Well, "Elvish" in general maybe, but specifically "Tolkien's Elvish"? No. It is quite correct to say that the books exist because of the language, not the other way around. (Heck, "The Hobbit" started from the need to have a world where "Elen sila lumenn omentielmo", would be a-ok :) For Tolkien, language always came first. Most of "Qenya" (Primitive Quenya) predate all Hobbit/LotR/Silmarillion/etc. books that he wrote.

But, this is kind of Offtopic, so I'll just stop here...

That is probably wildly different from location to location. For example, here in Finland, any store is required by the law to handle any returns/warranty. The store you bought the product from is required and responsible for all exchanges and repairs the product in question needs while under warranty, to the extent that it shall not cost anything to the customer.

I have to disagree on this, to a point. Namely, I'm willing to let my current subscription to be called unlimited, with asterisk explaining limitations. No, don't yell at me yet, let me explain.

My current plan let's me download unlimited amount of data each month, no throttling, no caps. This truly is unlimited, but with an asterisk. See later.

My plan also doesn't cap my bandwith, at all, ever, but allow unlimited downloading each month, for the whole month. That, also, is truly unlimited, but with the aforementioned asterisk.

Okay, see here. The asterisk: Please note that these are limited with the current technology. The network available here is limited by the hardware and infrastructure to about 15-20Mbps, theoretical. It usually sits anywhere between four and twelve. So the amount of data, while unlimited in the meaning that no company limits your downloads, is still limited to a finite amount by limits in the hardware of the network and the device you are using. You cannot download 34579823475 TB of data each month, since the devices you own and the network provided are physically incapable of such speed that would be required for that amount of data.

If the company who sells the product/service to me does not intentionally limit the use in any way, I'm fine for them to call it "unlimited", even if it comes with an asterisk explaining the limitations of the underlying system.

Actually, not. Compare pirated games
  * need to have the crack, if game is updated you always need to wait for the newest crack for the new update before updating.
  * Looking for cracks can (and probably will) lead you to viruses and malware
  * After cracking, most games STILL only allow you to play offline only, no multiplayer functionality (or sometimes local-mp only, but that's rare).
  * Sometimes cracks do not work, or work only partially, so need to search for another, working crack (see point two).
  * you need to keep the installer around in case you re-install windows. Also remember that the crack sometimes doesn't work with the new system (32bit vs 64bit, for example.)

to, for example, Steam games, particularly the ones on sale
  * no need for any cracks, game always stays updated
  * everything perfectly legal
  * full experience: multiplayer, local and internet, singleplayer, everything.
  * Even if you reinstall, just log in to your Steam account and hit "install", wait and hit "play".

Now, if you ask me, 5 to 20 euros for that simplicity, reliability and easiness isn't that bad. I'd much rather just shell out a few bucks than spend my evening searching for and trying different cracks and installing/re-installing the game in question and afterwards waiting for that new crack for the upcoming patch...

No, they don't probably have programs running that add *no* features to the phone. BUT, the most probably do have programs running in the background that add *non-essential* features to the phone, and thus can be removed safely. And their features added back via Market/SamsungApps, if so desired.

But that "Apparently it doesnt fit though." part.. Yes, apparently that is what they say. Heck, it can even be true, but in that case, I wouldn't be caught confessing I'd be a Samsung programmer. Let's take a step back and take another (yes. bare with me) look at the RAM amounts.

HTC G1, with 192Mb RAM has a GB port and is capable of running it. Search Youtube for dozens of videos. Thus, GB can take a MAXIMUM amount of 192Mb RAM to run on (actual less, because it needs to leave ram for user applications.)
HTC Hero, with 288Mb RAM had ICS running on it, available from xda. Thus ICS can take a MAXIMUM amount of 288Mb RAM to run, etc.

Actually, I just discovered, the HTC G1, the very first Android phone, has an ICS port available with almost full functionality (rotation is quoted to not work). Thus, ICS can really only need 192Mb of RAM to work.

Do you actually, honestly believe that a multi-million company producing some of the best Android hardware and software customizations is incapable of getting ICS and TW working with a phone that has 512Mb or RAM? That TW, on top of ICS requires MORE THAN TWICE the amount of RAM it requires when running on top of GB? TW (with ICS) has a potential amount of 320Mb of RAM to play with in the SGS/Tab/W. We know that 256Mb is enough for whole of Gingerbread AND TW it becomes quite unbelievable to accept that with ICS base TW would take 1.5x the amount the former OS and TW need together.

I realize those are the max amounts of ram in the devices and that free RAM is essential to run any programs, but do the math.

I call BS on the explanation. If it is a ROM issue, the flash can be repartitioned quite easily and the devices in question have more than ample space (2Gb) for everything needed. It may be, that "it doesn't fit", but in that case TW is the most un-optimized, bloated pile of loosely-coded crap out there and everyone at Samsung should be deeply ashamed of ever admitting that. Taking a RAM dump of SGS/Tab running CM9 or the other Alpha3 ICS rom and noting down how much ram it uses is the only relatively real way to see how much ICS requires, but I don't believe for a second that the real reason why Samsung is not updating them to ICS has nothing whatsoever to do with SGS/Tab hardware, other than it being old and not netting Sammy any money from sales anymore.

True, all of that. I'm waiting for the day CM9 will be released for the Tab. (And as a bonus, I don't need to see any more of that TW.. ;)

But, barring any miracles, CM9 will still be slower than an official build by Samsung by virtue of not having HW acceleration.

