E90: physical design flaws (but good features)

I come from owning and using the 9500 Communicator and I recently 'upgraded' to the E90. I don't know how I managed to get one, what with all the 'production' issues of this model and the lack of stock, but I have had the 'low baseline' E90 for a few days now. I would like to make some comments and see if anyone else agrees/disagrees (and if Nokia is listening...)
The Major Design Flaws are:
1. Silvery, shiny bits that get scratched and worn.
Why? The Communicator is a niche market that is going to only appeal to previous Communicator owners or techs who need computing power in a PDA. So why make it with shiny bits when we are all boring geeks? Within a couple of days I have scratches everywhere and reports of the inner cursor pad being badly worn... I've had the 9500 for over 2 years and it look pretty new. A colleague has the 9300 for the same amount of time and it looks pretty dog-eared!
2. Camera lens is in primary place for a finger to smudge it.
Why put it there or why put the inner cursor pad there when anyone using the cursor will have their finger wrapped around and touch the lens?
3. What with all the problems of the keys scratching the inner screen why reduce the baseline?
With the baseline reduced the two inner pads in the corner do nothing as they do not touch the (reduced) profile - and hence the screen scratch problem (?)
4. Minor manufacturing problems?
Uneven feet (it rocks!) and microphone/speak buzz problems?
The good points are the new features (although not some changes especially when they were so perfect and useful in the 9500!)
1. Big outer screen.
2. Good resolution of screens.
3. Quad band. 3G, etc.
4. GPS. Maps, etc.
5. Better media facilties and support.
6. Better browsing and WLAN support.
7. Better camera.
8. Good hinge.
Last thing, how is Nokia going to compete with Apple (iPhone in particular) if Nokia 'PC' suite is not available for the Macs?Message Edited by son_t on 31-Aug-200709:08 PM
Message Edited by son_t on 31-Aug-200709:12 PM

01-Sep-200705:56 PM
vmoisa wrote:
01-Sep-200711:26 AM
wolf666 wrote:
Really I respect you but I really cannot stand such low technical cultured objections.
Well, I am not an MD in Mechanical Engineering, but I am looking at the facts. 9300i was much lighter than E90 and so is the SE p990i. If it is not a material problem, maybe it is a design problem. Maybe they put too much dead weight in. As an example, I think that, if Nokia used the same keyboard as on 9330i, the keyboard would have been much better and the phone a little lighter.
I did not want to be offensive..
I argue on solidity of 9300, personally I had 9300 and 9300i..
The first also had a crack starting from an inner edge. The plastic used was not so good for me. The external cover soon became worn at the corner...but was lighter.
The keyboard of 9300 was good..really good, but E90 is better: you can also retro illuminate it!
Dead weight??? You have to know the weight optimization is one of the thing a designer perform. This process take not so much time, using Finite Element Analysis Software. It is a iterative process. It seems you miss the E90 has some metallic parts (it is a plus) and the plastic and the finishing is at highest level.
Considering what is inside the E90 I found the overall dimension and weight are a great success!
Let's see reliability of the finish, let's see reliability of the keyboard..time will give us the answers.
I only agree about some minor design faults like the pad touching the inner screen.

Similar Messages

I can't seem to get my iPod touch (4th Gen) to play photo slideshows or videos through my TV. Is this a design flaw? Or is it me? My old iPod used to do it no problem, but now I can't even find any video out options in the settings.

I can't seem to get my iPod touch (4th Gen) to play photo slideshows or videos through my TV. Is this a design flaw? Or is it me? My old iPod used to do it no problem, but now I can't even find any video out options in the settings.

This cable And Im using a cable that has a headphone jack on one end and RCA cables on the other. does not work for iPod touches. See:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1454

