actual
lens, which is so small that the result will be blurred, but that's
easily cured just by wiping it clean):
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Kyle...uallAtDusk.jpg

Panoramas - more years ago than I care to admit remembering, I
staggered to the top of Ben Cruachan with a rucksack full of some
fairly expensive still film camera equipment, with which I hoped to
create a panorama from the top. However, because I forgot that I
should take them all at the same exposure (doh!), I was never able to
join the individual pictures together. Now my mobile phone, which,
though large, still fits in my trouser pocket, can do a better job -
I say 'can', by which I mean that in about 1 or 2 out of 10 attempts,
the result will be near perfect, with barely visible or completely
invisible joins, in about 6 the joins will be visible to a greater or
lesser extent, and another 1 or 2 just won't work at all. However,
it, too, doesn't take the pics all at the same exposure, and I think I
could get a higher percentage of usable results if I had more control
over the stitching process. Nevertheless here are two pretty good
examples:

http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Lochalsh.jpg
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/CommandoMemorial.jpg

+++ Travel directions - set up the journey, and have it warn you by
'voice' of upcoming junctions and tell you which way to turn. This is
especially useful where you need to turn off a main road onto a side
road, as it saves you missing the turning. Would like to be able to
wipe the history list though. This drains the battery quite fast, but
I have the car charger.

+++ Dropbox or equivalent syncing mechanism

Previously, I used to carry my shopping list in my head, confident in
the knowledge that, should I forget anything, I was at least within
walking distance to the nearest supermarket. Now, I live a LONG way
from the nearest decent supermarket, so it's VERY important NOT to
forget things! However, I maintain a permanent shopping list on my
PC, and when in the supermarket I can scroll through it on the phone
to check I haven't forgotten anything.

Likewise, I keep a list of local services such as shops, library,
recycling centre, etc (-: now including the chippy :-), with their
rather odd opening times. That too is replicated on my phone.

+++ Google Maps and Streetview

Essential tools when looking for a house to buy.

+++ Internet - before buying, can check prices and opinions for
products one sees in a shop, etc.

+++ Alarm/Timer - also available on older phones, of course.

+++ Can read downloaded literature. In fact, I keep that in my
Dropbox as well, so that it's available on any machine I use.

+++ Apps, for example:

QR and barcode recognition app
RSPB bird recognition app
UK Tides app

Surely I must have some dislikes about it? Yes ...

- It's relatively large size, though great for avoiding the need for
glasses when wearing it, does mean that it needs quite a large pocket.
Also, in certain pockets, and having its on-off switch buttons on its
side, sometimes when I bend over, say to tie a bootlace, the phone
reboots.

--- The legends on the maps are often illegibly small, so that, for
example, you can't even read a road number such as A87.

--- Would really like to share at least the camera and other data
folders so that I can manage files and back it up via Wifi from a PC.
There are apps that allow this, but they all require rooting (gaining
root, administrator, access to) the machine. However, I can at least
back it up by direct connection via USB.

--- Would like the phone's software to work with W2k. After all, it's
the same major version number as XP, so how different can it be under
the bonnet? However, at least I've managed to upgrade my standard W2k
build to XP, at last, so this laptop can talk to it.

On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:

Thanks for any enlightenment.
I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.
....
My jaundiced view of the present mobile phone market is that touch
screen all singing all dancing web browser things are now de rigeur. Not
what I want at all. Even considering buying another 6303 secondhand
which would at least give me something I know my way around.

You might care to try actually owning one for a while. As my
experience above shows, even an old sceptic like me can be converted
to a smartphone!

However, if you really do need just a basic phone, then doubtless some
of the other suggestions will do.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 18/04/2013 14:11, chris wrote:


I wouldn't recommend that. I had one and it needed charging every day to
ensure it didn't run out of juice. I didn't use it very heavily.


Most smart-phones seem to default to everything switched on.

The charge in my smart-phone battery lasted less than a day when first
purchased. It now lasts 4 days+

Screen backlight turned down to a minimum
3G turned off most of the time (GSM only rather than WCDMA preferred)
GPS turned off until needed
Wi-fi turned off until needed
Mobile network turned off until needed
Bluetooth turned off until needed


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

In article ,
lid says...

I'm
quite careful about protecting the screen as far as possible. I
either put it in a pocket with nothing else in it, or at least ensure
the screen is facing the material of which the pocket is made. After
six months, it's virtually pristine - there are a couple of very
small blemishes in one corner, probably from the drop, but otherwise,
still smooth and shiny, which is much better than I expected.



Gorilla glass. I too have been very impressed with the scratch resistant
capabilities of this glass on my s3. I would not now buy a smartphone
without it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla_Glass

--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

Java Jive wrote:

Panoramas - However, because I forgot that I
should take them all at the same exposure (doh!), I was never able to
join the individual pictures together. Now my mobile phone, which,
though large, still fits in my trouser pocket, can do a better job -
However,
it, too, doesn't take the pics all at the same exposure, and I think I
could get a higher percentage of usable results if I had more control
over the stitching process.

