It's amazing how you can suddenly discover something new and useful, that you've never looked into before.
I was reading yet another Dell XPS 15 laptop review, and happened to look at the comments section that followed it. Now I've long been accustomed to take comments sections (and forums) with a big pinch of salt, whether it's to do with computing, photography, cars or even the sort of thing you'll find on Mumsnet. Worthwhile advice and wisdom, the kind that you might actually consider following, is usually in limited supply. Fortunately it's usually possible to discern which contributors are sane and sensible and know what they're talking about, and which have personality problems or are trolls pure and simple.
Anyway, one sane contributor (in response to a claim that all Dell products were junk, and full of problems) made a suggestion that made me sit up. He recommended buying the Dell XPS 15 not direct from Dell, but from the Microsoft Store. He added that you'd get it quicker too, because it doesn't have to be shipped so far.
Apparently Microsoft do not just sell their own Surface-branded goods in this Store of theirs. They offer a selected range of laptops from other manufacturers - HP, Acer, Lenovo, and Dell. These are marketed as their own Signature Edition. That means they are unpacked, checked and tested, stripped of bloatware and trialware, and then repacked for sale. They do this so that the buyer gets a machine that will run faster and provide the best possible Windows 10 experience, uncompromised by the manufacturer's own useless extras.
Thus an XPS 15 Signature Edition from the Microsoft Store would present me with Windows 10 as Microsoft want me to enjoy it. In this way they can showcase a 'pure' version of Windows 10 in all its glory.
Of course buying direct from Dell would be cheaper. The machine I have been thinking of - if bought direct from Dell - would presently cost me £1,599.00. The MS store will charge me £1,649.99. That's £50 more. Well, for that extra cash I apparently get an assurance that my new pride and joy will work faultlessly out of the box - it has to, so that Microsoft can do their stuff with it - and that all inessential (and irritating) third-party software will be fully (and safely) expunged.
A tested and well-sorted machine is naturally a very attractive proposition. Yes, I could spend time doing all that they do myself. Assuming the new toy comes with all correct bits and pieces - such as a mains cable - and starts up without issues, and keeps going, then in theory it's simple to uninstall anything one doesn't want. But in practice some of this unwanted stuff is tenacious, clinging on at a deep level. Or one hesitates, unsure whether it's completely safe to get rid of it. I'd rather leave a complete cull to experts.
Should I be cynical and suspect that the notion of a 'Signature Edition' is just a device to divert gullible customers to the MS Store and squeeze an extra £50 out of them?
Well, Windows 10 is still new enough to need promotion. It would make commercial sense for Microsoft to genuinely quality-check the goods sold, so that the hardware will unfailingly fire up and display their OS without glitches. And then purge the software, so that the customer gets a cracking Windows 10 experience. And becomes a thoroughly happy bunny willing to recommend the OS, and indeed the MS Store. So with this rationale in mind, I think I'll buy from the MS Store, and not Dell itself.
But another £50...oh well. I did say this is an eight-year investment. So, if the cost is spread forwards, it now becomes £206 per annum rather than £200.
The laptops offered by the MS Store can all be seen here: http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msuk/en_GB/list/categoryID.69958800?icid=PC_Category_ModG_Laptops_10122015#
And the link to the Dell XPS 15 in particular is here: http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msuk/en_GB/pdp/Dell-XPS-15-9550-8090-Core-i7-512GB-Laptop/productID.333798800
I'm also going to look carefully at the other Signature Edition laptops, just in case I've overlooked an equally-capable rival. Or one that has lesser power but would do. Microsoft's own Surface Book might deserve a second look too. I can do this in odd moments while on holiday, perhaps when having afternoon tea and cake somewhere.
Sunday, 10 April 2016
Transparency
I should think David Cameron, our Prime Minister, must be pulling a rueful face just now and wishing that he'd ignored the advice he was given, or his own personal impulse, to apply the following maxims, which might otherwise seem quite reasonable:
# Say as little as possible.
# Hold fast to the principle that a purely private matter is nobody else's business.
# Stoutly assert that no law has been broken, nothing wrong has been done, and all taxes payable have been declared and duly paid.
For these maxims have proved ineffective. Politicians in important positions are not allowed to stonewall. He's had to cough up the details bit by bit, and it doesn't look good, having 'the truth' dragged out of him like this. Rightly or wrongly, he has lost some personal credibility.
Most people don't like being kept in the dark on something they feel they should have been told. This is David Cameron's present problem. He is an important man. A high standard of personal frankness is appropriate. But he is now blemished because he wasn't at first as frank as he should have been. People do expect a well-remunerated person to pop spare cash in various places. Nothing wrong with that. But those investments mustn't have a bad whiff about them. Nor be hidden behind a smokescreen. People want their national leaders to show exemplary transparency, and not attempt to hide the facts. Concealment raises eyebrows, provokes questions, and earns disapproval.
The disclosures so far suggest that everything was done before he became Prime Minister, and that the 'offensive' offshore investments used an unremarkable financial vehicle well-known to the tax authorities, and tolerated at the time. But Mr Cameron should have known that being parsimonious with disclosure is fatal. His judgement was at fault. Even if you are entitled by law to be sparing with the particulars, any form of concealment is damaging. It always leads to embarrassment and a lessening of personal authority. People don't feel they can accept anything you say at face value any more. Respect seeps away. Enemies exult, and make political capital - although that is also a dangerous game, if they have dabbled too. For they might easily be found out. Total secrecy can't be absolutely guaranteed any more. Large-scale, unexpected, unforeseeable leaks of damning documents and communications can occur at any moment. There will always be investigators willing to risk everything to unearth the truth, and moles inside the organisation who will blow the whistle.
I dare say that tax authorities everywhere will now be under intense pressure to curb these abuses forthwith. If not from governments, then from outraged citizen groups. The game has been spoiled. Whoever is behind this massive Panamanian leak, they must have high hopes that unethical financial behaviour in high places will now be exposed in every country that matters. They must hope that heads will roll, not just those of the usual suspects, but those belonging to hitherto faceless manipulators and criminals that nobody has ever heard of. And that ultimately a bit more openness and honesty will be the norm.
I do wish them success. But I doubt whether this or any other mass embarrassment will really transform human nature. We all learn early in life that being completely open places ammunition in the hands of ill-intentioned people, and grief will result. We learn to be guarded. It's a pity that it's like this. But wisdom lies in assessing the situation, and if you judge that the other person can't be trusted with anything you tell them, then you will keep quiet.
This applies to personal information of any kind, not just financial information. And there is always a two-way imperative. On one hand, it may be sensible to keep quiet. On the other, it may be unethical to keep quiet, if the matter in question is important. And there's the thing. Which facts are essential, and should always be made clear? And always offered up front?