Bug or Design Flaw?: Multiclip

I'll put headings on this posting because it's gonna be long and you may want to skip parts.
*Executive Summary*
Multiclips do not retain modifications. So far I've tried adding markers and adjusting levels to a multiclip in the Viewer and after switching angles and switching back, the markers disappear, the levels revert to default.
*What I'm Attempting*
I've got hours of two-camera interviews. Cam A is subject, Cam B is host. Clips are several questions/minutes long. I spent a day and a half syncing and multiclipping and then was ready to screen and pull selects. Or so I thought.
_Approach 1._ My thinking was the most logical workflow would be to watch the interviews then subclip bits I like. We have neither time nor budget for transcripts nor the man-hours to read and highlight them. And even if we did, I'd still need to isolate those parts.
It turns out +you can't subclip multiclips+. Modify>Make Sublcip is grayed out and if you try to subclip by extending a marker and then making a subclip from that you get a new clip with a length identical to the original full clip, but with the name of the marker appended to the head of its original name and the original clip also now has this modified name and there seems to be no way of changing that name back.
Still with me?
_Approach 2_. OK, so I'll put markers where I find a sound bite I like, name them by subject matter and then, at least, I'll be able to find my selects in my Interviews bin by turning down the disclosure triangles next to the relevant clips. Not as good a solution, but it's what I've got.
Not.
+Multiclips do not retain modifications.+ Put a multiclip in your viewer, apply a marker (or adjust audio level), play, switch angles, play, switch back. Your marker (or level adjustment) is gone. They're just gone.
*Corporate Response*
I got on with Apple Care Enterprise. My tech guy reproduced my problem exactly. He then put me on hold and went to an upper level tech. When he came back he told me that's the way it's supposed to work. Multiclips have a sync relationship established by the mere fact that they are multiclips so markers are superfluous. I told him I thought markers served several purposes and he started to get a little testy with me. I laughed a little (not derisively, I swear), said thanks and he hung up without even saying goodbye. I was hurt.
*Why I Care*
I've got hours of these two-camera interviews and no script. I need to find what I like before I can build it into a show. I need to have access to both cameras as I screen because I can't hear the host on the subject's mic nor vice versa.
*Less Than Satisfying Workaround*
Here's the best I've got so far. I make a sequence out of each multiclipped interview, I then mark in and out points when I find a bit I like and I make a sublclip (sub-sequence, really) of it. Let's say I make a 10 second sub-sequence of a soundbite I like. When I'm ready to work with it I drag it to the Viewer and I have a fullscreen image of either the host or the subject. I'm now into the cutting and I know precisely which part of this subclip I want. I mark an in and an out, I cut it into my show, I'm good. And if I want the host and the subject is showing in the Viewer I simply hit SHIFT 1 or SHIFT 2 to get the other angle.
Here's the downside of this process (besides the extra steps). If I do choose to switch angles in the Viewer, the Viewer reverts to a copy of the original full-length multiclip with a Media Limit set at the In point. If, now that I'm cutting, I find I want to include the host's question with this response I can't without another workaround.
How many workarounds does it take to screw in a light bulb?
*If You've Made it This Far and Have a Better Solution I Would Be So Grateful*
And don't think I'm just looking for problems; this is going to be a huge issue for me on this project.
Rant
More and more often I'm finding FCP simply isn't designed for long-form editing, especially long-form documentary where organization, searchability, flexibility and general versatility are essential... No, at best, I've only got one person still with me. No sense in ticking you off too.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to raise such ire. Let me respond briefly in turn.
Zebulun wrote, "How would you go about this if you were in a linear suite with tape machines and a switcher? Lotsa logging."
I didn't come from tape editing, but rather film editing where you could pull selects. Then for most of the past 15 years I've been cutting on Avid products that work in the manner to which I've become accustomed. I could group then subclip or add locators (markers in FCP) that would not disappear. I've come to realize in FCP I have to change (not lower, simply change) my expectations and my post was in pursuit of direction.
"...who said editing was easy?" Certainly not me, but any editor worth his or her salt finds ways to eliminate pointless impediments.
+Patrick Sheffield+, your posting was very helpful and the link to your other posting was so good I've already passed it on. I will say that a long stringout of preferred soundbites, while I may resort to it, is hardly as manageable (for me, for me, we all have our own approach) as a nice bin where every subclip is named by its particular subject. Still that may well be the way I go.
+David Bogle+: "It's not even a design flaw. But you knew that..." Well then why does it allow me to apply markers and change audio levels if it isn't going to maintain those modifications? I hate to believe after two feature-length and several shorter projects on FCP I still don't understand its fundamentals to such a degree. But perhaps I don't.
" You say you don't have time or money to do this properly so you appear to be attempting to blame the software product you have chosen as your editing platform."
Who said there's one proper way? Jeez. I came on to this project as editor and post-producer after a lot of key decisions were made and most of the money spent. I am trying to view the material for the first time and pull what appeals to me as I go. I've reread my original post and, with the possible exception of my rant it just didn't seem harsh enough for this sort of response; I was pointing out something that appeared to not be working or which I didn't understand and looking for a solution. Isn't that what this site is for?
"I decide what I need to tell the story and then I work on it. That is, I'd select the sound bites and then figure out how to edit the multiclips later"
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I can't tell what the host is saying while watching the subjects camera nor vice versa. And both sides remarks are important. I had no say over how they shot this show so I have to live with that. This show will be almost entirely a series of dialogues between the host and various other people. And it is part of my job on this project to find the interesting conversations and mold them in to something worthwhile. Yes, I can watch the host's camera until the subject speaks then load the subject's clip and listen to that until the host speaks again and then go back to his clip. I was hoping for something a little more elegant.
"...this is easily corrected by cutting and pasting the tracks together and merging the new clip's tracks or nesting and exporting."
Thanks David, this is what I will probably resort to. I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else who replied or merely read my original post. I have no desire to get into one of those 'FCP vs. Avid' dialogues that are so common on these sites. Avid is blowing their market share, my clients and prospective clients are moving to FCP and it is on me to learn to love this application. I am in no way out to alienate those who would guide me.
Regretfully,
Martin

