Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RAZR in sunlight

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
August 11, 2005 2:47:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

How is the main display on the RAZR outdoors in sunlight? I currently have
a Sony Ericsson Z500a and find the display very hard to see outdoors.

Thanks

More about : razr sunlight

Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:47:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

very difficult to see no matter what brightness settings.


"Bob" <bobnewkirk-honda2098@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:b1GKe.66227$yC5.57055@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> How is the main display on the RAZR outdoors in sunlight? I currently
> have a Sony Ericsson Z500a and find the display very hard to see outdoors.
>
> Thanks
>
>
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:47:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Bob" <bobnewkirk-honda2098@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:b1GKe.66227$yC5.57055@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> How is the main display on the RAZR outdoors in sunlight? I currently
> have a Sony Ericsson Z500a and find the display very hard to see outdoors.

My Razr is two months old and the outdoor display is poor. I'm surprised how
bad it is in the shade of a tree.

At worse case with my PPC-PE, I can hold the display in direct sunlight and
read it, but not the Razr.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 12:06:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Jimmy Smith" <Holland@MST.com> wrote in message
news:ZGGKe.1581$Rm3.1225@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> very difficult to see no matter what brightness settings.
>
>
> "Bob" <bobnewkirk-honda2098@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
> news:b1GKe.66227$yC5.57055@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>> How is the main display on the RAZR outdoors in sunlight? I currently
>> have a Sony Ericsson Z500a and find the display very hard to see
>> outdoors.
>>
>> Thanks
>>

I bright sunlight I think most, or all, displays are going to wash out....

Steve
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 4:46:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <suKdnZ2dnZ2Q-izXnZ2dnTj-YN-dnZ2dRVn-yZ2dnZ0@comcast.com> on Fri, 12 Aug
2005 20:06:07 -0700, "Steven de Mena" <demenas@comcast.net> wrote:

>I bright sunlight I think most, or all, displays are going to wash out....

Big differences between different types of displays -- in bright light:
* Backlit displays wash out
* Reflective displays get better
* Transflective displays are in the middle

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 6:16:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <suKdnZ2dnZ2Q-izXnZ2dnTj-YN-dnZ2dRVn-yZ2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
Steven de Mena <usenet@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>"Jimmy Smith" <Holland@MST.com> wrote in message
>news:ZGGKe.1581$Rm3.1225@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> very difficult to see no matter what brightness settings.
>>
>>
>> "Bob" <bobnewkirk-honda2098@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
>> news:b1GKe.66227$yC5.57055@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>>> How is the main display on the RAZR outdoors in sunlight? I currently
>>> have a Sony Ericsson Z500a and find the display very hard to see
>>> outdoors.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>
>I bright sunlight I think most, or all, displays are going to wash out....

A transflective display, such as used on the V6xx models, will do better
than the transmissive displays employed on less expensive phones.

Why Motorola chose to use the less effective display technology on their
"flagship" Razr model is incomprehensible.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 10:55:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <ddkvce$6pc$1@reader2.panix.com> on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:16:46 +0000 (UTC),
retsuhcs@xinap.moc (Mike S.) wrote:

>A transflective display, such as used on the V6xx models, will do better
>than the transmissive displays employed on less expensive phones.
>
>Why Motorola chose to use the less effective display technology on their
>"flagship" Razr model is incomprehensible.

I suspect it was a simple matter of form factor; i.e., thin.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 1:22:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Hmmm. Thin vs usable. Good choice.

Don
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:B%WLe.9222$p%3.37225@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <ddkvce$6pc$1@reader2.panix.com> on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:16:46 +0000
> (UTC),
> retsuhcs@xinap.moc (Mike S.) wrote:
>
>>A transflective display, such as used on the V6xx models, will do better
>>than the transmissive displays employed on less expensive phones.
>>
>>Why Motorola chose to use the less effective display technology on their
>>"flagship" Razr model is incomprehensible.
>
> I suspect it was a simple matter of form factor; i.e., thin.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 6:19:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

The choice is made by the consumer.

p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread -- it's
confusing, and considered a bit rude. Thanks.