What about a past criminal record? It does reflect on the character of the person concerned, whether the conviction was for theft, fraud, manslaughter or dangerous driving. Should it be disclosed?
What about past relationships? Should an embarrassingly long list of failed relationships be swept under the carpet and never mentioned?
If I were diabetic or epileptic, or my sight was badly impaired, I would never keep it a secret. I'd want other people to be watching out for any signs of imminent difficulty, and be ready to assist me. So I'd pre-warn them. And infection, or suspected infection, with a contagious disease is something else that can't be concealed. But what about slight deafness? Or a minor deformity? Or a spell in rehab? Are they important enough to disclose?
What about past obesity? Who really needs to know, if the underlying problem is under control through diet or surgery?
Indeed, let's focus on surgery. I've recently heard about two persons who had remedial surgery for a hare lip and cleft palate, and you'd never guess now. Yet is it perfectly ethical to say nothing about disfigurements put right, if that's what the person concerned wants? Should one keep quiet about the nose job done ten years ago? Or about the 'resculpturing' of any part of the body, to make it look nicer, or at least closer to some ideal or norm?
I can see why principled people might insist that there is always a general onus to confess to every kind of medical intervention. They'll say anything done to the body's integrity, certainly anything radical, must be important and therefore a thing to be mentioned. Yet if the scars are now undetectable, and the surgery has produced the hoped-for beneficial effect, and the present-day world sees a healthy, active and happy person, then why bring it up? What rule says one has to?
And if there are tell-tale scars? My own position here is that if those scars will be revealed by bedroom intimacy, then I want to talk and explain. If there is never going to be any such intimacy, then no practical purpose is served by drawing attention to what the surgeon did. So I won't be discussing my stay in hospital some years ago.
It's old news anyway, it doesn't affect the here and now, and it's quite possibly in the realm of 'too much information'. And what kind of morbid-minded ghoul would really want to know all the gory details? I'm not going to pander to mere curiosity.
Nevertheless, the 'transparency principle' is still there, urging full disclosure, and I run the risk of being held dishonest if I don't reveal all. Well so be it. I choose to live dangerously!
But I don't suppose Mr Cameron (and the many other users of offshore investment vehicles at his shoulder) ever thought he was 'living dangerously' by not volunteering a full disclosure of his family wealth.
Supposing he had - suddenly - done so, without any prompting whatever. I wonder whether it would have been greeted with approval or cynicism? Would people have suspected a devious secret agenda? In other words, would being open without pressure being brought to bear actually have invited all kinds of speculation, the disclosure being taken as the opening gambit in a calculated and 'managed' series of confessions?
It's hard to see how a person in his position can ever do the right thing - or anything - without it seeming questionable, given the general lack of faith in politicians. In which case, public figures (including celebrities and powerful sports officials) might well assert that ordinary standards do not apply to them - but in a bad way.
If, that is, they are found out. Thank goodness for the ferreting that goes on by investigative journalists and others to expose dodgy dealings and money movements. If the so-called 'Panamanian Papers' had never come to light, would Mr Cameron (and the rest) have ever come clean?
Ah, who knows.
# Say as little as possible.
# Hold fast to the principle that a purely private matter is nobody else's business.
# Stoutly assert that no law has been broken, nothing wrong has been done, and all taxes payable have been declared and duly paid.
For these maxims have proved ineffective. Politicians in important positions are not allowed to stonewall. He's had to cough up the details bit by bit, and it doesn't look good, having 'the truth' dragged out of him like this. Rightly or wrongly, he has lost some personal credibility.
Most people don't like being kept in the dark on something they feel they should have been told. This is David Cameron's present problem. He is an important man. A high standard of personal frankness is appropriate. But he is now blemished because he wasn't at first as frank as he should have been. People do expect a well-remunerated person to pop spare cash in various places. Nothing wrong with that. But those investments mustn't have a bad whiff about them. Nor be hidden behind a smokescreen. People want their national leaders to show exemplary transparency, and not attempt to hide the facts. Concealment raises eyebrows, provokes questions, and earns disapproval.
The disclosures so far suggest that everything was done before he became Prime Minister, and that the 'offensive' offshore investments used an unremarkable financial vehicle well-known to the tax authorities, and tolerated at the time. But Mr Cameron should have known that being parsimonious with disclosure is fatal. His judgement was at fault. Even if you are entitled by law to be sparing with the particulars, any form of concealment is damaging. It always leads to embarrassment and a lessening of personal authority. People don't feel they can accept anything you say at face value any more. Respect seeps away. Enemies exult, and make political capital - although that is also a dangerous game, if they have dabbled too. For they might easily be found out. Total secrecy can't be absolutely guaranteed any more. Large-scale, unexpected, unforeseeable leaks of damning documents and communications can occur at any moment. There will always be investigators willing to risk everything to unearth the truth, and moles inside the organisation who will blow the whistle.
I dare say that tax authorities everywhere will now be under intense pressure to curb these abuses forthwith. If not from governments, then from outraged citizen groups. The game has been spoiled. Whoever is behind this massive Panamanian leak, they must have high hopes that unethical financial behaviour in high places will now be exposed in every country that matters. They must hope that heads will roll, not just those of the usual suspects, but those belonging to hitherto faceless manipulators and criminals that nobody has ever heard of. And that ultimately a bit more openness and honesty will be the norm.
I do wish them success. But I doubt whether this or any other mass embarrassment will really transform human nature. We all learn early in life that being completely open places ammunition in the hands of ill-intentioned people, and grief will result. We learn to be guarded. It's a pity that it's like this. But wisdom lies in assessing the situation, and if you judge that the other person can't be trusted with anything you tell them, then you will keep quiet.
This applies to personal information of any kind, not just financial information. And there is always a two-way imperative. On one hand, it may be sensible to keep quiet. On the other, it may be unethical to keep quiet, if the matter in question is important. And there's the thing. Which facts are essential, and should always be made clear? And always offered up front?
What about a past criminal record? It does reflect on the character of the person concerned, whether the conviction was for theft, fraud, manslaughter or dangerous driving. Should it be disclosed?
What about past relationships? Should an embarrassingly long list of failed relationships be swept under the carpet and never mentioned?
If I were diabetic or epileptic, or my sight was badly impaired, I would never keep it a secret. I'd want other people to be watching out for any signs of imminent difficulty, and be ready to assist me. So I'd pre-warn them. And infection, or suspected infection, with a contagious disease is something else that can't be concealed. But what about slight deafness? Or a minor deformity? Or a spell in rehab? Are they important enough to disclose?
What about past obesity? Who really needs to know, if the underlying problem is under control through diet or surgery?