Design Flaw in Twin Frozr fans

So, I'm finally creating a thread about this.
There's been reports over the last few years about fans making rattling noises, grinding noises, high pitched whines, whether on cold boot, idle, high RPM, or constantly, and quite frankly I'm tired of MSI ignoring the issue.
There is a design flaw with the Twin Frozr fans.
MSI needs to publicly acknowledge this.
Currently, the only way to get a replacement fan is to send your ENTIRE card in for repair. Other more reputable companies will send you out an entirely new fansink attachment at no cost. As one poster said it; "That would be like sending my car to Nissan every time I blow a tire"
My personal experience with Twin Frozr started with Twin Frozr 2 on my GTX 460 Hawks. The Talon Attack edition started to make a bad grinding noise on cold boot or if it actually got cold enough during idle operation. When the card warmed up, the noise stopped. Speeding up the fan to 100% sometimes also caused it to get rid of the noise, but that was only temporary unless the card stayed warm.
My non-hawk exhibited rattling as well, but to a lesser extent. No grinding noise on cold boot, just a low rattling.
My next card was a GTX 670 PE with Twin Frozr 4. Surely they fixed the issue by now right? Wrong! Within 30 days I started having fan issues. This fan doesn't rattle, but there is a high pitched whine when the fan is in operation. The faster the RPM, the louder the whine. Most people don't even know they have this issue because of the subtle tone of the whine and it being muffled by the fan's air sound at higher RPMs.
That's 3 separate graphics cards all exhibiting an issue with their fans.
There's one thing in common with these issues; it's only caused by the fan closest to the I/O. This boggles my mind. Surely if there was a problem with the fan design itself it would affect both fans, right? I just don't understand it. This leads me to believe it's a design flaw with the Twin Frozr design.
Some people seem to have an issue with the other fan, but it appears to be rare and not the same type of problem the majority of people are reporting.
Seeing as they want you to lose your card (and $10+ to ship it) for weeks at a time to 'fix' an issue which will no doubt happen again, something needs to be done about this. Their 'warranty' policy for this issue is completely unacceptable, as is the fact that the fans start acting up within a month of ownership.
If you want to see more threads, just do a search. Here is some of them:
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=151578.0
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=157567.0
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=156284.0
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=161914.0
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=153463.0
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=154030.0
Googling brings more results. I've posted about it in this thread, and others have mentioned it as well: http://www.overclock.net/t/1265574/msi-gtx-670-power-edition-twin-frozr-4-cooler/0_30