Does the phone also store the individual shots? If so there are
free stitching programs out there.

I understand about keeping the same exposure, but how do you
handle it if the lighting conditions are such that some of the
shots would be unacceptably under/over exposed?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

In message , at 07:14:28 on
Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Chris J Dixon remarked:
Panoramas - However, because I forgot that I
should take them all at the same exposure (doh!), I was never able to
join the individual pictures together. Now my mobile phone, which,
though large, still fits in my trouser pocket, can do a better job -
However,
it, too, doesn't take the pics all at the same exposure, and I think I
could get a higher percentage of usable results if I had more control
over the stitching process.

Does the phone also store the individual shots? If so there are
free stitching programs out there.

I understand about keeping the same exposure, but how do you
handle it if the lighting conditions are such that some of the
shots would be unacceptably under/over exposed?

Use an app with HDR. (In effect takes three photos at different
exposures, then blends them.)
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:14:28 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Does the phone also store the individual shots? If so there are
free stitching programs out there.

As far as I've been able to establish, no, unfortunately. This is
where the actual digital camera would win, if its batteries weren't so
f**ked that it never stays on for long enough to allow experiment.

I understand about keeping the same exposure, but how do you
handle it if the lighting conditions are such that some of the
shots would be unacceptably under/over exposed?

You just have to accept that, say, the area around the sun will be
over-exposed, but that's at least better than this, where the whole
shot containing the sun has been exposed differently, and therefore
the stitching is unacceptably obvious:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/BadStitch.jpg
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:51:27 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 07:14:28 on
Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Chris J Dixon remarked:
Panoramas - However, because I forgot that I
should take them all at the same exposure (doh!), I was never able to
join the individual pictures together. Now my mobile phone, which,
though large, still fits in my trouser pocket, can do a better job -
However,
it, too, doesn't take the pics all at the same exposure, and I think I
could get a higher percentage of usable results if I had more control
over the stitching process.

Does the phone also store the individual shots? If so there are
free stitching programs out there.

I understand about keeping the same exposure, but how do you
handle it if the lighting conditions are such that some of the
shots would be unacceptably under/over exposed?

Use an app with HDR. (In effect takes three photos at different
exposures, then blends them.)

What App do you use for this? I have only recently been introduced to
HDR.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 18/04/2013 21:43, Java Jive wrote:
It's definitely NOT what the OP was asking, but here's my 2p worth ...

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:42:02 +0100, Peter
wrote:

The best phone ever is indeed the 6310i and you may as well get
another one.

I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.

All the fancier models have relatively crap battery life because the
screens use so much power.

Yes, but the important word there is relatively.

It depends critically on whether you want an all singing all dancing
Swiss army knife that requires carefully sharpening every night or a
titanium blade pen knife that works almost forever without any fuss.

In fact ALL the smartphones are crap on battery life, compared to the
6310i and other phones from that era, but most people have accepted
that, in return for the multimedia functionality.

Yes.

Which is fine if you want to watch video on a screen the size of a
postage stamp and do battle with a miniscule touch screen. I don't.

If I want to browse the web I use an Android tablet or iPad. I have
(access to) a Samsung Galaxy. I don't like it the battery doesn't last
that is why I want something compact and reliable as a *MOBILE PHONE*
and yes I am shouting because some people still don't seem to have got
the message. My specification is precise, knowledgeable and deliberate.

I want a near minimalist phone with the longest possible battery life
that will work well in a low signal area. End of story.

Having actually dispensed with mobiles altogether for a number of
years, I approached buying a new one with a very great deal of
scepticism. However, I needed one while I was between houses, and
bought a Samsung Galaxy II GT-N7100, together with a car charger, and
now I wouldn't want to be without it.

While I was between houses, I was able to read email, browse the web,
check my bank account, etc. If only because the phone had an
unfamiliar interface, it wasn't as hassle free as being back in my own
home and using ADSL and a laptop is now once more, but at the time
such a phone was absolutely essential for managing my life. I was
able to keep it charged up using the car charger as I drove around
looking at houses.

A 3G dongle at about £40 inclusive of 3GB of data would give you a
better user experience. A MyFi for a little bit more better still.

My Three 3G connection at home in a borderline signal area at 5Mbps is
actually twice the speed of my ADSL landline on a prehistoric exchange.
If I didn't burn so much data bandwidth I would consider dropping my
ADSL service. Mobile coverage for 2G at home is even more borderline.

Now, I simply charge it overnight next to my bed, and its alarm will
wake me in the morning.

If it works for you then fine, but I know exactly what I want.
Unfortunately the market seems determined not to provide it!