Indeed, let's focus on surgery. I've recently heard about two persons who had remedial surgery for a hare lip and cleft palate, and you'd never guess now. Yet is it perfectly ethical to say nothing about disfigurements put right, if that's what the person concerned wants? Should one keep quiet about the nose job done ten years ago? Or about the 'resculpturing' of any part of the body, to make it look nicer, or at least closer to some ideal or norm?
I can see why principled people might insist that there is always a general onus to confess to every kind of medical intervention. They'll say anything done to the body's integrity, certainly anything radical, must be important and therefore a thing to be mentioned. Yet if the scars are now undetectable, and the surgery has produced the hoped-for beneficial effect, and the present-day world sees a healthy, active and happy person, then why bring it up? What rule says one has to?
And if there are tell-tale scars? My own position here is that if those scars will be revealed by bedroom intimacy, then I want to talk and explain. If there is never going to be any such intimacy, then no practical purpose is served by drawing attention to what the surgeon did. So I won't be discussing my stay in hospital some years ago.
It's old news anyway, it doesn't affect the here and now, and it's quite possibly in the realm of 'too much information'. And what kind of morbid-minded ghoul would really want to know all the gory details? I'm not going to pander to mere curiosity.
Nevertheless, the 'transparency principle' is still there, urging full disclosure, and I run the risk of being held dishonest if I don't reveal all. Well so be it. I choose to live dangerously!
But I don't suppose Mr Cameron (and the many other users of offshore investment vehicles at his shoulder) ever thought he was 'living dangerously' by not volunteering a full disclosure of his family wealth.
Supposing he had - suddenly - done so, without any prompting whatever. I wonder whether it would have been greeted with approval or cynicism? Would people have suspected a devious secret agenda? In other words, would being open without pressure being brought to bear actually have invited all kinds of speculation, the disclosure being taken as the opening gambit in a calculated and 'managed' series of confessions?
It's hard to see how a person in his position can ever do the right thing - or anything - without it seeming questionable, given the general lack of faith in politicians. In which case, public figures (including celebrities and powerful sports officials) might well assert that ordinary standards do not apply to them - but in a bad way.
If, that is, they are found out. Thank goodness for the ferreting that goes on by investigative journalists and others to expose dodgy dealings and money movements. If the so-called 'Panamanian Papers' had never come to light, would Mr Cameron (and the rest) have ever come clean?
Ah, who knows.
Friday, 8 April 2016
A good home at last for a posh watch
Back in January 2009 I bought a TAG Heuer watch for myself, spending an outrageous £950. But at the time I genuinely wanted a good watch, I certainly had the money, and I urgently needed to boost my personal self-image after several very difficult months. It was intended to be a psychological pick-me-up - as much so as the Prada handbag purchased soon afterwards (which cost much the same). Here is the watch on my wrist in February 2009:
Gosh, I was so slim then! Not the fatty I am now. Here's another picture of the watch, taken in July 2009:
It was a stainless-steel watch, but it went very well with my silver jewellery.
These hyper-expensive indulgences - the watch and the handbag - worked brilliantly. My sense of self-worth recovered, and never faltered thereafter. And for a while both articles functioned as eye-catching fashion wearables that I wore as much as possible, and enjoyed doing so. It wasn't long, of course, before the Prada handbag had to be set aside and reserved for special occasions only, and a more practical Radley bag substituted for all the punishing everyday use bags get. But I kept the TAG Heuer watch on my wrist, because it looked so good. And after all, it was useful - it did tell me the time!
But when the battery eventually died, I was reluctant to pay £70-odd to get a new battery fitted. It was so much because the shop I bought it from (in the Brighton Lanes) insisted that it be sent away to Switzerland or Germany, so that having taken the back off the the thing, and inserted a new battery, it could then be factory-resealed to resist submersion in the sea down to 30 metres! I considered this to be an utter waste of time. I wasn't even going to wear it in the bath or shower. They could whistle for that £70. I refused to play that game. I donned a cheap but nevertheless good-looking Timex watch I'd bought from Argos for £11, and put the TAG Heuer away. Permanently.
Years passed. I was conscious that I had wasted good money on this watch, if I wasn't going to wear it. In 2015 I looked into the possibility of selling it on eBay. But the purchase documentation was flawed. It did not substantiate that I myself had bought it, and was the proper owner. In other words, I couldn't prove that I wasn't selling a stolen watch. A serious bidder might well require that proof.
And I knew full well that if I tried - as an alternative - to sell a watch like this for cash to the kind of jeweller who would ask no questions, I would get very little. Indeed, I'd be very fortunate to get as much as £50. This meant taking a £900 loss. It was an insult to the watch.
That still left gifting it away to a female friend, preferably someone close to me. I wondered whether Emma, who was at one time my step-daughter's school friend, would like it. We no longer of course had a parent-child relationship. She was a long-married woman with grown-up kids. We now met up several times a year as two adults, for a nice grown-up day out. A forty-something lady and a sixty-something lady, with eighteen years in between; but for all that possessing a shared outlook, and shared memories going back to 1984 or so. So when we met up just before last Christmas, I sounded her out. She said yes. And so I duly gave her the watch (together with its elaborate packaging and flawed purchase documentation) when we met up the other day.
She was delighted with it. And it did look good in her hands.
She put it on. It fitted her wrist perfectly. That clinched it. I said I was so pleased it could be worn at once without any modification to the bracelet. I cautioned her against getting a new battery from a posh jeweller - they would only follow the official routine of sending it away, at vast expense to her. She should go to some ordinary shop - a branch of Timpson's perhaps - and get the new battery fitted without worrying about that daft waterproof seal.
So there it is. One watch gets a new home. I hope it and its new owner will be very happy with each other!
Gosh, I was so slim then! Not the fatty I am now. Here's another picture of the watch, taken in July 2009:
It was a stainless-steel watch, but it went very well with my silver jewellery.
These hyper-expensive indulgences - the watch and the handbag - worked brilliantly. My sense of self-worth recovered, and never faltered thereafter. And for a while both articles functioned as eye-catching fashion wearables that I wore as much as possible, and enjoyed doing so. It wasn't long, of course, before the Prada handbag had to be set aside and reserved for special occasions only, and a more practical Radley bag substituted for all the punishing everyday use bags get. But I kept the TAG Heuer watch on my wrist, because it looked so good. And after all, it was useful - it did tell me the time!