Quote from: Noway77 on 28-May-14, 05:39:49
I don't think we have a MSI office in Portugal, most brands don't.
Some stores are not reliable they buy from EU retailers some even from Asia retailers and usually they don't give proper support. In Lisbon you have stores like Globaldata, Nanochip, Chiptek and AquaPC they are in business for years, have good customer support and have also good prices.
I'm probably not going to buy any MSI product from now on , for obvious reasons.
Trying to contact a support shoudn't be this hard from a client , at this point I assume anyone that's doesn't want to lose time will just give up.
As a consumer I was forced to RUN and TRY to find msi support , MSI support mail doesn't event exist , since I made this thread it still hasn't been changed.
I really liked MSI ( I still have my 875P MSI neo here with my p4 and the NX6800 working ) it's like saying goodbye to an old friend that has been by my side since P4 times.
I'll buy msi products in US , or in another country maybe , but never MORE in portugal.
This is not cause of the shops , I recommend everyone to buy in the shops listed !!
In fact most of the portuguese shops tried to help me find msi support ( even though they weren't the stored that sold me the card ).
I really don't want ppl to get this mixed up, the problem here is MSI not acknowledging a problem that is simple to fix, having a non-existant email on their webpage as support for over 4 months and the fact that as a consumer I was forced to jump trough loops to actually contact MSI itself !
Every portuguese shop I contacted was super nice and really helpful pointing me to the new msi email
And actually the fix ( hot needle fix forum post link ) came from a shop reply.
US support was always super nice and helpful !
I was forced to fix my fan with the help of users.
If right now my MSI gpu is working is thanks to guru3d and hardwareoc and simillar forums ( thanks to everyone that posted Twin Frozn fixes , this may not mean much , but really .. thanks for helping me out ! )
MSI didn't help or even try to help me , I had to go out of my way to get help , and I never did.
I know some of those stores , they have great prices , but if I buy anything in portugal I'll buy other brands for obvious reasons. ( it was actually one of those shops that helped me pinpoint the "real" msi email )
I am a customer , I should be treated as such , I was joked and pushed around emails , found emails that don't even exist , I was ignored and left looking at a card going dead.
Maybe for some of you it's easy , you just buy another one .... and maybe that's the custommer MSI wants. But that's not me.
Pointing me to places to buy MORE is almost insulting at this point. I wont buy more ... I would be stupid of I did.
I just hope some other person that has MSI and is having this problem with Twin Frozn fans ( that msi refuses to acknowledge as THEIR problem !! ) can fix them themselves or take some info from my posts and others to at least understand what is happening.
From my pov , the fan eventually has some sort of lubrication problem , and due to that it starts to wobble , after that the coils heat up to a point it wobbles even more.
Due to the high temps the fan either "looses" enough to dump all the lubing out.
At some point the fan will heat up so much the plastic IS REALLY hot to the touch and fells that it can be actually moldable ( so I assume this is really bad )
This leads to the start-stop problem , the fan tries to kick itself on , but just makes things worse.
This leads to a fan that fails in 2-3 years.
MSI should either had a way to put oil in the fan OR just start to be ready to replace them.
The fact that IS an ebay market for Twin Frzn fans is just flabbergasting .
I wish I had a better view on this , but seriously looking at this thread, and seeing all the steps I have done , to find there are others like me that have a failing fan and that the ones that aren't ignored like me have to RMA a card for a simple fan doesn't give me any sort of confidence in this brand.
MSI has one of the best gpu coolers , honestly it's so god that after all this mess I stand as a testimony for it being one of the BEST gpu coolers around ! All my MSI products so far have been great ... but this experience was just ... weird ..
I wish MSI would contact the ppl that are in my position and help them , it's just a fan , it's an easy fix and it's easy to replace.
There are lots of ppl right now with fans starting to fail , just take their card , replace the fan and send them back , and MSI will have happy customers , HAPPY cause the brand CARED !
I'm only 1 client , MSI hardly "fells" me leaving ... I really like MSI ... so I wish this won't ever happen again to no one !
I have been ignored in mailing for TDR problems , after that about the 12h+ card artifacting being fixed with cold boot ( I assume this was an nvidia problem )
After using certain drivers that didn't TDR my card ( I have enough PSU for it so ... it's not the PSU ) and having been 2 years finding my own "solutions" to problems ... being ignored and just struggling to get help from MSI for a stupid FAN a cheap part and being hard just to contact them to get no answer .... and getting help from other users while MSI ignores me ? ... I'm thinking on leaving the brand ...
The fans are now working 100% , I'll post info when and if they fail ( if I see my "fix" stopped working ) .
It has now been a long time since 2011 and my first reports , and its been almost 6 months since I contacted msi about the portuguese email listed not existing.
The email is still there , that non-existent email is STILL listen in MSI website RIGHT NOW after me being emailing them about it for 4+ months ,as a customer, I can only assume they either ignore people , or they have a terrible communications internally .
Again after all this mess , I would be kinda stupid to support or try to buy another product from this brand , MSI support was always great and was the main reason I bought msi products, all this posts are from a person that was truly SHOCKED in everything that is happening and the feeling that no one cared.

Who needs apple to make the bezels for the macbook pro? Lets get together and tell apple they must! It is a design flaw.

I love my pro. I paid 2700. for it 4 years ago. I did that because I know they are meant to last. I could have purchased a regular laptop but they don't last. Until recently I was ecstatic with it. Then one day I opened it up and my screen seemed really floppy. I didn't pay much attention. Then I noticed there were two cracks on the bezel toward the bottom of the screen. It is where the stress point lies from opening and closing. A very important location. I have read up on this, it is definitely a design flaw. I know the bezels are only work 10-15 dollars if produced. But because of the lack of availability of them they sell for 80 and up. I went to an Apple store with my friend. She purchased an IPAD 3 months ago, it fell out of her car, and the screen broke. Strangely enough, they replaced her IPAD when clearly it was customer fault, although she maintained it was a weak point. Me? The genius looked at mine and said I would need a new screen and it would be 700. Then another solution for 300. I asked why they couldn't just order a bezel. He said they don't make them. Apple does not make computer parts for their own computer? Unfortunately they gave me the rude runaround (Sherman Oaks,Ca manager Gabe Nava) and treated me like I was being unreasonable when I pointed out it was a design flaw with Apple!. Now i have a computer that could last a good 2-3 more years, but with this flaw the life will be shortened. Apple is this how u treat the customers that purchase you most expensive product versus the one that purchases the low/med price product? Let me know pro owners.....lets demand apple make these bezels. They should be replaced for free, but if it were available for 15. and then 50 labor...that I can live with. The best I could get outta Gabe was 150.00 and they keep my computer for a week! I live 120 miles away from the nearest store. I know your out there folks....lets make Apple make this right.