Now, if Samsung went and released the source code for SGS/Tab hardware drivers... (fat chance, but that would be the best now).

No, I would prefer what HTC did with Desire. They admitted the device had too little space to fit GB and Sense fully with still space available for the customer's own programs. So they did a GB build with Sense, but removed all applications that can be downloaded via Market and a couple of Sense ones that had similar counterparts available from Market. Then, they released via their website with the tag "experimental" and had a disclaimer for users to know what that was and what it wasn't. It was only released as a RUU (Rom Update Utility) and not via OTA. So customers could choose whether to stay with Froyo and all functionality that had, or to start from a clean plate (RUU mandates a factory reset) and have GB with Sense in the knowledge that some features would be lost, but most of it could be downloaded via Market (but would take space from the rest of the apps you'd like).

I'd prefer Samsung did the same. Do an ICS build, lose as much non-essential apps that can be downloaded via Market as possible. Retain launcher and perhaps some graphical customizations, if need be remove some features that take that much memory. (again, I don't really buy that excuse.) Then release that build as an "experimental and unsupported" and put a disclaimer on it that explains what features you would lose. Don't release it via OTA and perhaps not even KIES, but as an ODIN package. That way only users who know what they are doing would get it and in any case it would be flagged as unsupported so they wouldn't have to do anything in the case of trouble.

But, I'll still continue with the memory requirement, as I think it is a load of BS.

HTC Hero, with the huge RAM amount of 288Mb does currently have a fully-functioning, if slow, build of ICS. It also has only 512Mb or ROM space. So ICS fits that 512Mb, still with space to spare for a few apps. I find it very hard to believe TW + ICS would not run an a device with 512Mb RAM (and 2Gb of ROM).

Almost, keyword 'their'. The "old hardware" (Galaxy W is ~2 months old sporting essentially the same hardware) IS capable of running any Android 4.x build out there. It is just that Samsung hasn't been able (or hasn't bothered) to get TouchWiz running on the hardware (on top of ICS). The hardware is perfectly capable and many devices are currently running some flavor of ICS with either unofficial builds available from xda, or official builds available from Google in case of Nexus S. There just isn't any ICS + TW builds out there (for those devices) and probably never will.

There are phones with lesser hardware getting ICS with their manufacturer's respective customizations and apparently those are perfectly capable of running said versions of the OS + customization.

I just can't fathom how TW, according to Samsung's reasoning, would take sooo much ram if fitted on top of ICS vs. GB.

My reasoning goes as so:

Galaxy Xcover, 256Mb RAM, perfectly capable of running GB + TW (and room for running programs)
Nexus S, 512Mb RAM, perfectly capable of running ICS (vanilla) + room for running programs.
Galaxy S/Tab, 512Mb RAM, perfectly capable of running GB + TW (room for running programs, at least 256Mb more than Xcover, due to amount)
if 256Mb is enough for programs + GB + TW, does TW on ICS really take MORE than 256Mb of ram than on GB? If you ask me, that is some sloppy programming there.

No, I don't think the HW matters that much. It is just that Sammy decided to stop "supporting" said hardware and believes people will just buy new hardware if the older is not updated to whatever the customer wants. I don't think that happens as much as they think, but that's only my opinion. I think that whatever monetary losses Sammy would've gotten from developing real ICS for SGS/Tab (and W?) would be thrice paid back by the word-of-mouth advertising of happy customers. Most specifically customers that would've trusted in Samsung and stayed with them for their next purchase. Now, many people will think twice, probably change manufacturers and the word-of-mouth "advertising power" is used to badmouth Sammy, not spread good things about them. Personally I think 'good reputation' > 'immediate monetary gain' in the long run, but, again, just my opinion.

I'm not a developer, but I think it really might've been easier to have ICS on the SGS, just because the Nexus S has ICS and is in practice the same phone. You could've used 99% of the code from Nexus S and just alter it a bit to get it to work on SGS/Tab. The real deal here is TouchWiz. Apparently Samsung's programmers are not worth their salt. The reason was that SGS/Tab wouldn't be able to run ICS+TW because it has so little RAM (only 512M). So rather than try to optimize TW to run with ICS in that 512Mb space, they decided to add more things on top of the already bloated GB+TW.

Oh, and by the way. SGS/Tab are perfectly capable of running ICS with unofficial roms, also with other launchers than vanilla.

tl:dr: Samsung felt that optimizing TW for ICS to run in less than 1Gb was not worth the money, but worth the negative backlash.

Not a wise choice, if you ask me.

There go the mod points, but what the h*ll, I must reply to this.

"Samsung ping-ponged a bit on ICS for the Galaxy-S, but it looks like they'll be go for it after all."

No, absolutely not. If you have followed the debate enough to know about the ping-ponging, you should have followed it more than enough to read that, no Samsung is NOT bringing ICS to SGS/Tab. The proposed "Value Pack" is *nothing more* than a more bloated version of GB. Android 2.3.6 to be exact, saddled with a couple of ICS-like features (Face Unlock, new lockscreen and video editor, some others) that Sammy thinks will magically make the users happy.

It is not, I repeat, NOT based on Android 4.x in any way, and thus does not bring any sort of compatibility with Android 3.x/4.x apps at all. Which, in my opinion, would have been the primary concern with the update. Perhaps not so much with SGS, but more so with the Tab that is now largely incompatible with almost all tablet-optimized software.