But when the battery eventually died, I was reluctant to pay £70-odd to get a new battery fitted. It was so much because the shop I bought it from (in the Brighton Lanes) insisted that it be sent away to Switzerland or Germany, so that having taken the back off the the thing, and inserted a new battery, it could then be factory-resealed to resist submersion in the sea down to 30 metres! I considered this to be an utter waste of time. I wasn't even going to wear it in the bath or shower. They could whistle for that £70. I refused to play that game. I donned a cheap but nevertheless good-looking Timex watch I'd bought from Argos for £11, and put the TAG Heuer away. Permanently.
Years passed. I was conscious that I had wasted good money on this watch, if I wasn't going to wear it. In 2015 I looked into the possibility of selling it on eBay. But the purchase documentation was flawed. It did not substantiate that I myself had bought it, and was the proper owner. In other words, I couldn't prove that I wasn't selling a stolen watch. A serious bidder might well require that proof.
And I knew full well that if I tried - as an alternative - to sell a watch like this for cash to the kind of jeweller who would ask no questions, I would get very little. Indeed, I'd be very fortunate to get as much as £50. This meant taking a £900 loss. It was an insult to the watch.
That still left gifting it away to a female friend, preferably someone close to me. I wondered whether Emma, who was at one time my step-daughter's school friend, would like it. We no longer of course had a parent-child relationship. She was a long-married woman with grown-up kids. We now met up several times a year as two adults, for a nice grown-up day out. A forty-something lady and a sixty-something lady, with eighteen years in between; but for all that possessing a shared outlook, and shared memories going back to 1984 or so. So when we met up just before last Christmas, I sounded her out. She said yes. And so I duly gave her the watch (together with its elaborate packaging and flawed purchase documentation) when we met up the other day.
She was delighted with it. And it did look good in her hands.
She put it on. It fitted her wrist perfectly. That clinched it. I said I was so pleased it could be worn at once without any modification to the bracelet. I cautioned her against getting a new battery from a posh jeweller - they would only follow the official routine of sending it away, at vast expense to her. She should go to some ordinary shop - a branch of Timpson's perhaps - and get the new battery fitted without worrying about that daft waterproof seal.
So there it is. One watch gets a new home. I hope it and its new owner will be very happy with each other!
Now it's a new laptop!
It might have seemed as if I was getting very obsessed with my next mobile phone! But there was in fact a more pressing matter to address: upgrading my home computing equipment. This was something I was going to give 'deep thought to' and get on with 'during 2016' (see my post Google Chrome withdraws support for Windows Vista, 30th January 2016) but the urgency was in fact acute. I just wasn't facing up to it.
So it's 'time up' for my ten-year-old laptop (still running Windows XP, and used solely for my photo-processing) and my nine-year-old desktop PC (still running Windows Vista, and my main device for using the Internet, and for bulk photo storage).
For the last week neither XP nor Vista have been supported by Google's Chrome browser - a serious matter, rendering Chrome (my favourite browser) liable henceforth to performance glitches or worse. And presumably this lack of support extends (if not now, then soon) to other Google products that I use a great deal, such as Gmail and Blogger. I certainly can't be without them!
And of course, in less than a year ahead Microsoft will be withdrawing their own support for Vista, with some serious security and app-compatibility problems likely to arise straight away (if my experience of the 2014 Windows XP abandonment is anything to go by).
So, the moment has come to buy a 2016-model Windows 10 laptop. I have been studying the many reviews of likely laptops on the Internet. As always when contemplating a purchase like this, you need to think realistically about what you want from the new beast. My requirements will differ from most other people's.
# Whatever I buy, it must last a minimum of eight years. Looking ahead, I can't afford to replace my laptops oftener. There are too many competing demands on my strictly limited pension income. So the new laptop must be strong, well-built, and likely to last. Cheap, underpowered, tacky machines will be no good at all. Although constrained to what I can afford, I'm buying for the future and making a long-term investment. I am not going to settle for a short-term bargain that will soon be outmoded or simply fall apart. It's worth stretching the budget to get something that will do the job very well eight years from now.
# I'm not looking at Apple. Apple stuff is beautifully designed, and clearly works very well, but joining Planet Apple would require a change of culture and an acceptance of different norms. And once in, there seems to be no escape! Despite Microsoft being a lumbering one-eyed giant, I'm used to Windows, and its ways good and bad, and want to stay with what I know.
# I haven't been impressed by the 'tablet experience', and so buying a laptop with a detachable keyboard, so that the screen can be used as a 'handy' tablet, has no appeal. I want a proper laptop, with a stout fixed hinge.
# I've considered what I will mainly use the new laptop for:
- Writing documents (including blog posts) and working on spreadsheets. I do this daily, relentlessly.
- Editing freshly-taken photos, backing them up, publishing some of them, sharing some of them, and then storing them for easy retrieval. I probably devote more screen time to photo work than watching ordinary TV. It's not a mere hobby, it's integral to my lifestyle.
- Looking at the Internet. It's my window on what's happening in the world, and my source for information on all kinds of things. And I am very curious. I love to know.
- Watching catch-up TV on the BBC iPlayer. More and more, I watch TV at my convenience and not when it's scheduled.
All these uses suggest that a laptop with a larger high-resolution screen, and a decent keyboard and touchpad, will be the most suitable. Let's say a 15-inch screen. That's large enough to make working on documents, spreadsheets and photos - and reading web pages - pleasant and easy. And such a screen at arm's length will seem as big as the one on my TV across the lounge. Nor will a 15-inch laptop be too large and heavy, although I don't need ultra-portability. I only need to carry the thing around the house, between lounge and study, and now and then out to the car or caravan.
# I don't do any gaming. But I have similar graphics requirements, as I need to process a large number of photographs as rapidly as possible. In recent years, since 2009 anyway, I've been taking at least 10,000 shots every year. But since buying the Panasonic LX100 last August the yearly average has increased to 16,000. And these recent photos all have somewhat larger file sizes than before. I can justify a fast and powerful machine.
A study of what's available has quickly narrowed my choice down to Dell's XPS 15. But the configuration that will give me the best combination of features will unfortunately cost £1,599. Ouch! And yet it's not out of reach - it will just blow a very big hole in my savings. It can be properly regarded as an eight-year investment, and looked at in that way, the cost works out at a more reasonable £200 for each year. But £1,599 is still a high enough price to make anybody hesitate! Mind you, the gods that assist wavering purchasers are intervening. Booking Fiona in for her annual service and MOT this morning, I discovered to my joy that this year's service will be significantly cheaper this year than I had thought. That certainly helps. Something saved on one thing can be spent instead on another!
That £1,599 will buy me a glossy '4K' screen. I do know what 4K means for TVs; and wandering around Currys at midday (not a place I'd ever buy from, but you do at least see an awful lot of well set-up TVs on display) I was reminded yet again how stunning a 4K picture is - so detailed, so colourful. Definitely gorgeous, and a feature to lust after! It would be great on a laptop too - so far as pictures are concerned. There's a potential snag with text and icons - all those extra screen pixels make them look tiny! Still, there are workarounds. I may end up rescaling all the time, depending on the activity - that is, switching between screen magnifications to select the most appropriate one.