There are online Mac reaper shops that will fix your bezel, it's nothing really.
Here's one
http://www.myservice.com/
Here's another
http://www.techrestore.com/
(no comp)

Aux Channel design flaw or bug ???

Hi !
I only ever need to use the Aux channels because the Buss channels don't allow you to insert a Send. A rather unwieldy solution to an otherwise simple requirement.
Now here's the problem. Irrespective of whether the Buss source and Aux is set to stereo or mono ( whatever config I try ) the aux can't receive the signal if the Buss channel is panned to the right !! Left input, no problem
Is this a design flaw, a bug, or is there something I'm missing ?
I know there is a workaround to this problem - the same Audio copied to multiple track channels, but that creates a rather inelegant mixer.
I've also read elsewhere in this forum about delay/phase problems when using Aux channels.
Any pointers appreciated.
Thanks

Tele, I'm surprised that you'd make a comment like that.
It's easy to tell the bugs from the features: the bugs are when the features don't work. And there are ample enough features... I mean bugs... in Logic to help make that distinction.
Or did I really mean to say "enough bugs"...
Well, as Space Ghost once put it, "It's that easy, and it's that hard".
-=iS=-

I am a new iphone 4 user... I have insurance what does the Manufacturer Cover in damages or design flaws ?

I recently was talked into upgrading to an iphone 4.....I Love Apple and all of their products and accessories!!! My son & I have become computer genius
within 5 minutes, there is actually an app for everything....Except a design flaw or water/steam damage? I was hoping to resolve this unfortunate experience!!!
I had my iphone 4 in the outlet in the hallway near my bathroom.. I love the 80's I Heart Radio App...Apparently, the phone has water damage and needs to be looked at or replaced. I have been to 3 AT & T Stores before I received excellent customer service by speaking to the store manager...I had a different design flaw with Moto Atrix was still within the Manufacture waranty. They said it was a desin flaw with the keyboard...not able to fix and would have to pay the deductable.. That is not good enough!!! I buy everything i this i that!!! I can't live without my iphone I have money with Starbucks and also linked to Shell Rewards
and Speedway... Not to mention all my personal numbers, emails, facebook friends.....The phone was not dropped in water and was not in the same room as water but being 10 to 20 feet away something with the steam set off the water display for water damage??? I don't know why this is? When I first started on my quest with AT&T I thought I would have a grace period or design flaw? Please help!! I am unable to conduct daily day to day things without my iphone I was advised if they cracked my SIM card it's broken forever???

If the little built-in water detector on the iphone shows positive, ie water damage, then Apple will not do anything for you under warranty. The best thing that they will offer you is a swap to an identical (new phone) at a price around £150 in UK or the equivalent in your own country. If you are backing up to iCloud (or your computer), the new replacement unit will be able to load up all your old information etc. everything apart from synced data like music which you will need to re-upload.
You could argue that the water damage sensor on the iPhone is too sensitive etc. but Apple don't respond too well to this although you will be in a better position (and will be listened to more sympathetically) if you have bought AppleCare for your iPhone.
I know that this is annoying but I hope that you manage to get your problem resolved soon.

IPad line-out design flaw - really!!!

I just bought a cable that uses the line out of the ipad to use with my car stereo (Kensington 2-in-1 Charger and Audio Cable for iPhone/iPod)
I first tested the cable by plugging it into some external computer speaker ... hissssss. Then into my nice NAD stereo amp .... hisssss and finally in the car ....... hissssssssssssssss.
I then investigated the hissssssssing problem further and IT APPEARS TO BE A DESIGN FLAW WITH IPADS ! I ordered another cable from Amazon and got the same hiss. I even went to the Apple store and myself and a Genius even tried another iPad with this cable and still got a hiss. To top it off WE USED THE OFFICIAL IPAD DOCK with the line out (using another cable with mini plugs) and still got a hiss.
So peeps, it appears that there is a major problem with the line out on the ipad. Perhaps these cables are at fault but how can you explain using a standard line out cable with mini plugs with the official Apple dock and still getting the same hiss. It's not a very loud hiss but definitely noticeable and renders the ipad line-out useless for anyone who wants to use this device to get better sound quality than the standard headphone out jack on home and car stereo units.