Surely I must have some dislikes about it? Yes ...

- It's relatively large size, though great for avoiding the need for
glasses when wearing it, does mean that it needs quite a large pocket.
Also, in certain pockets, and having its on-off switch buttons on its
side, sometimes when I bend over, say to tie a bootlace, the phone
reboots.

--- The legends on the maps are often illegibly small, so that, for
example, you can't even read a road number such as A87.

--- Would really like to share at least the camera and other data
folders so that I can manage files and back it up via Wifi from a PC.
There are apps that allow this, but they all require rooting (gaining
root, administrator, access to) the machine. However, I can at least
back it up by direct connection via USB.

--- Would like the phone's software to work with W2k. After all, it's
the same major version number as XP, so how different can it be under
the bonnet? However, at least I've managed to upgrade my standard W2k
build to XP, at last, so this laptop can talk to it.

On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:

Thanks for any enlightenment.
I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.
...
My jaundiced view of the present mobile phone market is that touch
screen all singing all dancing web browser things are now de rigeur. Not
what I want at all. Even considering buying another 6303 secondhand
which would at least give me something I know my way around.

You might care to try actually owning one for a while. As my
experience above shows, even an old sceptic like me can be converted
to a smartphone!

I already have access to a Samsung Galaxy but I don't like it.
The GUI fluff just gets in the way and eats battery to no good end.

However, if you really do need just a basic phone, then doubtless some
of the other suggestions will do.



--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In message , at 10:21:33 on
Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Mark remarked:
Use an app with HDR. (In effect takes three photos at different
exposures, then blends them.)

What App do you use for this? I have only recently been introduced to
HDR.

I use Pro HDR Camera by eyeapps, available for Android and iThings. It
doesn't do panoramas, but the PC application "ptgui" copes with quite
severe differences in exposure when stitching normal photos together.
It's not free, though.
--
Roland Perry

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:14:28 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Does the phone also store the individual shots? If so there are
free stitching programs out there.

As far as I've been able to establish, no, unfortunately. This is
where the actual digital camera would win, if its batteries weren't so
f**ked that it never stays on for long enough to allow experiment.

I understand about keeping the same exposure, but how do you
handle it if the lighting conditions are such that some of the
shots would be unacceptably under/over exposed?

You just have to accept that, say, the area around the sun will be
over-exposed, but that's at least better than this, where the whole
shot containing the sun has been exposed differently, and therefore
the stitching is unacceptably obvious:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/BadStitch.jpg

If the new gaff is around that area perhaps indicated re the grumbling
of the poor mobile phone coverage I reckon the view and surroundings
win's hands down.

Where is that exactly?, and is there a small cottage in the middle on
the left hand side?..


--
Tony Sayer

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:41:05 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 10:21:33 on
Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Mark remarked:
Use an app with HDR. (In effect takes three photos at different
exposures, then blends them.)

What App do you use for this? I have only recently been introduced to
HDR.

I use Pro HDR Camera by eyeapps, available for Android and iThings. It
doesn't do panoramas, but the PC application "ptgui" copes with quite
severe differences in exposure when stitching normal photos together.
It's not free, though.

Thanks for the info. It's nice to see an Android App that doesn't
want full internet control and to read you address book!
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 19/04/2013 10:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:21:33 on
Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Mark remarked:
Use an app with HDR. (In effect takes three photos at different
exposures, then blends them.)

What App do you use for this? I have only recently been introduced to
HDR.

I use Pro HDR Camera by eyeapps, available for Android and iThings. It
doesn't do panoramas, but the PC application "ptgui" copes with quite
severe differences in exposure when stitching normal photos together.
It's not free, though.

In that case try Hugin. http://hugin.sourceforge.net/ It's free and
based on the same libraries. IIRC ptgui is just a front-end, as is Hugin.

I work in IT on the internet and spend my life using and programming for these gadgets. As you would imagine I am surrounded in fellow geeks who debate which phone is better.

But have recently dropped out of that race and decided to buy a phone based on battery life only.

Yes claimed battery life is unreliable because that is with all features turned off. But there is a new breed of phones from samsung and nokia aimed at the developing world markets.

I went for the very latest in tech the NOKIA 113. It has most of the gadgets of a smart phone if you want them. but they are very basic and not worth using.
The battery life is normally a week for me. but I have the problem of loosing my charger between fill ups.
The only bad point is it has a camera, I would like one without a camera to be smaller.

My wife has an even less smart phone with similar behaviour. The Nokia X1 is claimed to have a battery life standby of a month and has a torch which would be nice. Also dual active sim.
These phones are designed for families or shared between families who have 1 phone between them and need things like a torch at home.

Get onto http://www.gsmarena.com/and start comparing.

These phones cost about £20-30 which means I can replace my phone every month for about the same price as locking myself to an iphone for 2 years.