With 4K comes touch. A 4K laptop screen can be touched like a phone screen can. Gestures can be used to do things. Perhaps this is unlikely to be especially useful on a laptop but, who knows, the ability to do something by quickly touching or swiping the screen might have unexpected advantages. A one-prod method of getting up the rescaling menu, for instance?
I could save myself £300 by having a non-touch, matte screen with 'mere' full-HD resolution. That's a screen filled with only a quarter of the pixels you get with 4K. It's still sharp! And being matte instead of glossy means that screen reflections are less of a problem. But a laptop screen can always be angled to eliminate reflections, and in any case I don't do any photo work in broad daylight, nor with bright house lights shining onto the screen. For me, screen reflections are entirely avoidable, and not an issue. So it comes down to whether saving £300 is worth the trade-off of not having 4K resolution. That's saving £37.50 for each of those next eight years: is it enough to care about? 4K is definitely the thing of the future, destined to be a key part of the 'laptop experience' in years to come. 4K would keep my new laptop 'contemporary'. Hmm. I do think I might kick myself if I settled for an adequate, but lesser, screen.
4K combined with great processing power means that battery life won't be impressive. This hardly matters. Whether at home, or in the caravan, I always plug in to the mains, and that won't change. I do not envisage a lengthy holiday in parts where electricity is not on tap!
I don't have to make a final decision today. There's no point. I'm less than a week away from my next caravan holiday, and there's going to be a lot of preparation needed for that in the next few days. Even if Dell could despatch and deliver a new laptop to me before I go, I'd have no time to do more than unpack it. I know from past experience that it can take days to set a new computer up. There are always frustrations. Just getting used to the look of Windows 10, and how to do basic things, will take a while. I really wouldn't be able to throw enough time at it. And I couldn't get Wi-Fi on the farms I'll be staying at, so the vital Internet would be out of reach unless I used my phone as a 4G hot-spot and tethered the laptop to it.
No, I'll wait till I get home. I want to get out and around, and enjoy my holiday, not skulk in the caravan trying to make a new toy work. And if it's rainy and cold, I'd rather get out needles and wool, and start practising my knitting!
Besides, despite all this careful consideration, it's sensible to take a break from the whole thing, stand back, and give myself time to cool off and rethink. Over the next couple of weeks a different laptop solution may come to my attention.
The new laptop, once bought, will enable the honourable retirement of the trusty old one, and the dishonourable dismissal of my crumbling unloved last-legs tablet. I'll be keeping the desktop PC though. It has 190GB of storage space left, and the big monitor is still very good. It will become a big powered hard drive, the physical repository for my entire digital photo collection - backed-up periodically of course to other hard drives. In that way it will remain useful for years ahead. But disconnected from the Internet - and therefore inaccessible to destructive viruses and malware.
As regards the notion of a new phone in 2016, that's now an impossibility. The cash won't be there. It'll have been spent on the laptop. But do you know, I don't mind carrying on with the phone I have. It's excellent. And, if I manage its remaining memory carefully, I'm sure it will last well into 2017. Why should I play the two-year replacement game, anyway?
So it's 'time up' for my ten-year-old laptop (still running Windows XP, and used solely for my photo-processing) and my nine-year-old desktop PC (still running Windows Vista, and my main device for using the Internet, and for bulk photo storage).
For the last week neither XP nor Vista have been supported by Google's Chrome browser - a serious matter, rendering Chrome (my favourite browser) liable henceforth to performance glitches or worse. And presumably this lack of support extends (if not now, then soon) to other Google products that I use a great deal, such as Gmail and Blogger. I certainly can't be without them!
And of course, in less than a year ahead Microsoft will be withdrawing their own support for Vista, with some serious security and app-compatibility problems likely to arise straight away (if my experience of the 2014 Windows XP abandonment is anything to go by).
So, the moment has come to buy a 2016-model Windows 10 laptop. I have been studying the many reviews of likely laptops on the Internet. As always when contemplating a purchase like this, you need to think realistically about what you want from the new beast. My requirements will differ from most other people's.
# Whatever I buy, it must last a minimum of eight years. Looking ahead, I can't afford to replace my laptops oftener. There are too many competing demands on my strictly limited pension income. So the new laptop must be strong, well-built, and likely to last. Cheap, underpowered, tacky machines will be no good at all. Although constrained to what I can afford, I'm buying for the future and making a long-term investment. I am not going to settle for a short-term bargain that will soon be outmoded or simply fall apart. It's worth stretching the budget to get something that will do the job very well eight years from now.
# I'm not looking at Apple. Apple stuff is beautifully designed, and clearly works very well, but joining Planet Apple would require a change of culture and an acceptance of different norms. And once in, there seems to be no escape! Despite Microsoft being a lumbering one-eyed giant, I'm used to Windows, and its ways good and bad, and want to stay with what I know.
# I haven't been impressed by the 'tablet experience', and so buying a laptop with a detachable keyboard, so that the screen can be used as a 'handy' tablet, has no appeal. I want a proper laptop, with a stout fixed hinge.
# I've considered what I will mainly use the new laptop for:
- Writing documents (including blog posts) and working on spreadsheets. I do this daily, relentlessly.
- Editing freshly-taken photos, backing them up, publishing some of them, sharing some of them, and then storing them for easy retrieval. I probably devote more screen time to photo work than watching ordinary TV. It's not a mere hobby, it's integral to my lifestyle.
- Looking at the Internet. It's my window on what's happening in the world, and my source for information on all kinds of things. And I am very curious. I love to know.
- Watching catch-up TV on the BBC iPlayer. More and more, I watch TV at my convenience and not when it's scheduled.
All these uses suggest that a laptop with a larger high-resolution screen, and a decent keyboard and touchpad, will be the most suitable. Let's say a 15-inch screen. That's large enough to make working on documents, spreadsheets and photos - and reading web pages - pleasant and easy. And such a screen at arm's length will seem as big as the one on my TV across the lounge. Nor will a 15-inch laptop be too large and heavy, although I don't need ultra-portability. I only need to carry the thing around the house, between lounge and study, and now and then out to the car or caravan.
# I don't do any gaming. But I have similar graphics requirements, as I need to process a large number of photographs as rapidly as possible. In recent years, since 2009 anyway, I've been taking at least 10,000 shots every year. But since buying the Panasonic LX100 last August the yearly average has increased to 16,000. And these recent photos all have somewhat larger file sizes than before. I can justify a fast and powerful machine.