Michael Morgan1 wrote:
I plug an audio cable between the iPad the the home theater inputs and it sounds fine. And do the same to the powered speakers in the bedroom, and it sounds fine. Or connect a different cable from the iPad to the car radio's AUX to play audiobooks on the road, which sound great. And, of course, headphones sound fine too.
I use my iPod the same way and I expect to use the iPad that way also.
However, about a year ago I drove a rental car that had a USB connection to the sound system. According to the car user manual, that allowed the sound system to pick up sound from the iPod but also allowed the sound system to control the iPod via user inputs. Unfortunately, it required that the iPod have MS formatting and mine has Apple formatting so I never had a chance to play with it.
Having said all that, I suspect (but can't prove) that the OP's problem is that, with ONLY the sound out function being accessed, the noise is reasonable. The cable includes other wires that are unterminated in this configuration. Unterminated wires are a good antenna. The antenna is picking up random noise (hiss) and transferring it to the audio.

Lenovo Helix design flaw ?

I saw this device and got very interested, might almost say exited.
I decided to take a deeper look, and was very disappointed.
I saw that the USB port on the tablet, is on the same side with all other connectors.
This means that when I connect the tablet to the dock keyboard, this port is blocked, and not accessible.
You might think that this, by itself, is not too bad.
But - the probelm is - if you use the USB port in tablet mode, and want to dock the device,
you would have to disconnect the usb device, dock the tablet, and re-connect the device to the dock.
In my opinion, this is very inconvenient, especially to people who use external storage device almost all the time.
I would wonder if Lenovo did not see this design flaw, and if they have any plan to change this.

Hello Mark.
Thanks for the reply.
My use case is that I need to work with data that cannot be copied to my device, and on a physically connected network.
(A matter of data security)
1. The Helix does not have an ethernet card, and as suggested in the device specs pdf file, a physical network conection can be obtained by using a usb dongle.
2. Using a USB mass storage to use data that cannot be saved on the network, or for data that was approved to be shown in meetings.
3. For use of a large external storage device (external 1+ TB hdd), to use large files.
Having to connect and disconnect the USB devices every time I dock/undock the device, will be very annoying,
and might even prevent docking/undocking, if the device holds open files for long processing.
(I believe the Helix was designed to be used for real work, and not just as a content consuming tablet)
I know changing the location of the USB port is a complicated task, involving a lot of physical components, unlike a software or a firmware patch.
Since I consider Lenovo, to be a company that designs high end, reliable, and highly usable devices,
keeping business oriented uses in mind, seeing that a constant USB port connection was overlooked was a very disappointing surprise.
Again - many thanks for the reply,
and for taking my comment into consideration.
PS
An idea that just crossed my mind : make a dock that has a demerit/groove where the tablet has the USB port, and supply a USB extension cable, that will "shift" the USB port and "unblock" it.
I know this is not the most elegant fix, but it is "quick fix", that can be used until the board, case, and all other elements are re-designed to move the USB port to one of the tablet sides.

What design flaws have u noticed? (Ergonomics/Human Factors discussion)

Hello everyone,
I received my iPhone 3G S early in the AM on Friday via UPS. Apple has once again produced a quality product. However, I have noticed a few design flaws. This thread is open to any type of ergonomics (aka human factors) discussion. New input is encouraged ☺ Anyway, here are a few things I have come across.
Voice Control: I have had poor experiences so far with this feature. The ratio of accurate to inaccurate responses…is not good. It is in favor of being inaccurate. Granted, any voice command will have its inaccuracies, this has just been frustrating. It is more time consuming to get Voice Control to respond correctly than selecting the item yourself. Hmm…wasn’t that partially the point of having this feature?
iPhone video –to→ PC/Mac: As many know, video taken with the iPhone is saved in Camera Roll. After taking video & some photos from an evening, I connect my iPhone to my MacBook Pro. I import my photos & video into iPhoto, into a specific album. In iTunes, I select to sync my iPhone with the photo album. After I synced, I looked at my iPhone album I had just created & added. Sadly, I find that my video did not sync as well. ☹ Instead, I had to import the video into iTunes. So, the video is in my iPod on my iPhone, and not in my photo album that shares the events of the same evening ☹

LalaBear,
I had a lot of problems with voice control for the iPod function. It always said "no match found": for artist, album, or playlist. So i reset the phone. (Press and hold both the Sleep/Wake button and the Home button for at least ten seconds, until the Apple logo appears.) Now it really works well.
To import your videos, start iPhoto on your Mac.

Iphone4 antena design flaw..