In <ddq4tt04g5@enews3.newsguy.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:22:26 -0400, "Don
Udel \(ETC\)" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:

>Hmmm. Thin vs usable. Good choice.
>
>Don
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:B%WLe.9222$p%3.37225@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <ddkvce$6pc$1@reader2.panix.com> on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:16:46 +0000
>> (UTC),
>> retsuhcs@xinap.moc (Mike S.) wrote:
>>
>>>A transflective display, such as used on the V6xx models, will do better
>>>than the transmissive displays employed on less expensive phones.
>>>
>>>Why Motorola chose to use the less effective display technology on their
>>>"flagship" Razr model is incomprehensible.
>>
>> I suspect it was a simple matter of form factor; i.e., thin.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 6:19:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Hmm, I'll check Ms Manners. Nope nothing there about posting top vs
bottom.

Sorry.

Don
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:cw1Me.9242$p%3.36715@typhoon.sonic.net...
> The choice is made by the consumer.
>
> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread --
> it's
> confusing, and considered a bit rude. Thanks.
>
> In <ddq4tt04g5@enews3.newsguy.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:22:26 -0400,
> "Don
> Udel \(ETC\)" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
>
>>Hmmm. Thin vs usable. Good choice.
>>
>>Don
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:B%WLe.9222$p%3.37225@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>>
>>> In <ddkvce$6pc$1@reader2.panix.com> on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:16:46 +0000
>>> (UTC),
>>> retsuhcs@xinap.moc (Mike S.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>A transflective display, such as used on the V6xx models, will do better
>>>>than the transmissive displays employed on less expensive phones.
>>>>
>>>>Why Motorola chose to use the less effective display technology on their
>>>>"flagship" Razr model is incomprehensible.
>>>
>>> I suspect it was a simple matter of form factor; i.e., thin.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:42:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

See Q7 of "Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings"
<http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html&gt; (published by the
news.newusers.questions Moderation Board)

In <ddqi0p0gom@enews3.newsguy.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:05:49 -0400, "Don
Udel \(ETC\)" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:

>Hmm, I'll check Ms Manners. Nope nothing there about posting top vs
>bottom.
>
>Sorry.
>
>Don
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:cw1Me.9242$p%3.36715@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> The choice is made by the consumer.
>>
>> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread --
>> it's
>> confusing, and considered a bit rude. Thanks.
>>
>> In <ddq4tt04g5@enews3.newsguy.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:22:26 -0400,
>> "Don
>> Udel \(ETC\)" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hmmm. Thin vs usable. Good choice.
>>>
>>>Don
>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>news:B%WLe.9222$p%3.37225@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>>>
>>>> In <ddkvce$6pc$1@reader2.panix.com> on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:16:46 +0000
>>>> (UTC),
>>>> retsuhcs@xinap.moc (Mike S.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>A transflective display, such as used on the V6xx models, will do better
>>>>>than the transmissive displays employed on less expensive phones.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why Motorola chose to use the less effective display technology on their
>>>>>"flagship" Razr model is incomprehensible.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect it was a simple matter of form factor; i.e., thin.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
>> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
>

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:07:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

John,

You need to read it your self. You focused so much on topic 7 that you
missed the big intro at the beginning. I don't see any reference to rude.

Don


Introduction
This document is a description of the traditionally accepted "quoting style"
in Usenet newsgroup postings. Please do not consider this to be a
"regulatory" document ("Thou shalt do it this way because we say so!"), but
rather as an "advocacy" document ("A lot of people think this is a good way
to do it, and here's why.").