A study of what's available has quickly narrowed my choice down to Dell's XPS 15. But the configuration that will give me the best combination of features will unfortunately cost £1,599. Ouch! And yet it's not out of reach - it will just blow a very big hole in my savings. It can be properly regarded as an eight-year investment, and looked at in that way, the cost works out at a more reasonable £200 for each year. But £1,599 is still a high enough price to make anybody hesitate! Mind you, the gods that assist wavering purchasers are intervening. Booking Fiona in for her annual service and MOT this morning, I discovered to my joy that this year's service will be significantly cheaper this year than I had thought. That certainly helps. Something saved on one thing can be spent instead on another!
That £1,599 will buy me a glossy '4K' screen. I do know what 4K means for TVs; and wandering around Currys at midday (not a place I'd ever buy from, but you do at least see an awful lot of well set-up TVs on display) I was reminded yet again how stunning a 4K picture is - so detailed, so colourful. Definitely gorgeous, and a feature to lust after! It would be great on a laptop too - so far as pictures are concerned. There's a potential snag with text and icons - all those extra screen pixels make them look tiny! Still, there are workarounds. I may end up rescaling all the time, depending on the activity - that is, switching between screen magnifications to select the most appropriate one.
With 4K comes touch. A 4K laptop screen can be touched like a phone screen can. Gestures can be used to do things. Perhaps this is unlikely to be especially useful on a laptop but, who knows, the ability to do something by quickly touching or swiping the screen might have unexpected advantages. A one-prod method of getting up the rescaling menu, for instance?
I could save myself £300 by having a non-touch, matte screen with 'mere' full-HD resolution. That's a screen filled with only a quarter of the pixels you get with 4K. It's still sharp! And being matte instead of glossy means that screen reflections are less of a problem. But a laptop screen can always be angled to eliminate reflections, and in any case I don't do any photo work in broad daylight, nor with bright house lights shining onto the screen. For me, screen reflections are entirely avoidable, and not an issue. So it comes down to whether saving £300 is worth the trade-off of not having 4K resolution. That's saving £37.50 for each of those next eight years: is it enough to care about? 4K is definitely the thing of the future, destined to be a key part of the 'laptop experience' in years to come. 4K would keep my new laptop 'contemporary'. Hmm. I do think I might kick myself if I settled for an adequate, but lesser, screen.
4K combined with great processing power means that battery life won't be impressive. This hardly matters. Whether at home, or in the caravan, I always plug in to the mains, and that won't change. I do not envisage a lengthy holiday in parts where electricity is not on tap!
I don't have to make a final decision today. There's no point. I'm less than a week away from my next caravan holiday, and there's going to be a lot of preparation needed for that in the next few days. Even if Dell could despatch and deliver a new laptop to me before I go, I'd have no time to do more than unpack it. I know from past experience that it can take days to set a new computer up. There are always frustrations. Just getting used to the look of Windows 10, and how to do basic things, will take a while. I really wouldn't be able to throw enough time at it. And I couldn't get Wi-Fi on the farms I'll be staying at, so the vital Internet would be out of reach unless I used my phone as a 4G hot-spot and tethered the laptop to it.
No, I'll wait till I get home. I want to get out and around, and enjoy my holiday, not skulk in the caravan trying to make a new toy work. And if it's rainy and cold, I'd rather get out needles and wool, and start practising my knitting!
Besides, despite all this careful consideration, it's sensible to take a break from the whole thing, stand back, and give myself time to cool off and rethink. Over the next couple of weeks a different laptop solution may come to my attention.
The new laptop, once bought, will enable the honourable retirement of the trusty old one, and the dishonourable dismissal of my crumbling unloved last-legs tablet. I'll be keeping the desktop PC though. It has 190GB of storage space left, and the big monitor is still very good. It will become a big powered hard drive, the physical repository for my entire digital photo collection - backed-up periodically of course to other hard drives. In that way it will remain useful for years ahead. But disconnected from the Internet - and therefore inaccessible to destructive viruses and malware.
As regards the notion of a new phone in 2016, that's now an impossibility. The cash won't be there. It'll have been spent on the laptop. But do you know, I don't mind carrying on with the phone I have. It's excellent. And, if I manage its remaining memory carefully, I'm sure it will last well into 2017. Why should I play the two-year replacement game, anyway?
Sunday, 3 April 2016
Brexit: bleak thinking
For goodness sake, the EU referendum and the question of whether Britain should stay in or exit, is only seven weeks away. Where is the serious campaigning? Why is no reliable and unbiased printed information on this terribly important matter coming through my front door and thudding onto the mat inside, for me to study and discuss? Why are there only 'warnings' from various parties with vested interests, whose partisan position can hardly be taken at face value? Why is so much being heard from the Money Men, and so little from other people - some of them surely experts - who could speak up on all the other effects an exit might bring about?
Economics is only part of it. What about the British Way Of Life in general? How might day-to-day living for ordinary people change if we baled out and went our own way? What would happen to our culture, our freedoms, our scenery? Would we still have friendship and respect from other countries? Would they admire us or sneer? Where could we all go on holiday?
The point is made again and again on the radio (I don't waste money on tub-thumping newspapers, and confrontational TV debates turn me off) that while the broad picture is clear if we stay in, it's all very uncertain if we go. And that's the trouble: lack of hard information. If the consequences of leaving could be explained in fair detail, then it would be possible to form a rational opinion based on facts. Perhaps there really are no worthwhile facts to get hold of. One will have to rely instead on faith and hope, and the famed British ability to muddle through.
Of course it's appealing to think that, freed from Europe, we can go it alone in some blind heroic endeavour. But we won't be sailing majestically away and ruling the waves. We will have to become Fortress Britannia, that defensive island off the Northwest coast of Europe. And Europe will still be where it is, on our doorstep.
I'm now beginning to edge towards a personal default position where (for want of any credible information and guidance from somebody in a position to give it) I will vote for staying in. It seems best to recognise obvious geographical facts and political realities. We are a second-tier power - important, yes, in various ways, but not the most important or influential. The ability to set things in motion slipped from our hands a long time ago. Nowadays we do not create events - we react to them. We have to watch our step with China, with America, with Russia, and a host of lesser nations that perhaps underestimate us, but will cause difficulties if they sense any vulnerability. To some extent, as matters presently stand, an attack on Britain (verbal or otherwise) is also an attack on Europe. EU membership may irk True British Instincts but it is useful where the world stage is concerned. We all stand strong together, and look after our own. Well, that's the theory.