What do apple intend to do about this design flaw? This must have been noticed before the release date. Apple have proven to be top good in the past to miss it. As an engineer myself i can obviously see that the antena position is no use, it would have been better on the top. Perhaps thats why it never worked for Mr Jobs that night when he couldnt get it to work. Apple must have known before release, perhaps it was too late so now we perhaps have all been swindled. WHAT DO APPLE INTEND TO DO ABOUT IT. Will they admit the flaw and at least post us all a case so we can use it as normal? Lets see how good a company they really are.

malcheck wrote:
the antenas are normaly inside not on the outside where they can be covered by your fingers, obviously a poor design choice. i have a full signal, cover with my fingers then only 1 bar.
Not for me. I've been in areas of both excellent reception and poor reception provided by my carrier, performed the "death grip" and the bars do not change from the strength they were before.
Not saying it's not an issue, but I don't believe it's down to design.
Like you say, all phones are the same

Design flaw in blackberry pearl 8220 audio (voice) - does every phone shipped have this problem?

Hi,
have a new blackberry 8820 pearl that I am happy with.
The phone does have one big problem. hearing a person over the phone (i.e.. The top speaker embedded in the flip not the microphone in the phone case proper).
When someone raises their voice a little during conversation the phone distorts the incoming audio (it makes a tinny sound like when a speaker distorts when it is overloaded and yes I am using default volume and have tried it on all volume levels... The phone speaker still distorts incoming voice).
Also called a few numbers and got several people's voicemail announcement... Because people raise their voice just a little bit when they put in their voice mail announcement the phone always distorts the voicemail greeting.
Moved my sim card to a Motorola razor v8. everything is crystal clear hearing and speaking. your blackberry pearl flip has a hardware or firmware design flaw... It distorts incoming conversation based on how the person is speaking not just when they are talking with a strong clear voice... But when the incoming speech volume is raised slightly!.
I asked tmobile to send me a new phone. they did and the new phone does the same thing (i.e.. The handset speaker). the speaker phone function works just fine and does not distort conversation.
Is this a problem with a certain production run on the phone or does it happen with every blackberry pearl flip 8220?
since the Motorola razor works fine under the same conditions with <no> distortion figured it may be design flaw going to production on the phone. But thought I would ask anyway.. In case this problem has been solved by development in-house.
Please pass this message to engineering and the product line manager responsible for the blackberry flip 8220. I know if I was a product manager I wouldn't want to go to market with a phone that distorts audio. you guys should have checked the competition (Motorola and other windows CE phones to make sure the audio on the blackberry pearl is as good or better than the competition).
Hope this helps. please pass this forward and see what engineering and product management says. if its a general design flaw it would be good to know. just wanted my new blackberry (which I like) to work just as good as my Motorola razor. both are good phones but the audio handset speaker distortion is somewhat of a pain.
Thank you,
mark bramblett
EDIT: Removed personal information

Hey pawan_vajs79,
Welcome to the BlackBerry Support Community Forums.
With the data you're seeing under status would mean that this device was used before, by a different customer or client.
-ViciousFerret
Come follow your BlackBerry Technical Team on Twitter! @BlackBerryHelp
Be sure to click Like! for those who have helped you.
Click Accept as Solution for posts that have solved your issue(s)!

I am running InDesign CS5.5 and trying to open an In Design File but getting an error message. " Cannot open the file "PDavidLCover.indd". Adobe InDesign may not support the file format, a plug-in that supports the file format may be missing, or the file

I am running InDesign CS5.5 and trying to open an In Design File but getting an error message. " Cannot open the file "PDavidLCover.indd". Adobe InDesign may not support the file format, a plug-in that supports the file format may be missing, or the file me be open in another application."Please help I really need to get this file open.

Since you've shown us the folder contents it's a good bet it isn't in use (no lock file). And it doesn't look like the file is mis-named as there doesn't seem to be anything else there that would be the .indd file (but just in case, open it in TextEdit and paste the first few lines here so we can see what the file header says), so the most likely case is the file is damaged. Is that on a removable device of some sort?
You can try the tool at Repair corrupt InDesign Adobe files on Mac OS X or send me a link to the file by private message and I'll try the recovery tool I have for Windows.

Design flaw in Macbook Pro late 2013?