"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:_67Me.9296$p%3.37305@typhoon.sonic.net...
> See Q7 of "Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings"
> <http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html&gt; (published by the
> news.newusers.questions Moderation Board)
>
> In <ddqi0p0gom@enews3.newsguy.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:05:49 -0400,
> "Don
> Udel \(ETC\)" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
>
>>Hmm, I'll check Ms Manners. Nope nothing there about posting top vs
>>bottom.
>>
>>Sorry.
>>
>>Don
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:cw1Me.9242$p%3.36715@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>> The choice is made by the consumer.
>>>
>>> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in
>>> mid-thread --
>>> it's
>>> confusing, and considered a bit rude. Thanks.
>>>
>>> In <ddq4tt04g5@enews3.newsguy.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:22:26 -0400,
>>> "Don
>>> Udel \(ETC\)" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hmmm. Thin vs usable. Good choice.
>>>>
>>>>Don
>>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:B%WLe.9222$p%3.37225@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>>>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>>>>
>>>>> In <ddkvce$6pc$1@reader2.panix.com> on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:16:46 +0000
>>>>> (UTC),
>>>>> retsuhcs@xinap.moc (Mike S.) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>A transflective display, such as used on the V6xx models, will do
>>>>>>better
>>>>>>than the transmissive displays employed on less expensive phones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why Motorola chose to use the less effective display technology on
>>>>>>their
>>>>>>"flagship" Razr model is incomprehensible.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect it was a simple matter of form factor; i.e., thin.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
>>> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
>>
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:52:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 08:07:54 -0400, "Don Udel \(ETC\)"
<donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:

>You need to read it your self. You focused so much on topic 7 that you
>missed the big intro at the beginning. I don't see any reference to rude.

<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html&gt;
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 3:39:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

to a techno-dork, maybe

<< considered a bit rude. Thanks.>>
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 6:21:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

I suggest you take your own advice, and actually pay attention to it, instead
of just trying to find something to serve your own preference.


In <de4i240277f@enews2.newsguy.com> on Fri, 19 Aug 2005 08:07:54 -0400, "Don
Udel \(ETC\)" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:

>John,
>
>You need to read it your self. You focused so much on topic 7 that you
>missed the big intro at the beginning. I don't see any reference to rude.
>
>Don
>
>
>Introduction
>This document is a description of the traditionally accepted "quoting style"
>in Usenet newsgroup postings. Please do not consider this to be a
>"regulatory" document ("Thou shalt do it this way because we say so!"), but
>rather as an "advocacy" document ("A lot of people think this is a good way
>to do it, and here's why.").
>
>
>
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:_67Me.9296$p%3.37305@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> See Q7 of "Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings"
>> <http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html&gt; (published by the
>> news.newusers.questions Moderation Board)
>>
>> In <ddqi0p0gom@enews3.newsguy.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:05:49 -0400,
>> "Don
>> Udel \(ETC\)" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hmm, I'll check Ms Manners. Nope nothing there about posting top vs
>>>bottom.
>>>
>>>Sorry.
>>>
>>>Don
>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>news:cw1Me.9242$p%3.36715@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>>> The choice is made by the consumer.
>>>>
>>>> p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in
>>>> mid-thread --
>>>> it's
>>>> confusing, and considered a bit rude. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> In <ddq4tt04g5@enews3.newsguy.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:22:26 -0400,
>>>> "Don
>>>> Udel \(ETC\)" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hmmm. Thin vs usable. Good choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>Don
>>>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:B%WLe.9222$p%3.37225@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>>>>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In <ddkvce$6pc$1@reader2.panix.com> on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:16:46 +0000
>>>>>> (UTC),
>>>>>> retsuhcs@xinap.moc (Mike S.) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A transflective display, such as used on the V6xx models, will do
>>>>>>>better
>>>>>>>than the transmissive displays employed on less expensive phones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why Motorola chose to use the less effective display technology on
>>>>>>>their
>>>>>>>"flagship" Razr model is incomprehensible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect it was a simple matter of form factor; i.e., thin.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
>>>> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
>> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
>

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 6:22:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

To regular folks as well.

In <1124476793.797516.158180@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on 19 Aug 2005
11:39:53 -0700, "edna" <edna_schittneck@yahoo.com> wrote:

>to a techno-dork, maybe
>
><< considered a bit rude. Thanks.>>

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
!