And what about the overwhelming global challenges slowly emerging - climate changes, energy shortages, food shortages, water shortages, mass-migration, enhanced longevity? It seems best to face them as part of a larger alliance. I dare say this risks getting drawn into a United States of Europe at some point. But might that be better than the risk of becoming (in effect) a colony of the good old USA? Because if Europe is rejected, the only other obvious ally to attach ourselves to is America. Europe lets us be independent of America and the other superpowers. America is of course friendly, but it's still a big devouring animal that likes to take you over. If we abandoned Europe, we might end up having to do and say exactly what America wants us to. That's the price of security.
Another thought. I have a strong suspicion that most of our self-seeking, wobbly politicians tremble at the prospect of having to run an 'independent' Britain. They fear the challenge. They know they might prove incompetent. They know that the light harness of Europe provides a ready-made excuse for not delivering on difficult plans. For procrastination on many issues. For, indeed, maladministration, inefficiency, stick-in-the-mudness and waste. If we were really detached from Europe, and fending on our own, then the quality of leadership and the quality of decisions taken would have to be much, much higher. I don't see anyone in the present government (or the opposition) of sufficiently star quality. Even if the careerists concerned would like the chance to 'have a go', to make their mark on history, could they really be trusted? I think I'd rather have the 'bloated' European executive and legislature on hand to prod our bickering ministers (governing or shadow) into doing something sensible, with less of the 'me, me, me' attitude so many display.
There is another, bleaker vision to contend with. The one where Brexit fails, and it all turns vicious. Never mind the politicians. Are the ordinary people of the UK are of sufficiently star quality to embrace the consequences, whatever they may be, with cheerfulness and enterprise? What if there are lots of losers? Will society implode, become selfish and miserly, and generally deteriorate in disastrous ways? Brexit could lead to a renewal of national self-respect, and a true pulling-together; but it could also lead to rampant nationalism and ugly scenes of discrimination. I don't want to see that.
Economics is only part of it. What about the British Way Of Life in general? How might day-to-day living for ordinary people change if we baled out and went our own way? What would happen to our culture, our freedoms, our scenery? Would we still have friendship and respect from other countries? Would they admire us or sneer? Where could we all go on holiday?
The point is made again and again on the radio (I don't waste money on tub-thumping newspapers, and confrontational TV debates turn me off) that while the broad picture is clear if we stay in, it's all very uncertain if we go. And that's the trouble: lack of hard information. If the consequences of leaving could be explained in fair detail, then it would be possible to form a rational opinion based on facts. Perhaps there really are no worthwhile facts to get hold of. One will have to rely instead on faith and hope, and the famed British ability to muddle through.
Of course it's appealing to think that, freed from Europe, we can go it alone in some blind heroic endeavour. But we won't be sailing majestically away and ruling the waves. We will have to become Fortress Britannia, that defensive island off the Northwest coast of Europe. And Europe will still be where it is, on our doorstep.
I'm now beginning to edge towards a personal default position where (for want of any credible information and guidance from somebody in a position to give it) I will vote for staying in. It seems best to recognise obvious geographical facts and political realities. We are a second-tier power - important, yes, in various ways, but not the most important or influential. The ability to set things in motion slipped from our hands a long time ago. Nowadays we do not create events - we react to them. We have to watch our step with China, with America, with Russia, and a host of lesser nations that perhaps underestimate us, but will cause difficulties if they sense any vulnerability. To some extent, as matters presently stand, an attack on Britain (verbal or otherwise) is also an attack on Europe. EU membership may irk True British Instincts but it is useful where the world stage is concerned. We all stand strong together, and look after our own. Well, that's the theory.
And what about the overwhelming global challenges slowly emerging - climate changes, energy shortages, food shortages, water shortages, mass-migration, enhanced longevity? It seems best to face them as part of a larger alliance. I dare say this risks getting drawn into a United States of Europe at some point. But might that be better than the risk of becoming (in effect) a colony of the good old USA? Because if Europe is rejected, the only other obvious ally to attach ourselves to is America. Europe lets us be independent of America and the other superpowers. America is of course friendly, but it's still a big devouring animal that likes to take you over. If we abandoned Europe, we might end up having to do and say exactly what America wants us to. That's the price of security.
Another thought. I have a strong suspicion that most of our self-seeking, wobbly politicians tremble at the prospect of having to run an 'independent' Britain. They fear the challenge. They know they might prove incompetent. They know that the light harness of Europe provides a ready-made excuse for not delivering on difficult plans. For procrastination on many issues. For, indeed, maladministration, inefficiency, stick-in-the-mudness and waste. If we were really detached from Europe, and fending on our own, then the quality of leadership and the quality of decisions taken would have to be much, much higher. I don't see anyone in the present government (or the opposition) of sufficiently star quality. Even if the careerists concerned would like the chance to 'have a go', to make their mark on history, could they really be trusted? I think I'd rather have the 'bloated' European executive and legislature on hand to prod our bickering ministers (governing or shadow) into doing something sensible, with less of the 'me, me, me' attitude so many display.
There is another, bleaker vision to contend with. The one where Brexit fails, and it all turns vicious. Never mind the politicians. Are the ordinary people of the UK are of sufficiently star quality to embrace the consequences, whatever they may be, with cheerfulness and enterprise? What if there are lots of losers? Will society implode, become selfish and miserly, and generally deteriorate in disastrous ways? Brexit could lead to a renewal of national self-respect, and a true pulling-together; but it could also lead to rampant nationalism and ugly scenes of discrimination. I don't want to see that.
Friday, 1 April 2016
New phone decisions!
It's that time again, when the upgrade date is approaching and one had better work out the best options.
I'm with Vodafone, and I have a white Samsung Galaxy S5 purchased on a monthly contract with them almost exactly two years ago. I was able to get the S5 on the very day it was first released - they merely added four months to the contract, making it 28 months instead of 24 months. It will end on 8 August 2016. The upgrade date is 26 May 2016. I am looking at the pros and cons of upgrading to the just-released Samsung Galaxy S7 in late May or (more likely, bearing in mind holiday dates and delivery times) late June.
I am in fact very happy with my S5, except for one thing: its internal memory (nominally 16GB) is rapidly dwindling. It's all that Ordnance Survey 1;25,000 Explorer mapping I've been installing! It will go only into the internal memory, and can't go onto the inserted 64GB memory card. I use this kind of mapping all the time, and will only want to install more and more of it. The S7 would give me an extra 16GB of internal memory, and solve this increasingly pressing issue.
There are other reasons for buying an S7 of course. It's a nicer design. The electronics are better. And its starting firmware will be the very latest. It will look (and operate) as a top-flight phone for a long time ahead. I can expect superior capability and performance during that time. I am a 'power user', and do far, far more with my phone than just make calls and send texts. Really, it's not a telephone: it's a small mobile PC.