Hi,
Looks like Macbook Pro late 2013 has a weakness, due to a design flaw. Let me explain:
My Macbook Pro late 2013 (13inch, Model: A1502) developed a dent (see attachment) and an Apple Store (Genius Bar) technician told me that this is a result of "excessive pressure" on the bottom case. He also mentioned that because the case is made of soft aluminium and it is only supported around the border (about where the screws are located), any "excessive" pressure in the middle may result into the aluminum case being damaged by the internal components; in this case the damage appears to have been caused by an internal bracket.
There is no sign of the bottom case being pushed inwards, there hasn't been any accident and I haven't stepped, or sat on, or otherwise mistreated my laptop, so I very surprised! Most of the time, it's sitting flat on a desk and only carried insider a padded pouch, inside a laptop-grade (padded) backpack! As you'll notice in the photo (and I can provide more photos, if needed), there is absolutely no other sign of damage, the curves look perfect, and the back plate is flat.
This is just a cosmetic damage and replacing the bottom case is the obvious solution but I still need to better understand the circumstances; I need to understand what went wrong and, if possible, how to prevent this from happening in the future .
I visited iFix it web site and carefully looked at the internals of the laptop, here:
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Pro+13-Inch+Retina+Display+Late+2013+Tea rdown/18695
It looks like the bottom base is only supported around its border. The middle of the bottom case has no backing to support it. While Apple could have designed a support structure around the battery cells and over the motherboard (logic board) and the back case, there is no support structure at all. Hence, pressing on the back of the laptop uniformly (e.g. while in a loaded backpack) will probably result to the back case being pushed inwards and, while aluminium does have some degree of elasticity, it can get damaged when hitting on a sharp object, such as an internal bracket. Hence, I guess the Apple technician is right, this is what probably happened to my laptop and I think this may have happened only in my backpack. But, how “excessive” can the pressure be on a Macbook Pro inside a high-quality, padded backpack?
If there are other MBPr users who have experienced this problem under normal everyday use, i.e. not due to an accident, could you please let me know?
I'd be grateful if Apple:
* Looked into this and provided a workaround, e.g. a more durable bottom case.
* Considered replacing our damaged cases for free.
* Published some numbers, to inform prospective customers about the durability of the laptop's case, e.g. in N/cm^2
* Took our experience into consideration when designing their new laptops.
Kind regards.

" I need to understand what went wrong and, if possible, how to prevent this from happening in the future"
So what's underneath the area w/ the "blister"?
"It looks like the bottom base is only supported around its border. The middle of the bottom case has no backing to support it."
That's pretty much been the case w/ every MBP I've ever had apart. Nothing past 2012 however.
" While Apple could have designed a support structure around the battery cells and over the motherboard (logic board) and the back case, there is no support structure at all"
In earlier versions of the MBP there is a "separator" between two areas of the upper case but it doesn't supply any support to the bottom case.
So here's my take on this; Apple has made these MBPs thinner and thinner. In the MBPs I've taken apart 2008 - 2012. In the 2010 I have here the bottom case is very thick and judging by tapping on it is definitely tempered (or heat hardened or stress hardened). I don't have the proper caliper but the edge reads .044 Inch.
There have been other issues on these communities that relate to the thinness of the top or the bottom cases in these newer machines.
Never seen a newer machine but my feeling is judging by the issues seen around here is that the materials are much thinner and probably not as hardened or tempered.
" how “excessive” can the pressure be on a Macbook Pro inside a high-quality, padded backpack?"
To help prevent this from happening again and if this were my MBP I would use/make a hardened case just for the laptop. Say two sheets of 1/4" hardboard w/ a 1/4" separator of high density foam. Wait I'm describing a high quality laptop case.
As Ogelthorpe says, backpacks are not the most delicate way of transporting a laptop. I've seen damage worse than this to laptops, iPads, iPhones, Kindles etc. Especially at the school where I was the main tech. I would say: "What happened to this?" and the kid would say: "I dunno it was just in my backpack".
I've watched backpacks fall from shelves, get stuck in lockers and get smashed into each other in the hallway.
I'm sure you're much more delicate w/ your MBP but as the saying goes ".... happenes!"

ServiceLocator design flaw in Petstore 1.3

Hello.
As far as I can understand, there seems to be a design flaw in the Petstore 1.3 implementation of the Service Locator.
The ServiceLocatorImpl class, which is the base class of ShoppingClientServiceLocatorImpl has an attribute session, that holds the HttpSession object passed with the sessionCreated method call. It uses the session to store there the WebClientController reference.
The problem seems to be that it uses the session member object to get back the WebClientController in the getWebClientController method. But isn't it only one instance of the ServiceLocatorImpl per application? It seems like there should be only one ... And if this is true, then this means that when a new client session begins, the session member object is overriden, and you will never find the data from other sessions, and the lookup will be done for each call to getWebClientController....
Am I right or totally wrong with the number of instances of ServiceLocatorImpl?
Regards,
Cristian

i think you are wrong.
They are several instances of serviceLocator per application. In fact, one for each client.
There is one client web controller per client which lets handles event to the EJB ontroller (but there is only one ejb controller which is accesed throught its remote interface, this why the methods are synchronized).

E90: physical design flaws (but good features)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for