|
2009-04-13
, 16:27
|
Posts: 19 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on Jan 2008
|
#3
|
|
2009-04-13
, 16:34
|
Posts: 609 |
Thanked: 232 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
@ the end of my rope
|
#4
|
|
2009-04-13
, 16:40
|
Posts: 19 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on Jan 2008
|
#5
|
|
2009-04-13
, 17:51
|
Posts: 1,950 |
Thanked: 1,174 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
@ Seattle, USA
|
#6
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GeraldKo For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-04-13
, 18:02
|
Posts: 609 |
Thanked: 232 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
@ the end of my rope
|
#7
|
|
2009-04-13
, 18:03
|
Posts: 961 |
Thanked: 565 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Tyneside, North East England
|
#8
|
The Following User Says Thank You to gazza_d For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-04-13
, 18:06
|
Posts: 19 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on Jan 2008
|
#9
|
|
2009-04-13
, 18:36
|
Posts: 19 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on Jan 2008
|
#10
|
In searching here I find contradictory reports about if a re-flash gets around the problem. Some people say you still need the code, others say the code is still there but the function is turned off and they have a successful re-flash.
I would not mind re-flashing. Everything is stored or backed up elsewhere. But I don't want to end up even worse off if I am to be asked for the code when I try to re-flash.
I have an n800 which has the latest OS and updates up to last week. Something has to be changed with the way the device lock works. It's too easy to get into trouble if you have fat fingers, a fat head, or both.
Thanks, I hope.
Bonny