It's only two years old, but my S5 is now getting its last firmware update, and after that it will rapidly become old hat. That's the pity about modern mobile phones. Even if they really suit you, and you love them, and look after them, they gradually become useless because usually they get only two firmware updates. In time the latest apps won't work on them. They slide relentlessly into obsolescence. And to cap it all, the battery will show signs of failure before the thing is three years old. Sigh.
Two years ago, when upgrading from the S2 to the S4 or (as it turned out) the S5, I wanted to buy the new phone outright and use it with a low-cost SIM card. But I couldn't find the many hundreds of pounds needed, and had to go the monthly contract route. This time I have a bit more money, and an outright purchase is a viable option. These are the advantages that matter to me:
# I can buy the new phone from any online retailer I like.
# I can get one in exactly the colour I want, with (if there is any choice) the precise specification I want.
# I am not tied to a monthly contract.
# Indeed I am not tied to a two-year replacement regime. Three years seems to squeeze the most from a phone.
# I can stay with Vodafone, and keep my phone number, but pay much less per month with a SIM-only deal. 'Much less' would be something like a £20 to £25 difference, compared to the monthly contract charge.
There are some possible disadvantages:
# I must come up with the purchase money every three years. (But times have changed, and I can nowadays put the money together for a planned purchase like this)
# If it's defective, there will be no hardware support or replacement, except whatever the retailer might agree to. (But if I buy from a firm like Expansys or Clove - or even Samsung itself - I ought to feel reasonably confident about not getting a duff phone)
# As a SIM-only customer, I might be less valuable to Vodafone and get less service. (Not that I have ever called on them for much!)
If I bought outright, I would first have to wait for the current contract to end in August. However, the price of a new S7 should have come down a bit by then. Its about £570 just now. I would hope to find one for £500.
Of course, if the deal is right, I can always buy on contract again from Vodafone, and do it sooner. Taken over a 24 month span, the overall outlay is similar to an outright purchase. Vodafone's contract would work out slightly more expensive, but really there's not a lot in it. I would however have to commit to a long contract - and with it, less flexibility about how I spend my cash month by month.
So there's a clear timetable here. At the end of May or June I shall look at what kind of deal Vodafone can do for me, and take it if it's too good to resist. If I'm not tempted, then I'll review the situation again in August, and probably buy a new S7 outright from somewhere. I will simultaneously switch to SIM-only, and then dispose of my S5 to the kind of online company that will buy it from me, and sell on the valuable parts in an ecologically-good way.
And why the S7, rather than the larger and supposedly more desirable S7 Edge? On a brief handling, I've found the Edge cuts into my palm and won't be nice to hold for very long. That's the simple reason.
Well, that's going into the whole matter in an awful lot of detail! But then perhaps all this may be useful to someone in a parallel situation!
I'm with Vodafone, and I have a white Samsung Galaxy S5 purchased on a monthly contract with them almost exactly two years ago. I was able to get the S5 on the very day it was first released - they merely added four months to the contract, making it 28 months instead of 24 months. It will end on 8 August 2016. The upgrade date is 26 May 2016. I am looking at the pros and cons of upgrading to the just-released Samsung Galaxy S7 in late May or (more likely, bearing in mind holiday dates and delivery times) late June.
I am in fact very happy with my S5, except for one thing: its internal memory (nominally 16GB) is rapidly dwindling. It's all that Ordnance Survey 1;25,000 Explorer mapping I've been installing! It will go only into the internal memory, and can't go onto the inserted 64GB memory card. I use this kind of mapping all the time, and will only want to install more and more of it. The S7 would give me an extra 16GB of internal memory, and solve this increasingly pressing issue.
There are other reasons for buying an S7 of course. It's a nicer design. The electronics are better. And its starting firmware will be the very latest. It will look (and operate) as a top-flight phone for a long time ahead. I can expect superior capability and performance during that time. I am a 'power user', and do far, far more with my phone than just make calls and send texts. Really, it's not a telephone: it's a small mobile PC.
It's only two years old, but my S5 is now getting its last firmware update, and after that it will rapidly become old hat. That's the pity about modern mobile phones. Even if they really suit you, and you love them, and look after them, they gradually become useless because usually they get only two firmware updates. In time the latest apps won't work on them. They slide relentlessly into obsolescence. And to cap it all, the battery will show signs of failure before the thing is three years old. Sigh.
Two years ago, when upgrading from the S2 to the S4 or (as it turned out) the S5, I wanted to buy the new phone outright and use it with a low-cost SIM card. But I couldn't find the many hundreds of pounds needed, and had to go the monthly contract route. This time I have a bit more money, and an outright purchase is a viable option. These are the advantages that matter to me:
# I can buy the new phone from any online retailer I like.
# I can get one in exactly the colour I want, with (if there is any choice) the precise specification I want.
# I am not tied to a monthly contract.
# Indeed I am not tied to a two-year replacement regime. Three years seems to squeeze the most from a phone.
# I can stay with Vodafone, and keep my phone number, but pay much less per month with a SIM-only deal. 'Much less' would be something like a £20 to £25 difference, compared to the monthly contract charge.
There are some possible disadvantages:
# I must come up with the purchase money every three years. (But times have changed, and I can nowadays put the money together for a planned purchase like this)
# If it's defective, there will be no hardware support or replacement, except whatever the retailer might agree to. (But if I buy from a firm like Expansys or Clove - or even Samsung itself - I ought to feel reasonably confident about not getting a duff phone)
# As a SIM-only customer, I might be less valuable to Vodafone and get less service. (Not that I have ever called on them for much!)
If I bought outright, I would first have to wait for the current contract to end in August. However, the price of a new S7 should have come down a bit by then. Its about £570 just now. I would hope to find one for £500.
Of course, if the deal is right, I can always buy on contract again from Vodafone, and do it sooner. Taken over a 24 month span, the overall outlay is similar to an outright purchase. Vodafone's contract would work out slightly more expensive, but really there's not a lot in it. I would however have to commit to a long contract - and with it, less flexibility about how I spend my cash month by month.
So there's a clear timetable here. At the end of May or June I shall look at what kind of deal Vodafone can do for me, and take it if it's too good to resist. If I'm not tempted, then I'll review the situation again in August, and probably buy a new S7 outright from somewhere. I will simultaneously switch to SIM-only, and then dispose of my S5 to the kind of online company that will buy it from me, and sell on the valuable parts in an ecologically-good way.
And why the S7, rather than the larger and supposedly more desirable S7 Edge? On a brief handling, I've found the Edge cuts into my palm and won't be nice to hold for very long. That's the simple reason.
Well, that's going into the whole matter in an awful lot of detail! But then perhaps all this may be useful to someone in a parallel situation!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
