Google Photos will end its free unlimited storage on June 1st, 2021

[Arlen Holder]

"All photos and documents uploaded before June 1st [2021]
will not count against that 15GB cap"

"Google points out that it offers more free storage than others
you get 15GB instead of the paltry 5GB that Apple's iCloud gives you"

o Google Photos will end its free unlimited storage on June 1st, 2021
<https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/11/21560810/google-photos-unlimited-cap-free-uploads-15gb-ending>

"After five years of offering unlimited free photo backups at
high quality, Google Photos will start charging for storage once more
than 15 gigs on the account have been used.

The change will happen on June 1st, 2021, and it comes with other Google
Drive policy changes like counting Google Workspace documents and
spreadsheets against the same cap.

Google is also introducing a new policy of deleting data from inactive
accounts that haven't been logged in to for at least two years."

"Pixel owners will still be able to upload high-quality (not original)
photos for free after June 1st without those images counting against
their cap."
--
"[Judge] Gonzalez Rogers told [Apple], You can't just say it - you
actually have to have facts that support it, and you don't."

o Federal Judge Tosses Apple Counterclaims Against Fortnite Maker
<https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-apple-counterclaims-against-fortnite-maker/>

[newshound]

On 11/11/2020 19:26, Arlen Holder wrote:
> "All photos and documents uploaded before June 1st [2021]
> will not count against that 15GB cap"
>
> "Google points out that it offers more free storage than others
> you get 15GB instead of the paltry 5GB that Apple's iCloud gives you"
>
> o Google Photos will end its free unlimited storage on June 1st, 2021
> <https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/11/21560810/google-photos-unlimited-cap-free-uploads-15gb-ending>
>
> "After five years of offering unlimited free photo backups at
> high quality, Google Photos will start charging for storage once more
> than 15 gigs on the account have been used.
>
> The change will happen on June 1st, 2021, and it comes with other Google
> Drive policy changes like counting Google Workspace documents and
> spreadsheets against the same cap.
>
> Google is also introducing a new policy of deleting data from inactive
> accounts that haven't been logged in to for at least two years."
>
> "Pixel owners will still be able to upload high-quality (not original)
> photos for free after June 1st without those images counting against
> their cap."
>

Slightly annoying that MS is trying to push everything to the cloud as
well. But at least if (as I do) you use Office 365 Home, that comes with
five installations, originally a Terabyte of cloud, and now a terabyte
per installation. I shall still keep some spinning rust, though, since I
seem to come back with 10GB even from a modest outing with the Hero 9.

But I'm becoming converted to the subscription/cloud model. Having been
collecting LPs and then CDs for 55 years, I now rely almost entirely on
Spotify.

[Chris Green]

Arlen Holder <arlen_...@newmachines.com> wrote:
>
> Google is also introducing a new policy of deleting data from inactive
> accounts that haven't been logged in to for at least two years."
>

The perfect backup! :-)

--
Chris Green
·

[Alan Baker]

Combined with them mining your data to better sell you to advertisers!

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 20:48:14 +0000, Chris Green wrote:

>> Google is also introducing a new policy of deleting data from inactive
>> accounts that haven't been logged in to for at least two years."
>>
> The perfect backup! :-)

I'm with you on _not_ storing anything important or private on the net!

o iCloud backups are NOT encrypted, by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk>

o Hacker team led by 20-year-old finds 55 Apple vulnerabilities, 11 of them critical (e.g., iCloud & mac.com accounts)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/tyDx2XRVllM>

o Only a fool would need to use the cloud to transfer files to/from his own devices.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sgSv_BRzO0A>

o Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the Internet (if so, for what gain?)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/mBIZ-8jGdmk>

etc.
--
This week in the news...

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-11 2:03 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 20:48:14 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>
>>> Google is also introducing a new policy of deleting data from inactive
>>> accounts that haven't been logged in to for at least two years."
>>>
>> The perfect backup! :-)
>
> I'm with you on _not_ storing anything important or private on the net!
>
> o iCloud backups are NOT encrypted, by JF Mezei
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk>

Wrong.

Encrypted Encrypted
"Data In transit On Server

Backup Yes Yes

<https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT202303>

That's what you get for believing anything JF says.

Was the rest of your post any more accurate?

:-)

<snip>

[Brutus]

"Alan Baker" <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote in message news:rohnoj$phl$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 2020-11-11 2:03 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 20:48:14 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>>
>>>> Google is also introducing a new policy of deleting data from inactive
>>>> accounts that haven't been logged in to for at least two years."
>>>>
>>> The perfect backup! :-)

By the by Costco has a special for a Seagate 8TB outboard hard drive for $119.99....

[The Real Bev]

Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that SOMEBODY is losing money
every single time that happens!

--
Cheers, Bev
That's my opinion. Ought to be yours.

[The Real Bev]

For a while Best Buy had 8TB WD Red drives inside a USB housing for that
price or less. Maybe last Black Friday. Remove it from the housing
and you had a really nice internal drive.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 11.11.20 um 22:08 schrieb Alan Baker:

Do you know what end-to-end encyption means?

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 11.11.20 um 23:03 schrieb Arlen Holder:

> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 20:48:14 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>
>>> Google is also introducing a new policy of deleting data from inactive
>>> accounts that haven't been logged in to for at least two years."
>>>
>> The perfect backup! :-)
>
> I'm with you on _not_ storing anything important or private on the net!
>
> o iCloud backups are NOT encrypted, by JF Mezei
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk>
>
> o Hacker team led by 20-year-old finds 55 Apple vulnerabilities, 11 of them critical (e.g., iCloud & mac.com accounts)
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/tyDx2XRVllM>
>
> o Only a fool would need to use the cloud to transfer files to/from his own devices.
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sgSv_BRzO0A>
>
> o Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the Internet (if so, for what gain?)
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/mBIZ-8jGdmk>

You urgently need professional help from a psychiatrist.

[Alan Baker]

Do you trust Google?

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 12.11.20 um 08:54 schrieb Alan Baker:

> On 2020-11-11 11:07 p.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Do you know what end-to-end encyption means?
>>
>
> Do you trust Google?

You don't know what it means.

[Alan Baker]

I do know what it means.

But I also know you must trust the provider of the encryption not to
have produced a back door...

'Is Google Drive secure?

When you upload your files, they are encrypted using 256-bit SSL/TLS
encryption. But when the data arrives at Google, it is decrypted for a bit.

Google decrypts the files to scan through them before it re-encrypts and
stores them. This opens your data to two risks:

Your files are being read by Google. As you already know, Google
harvests your data for its own purposes. So while Google might be
keeping your files secure, they are certainly not private.'

<https://www.allthingssecured.com/tips/how-secure-is-google-drive/>

And if that isn't enough:

'Rights

This license allows Google to:

host, reproduce, distribute, communicate, and use your content — for
example, to save your content on our systems and make it accessible from
anywhere you go

publish, publicly perform, or publicly display your content, if you’ve
made it visible to others

modify and create derivative works based on your content, such as
reformatting or translating it

sublicense these rights to:

other users to allow the services to work as designed, such as enabling
you to share photos with people you choose

our contractors who’ve signed agreements with us that are consistent
with these terms, only for the limited purposes described in the Purpose
section below

Purpose

This license is for the limited purpose of:

operating and improving the services, which means allowing the services
to work as designed and creating new features and functionalities. This
includes using automated systems and algorithms to analyze your content:
for spam, malware, and illegal content

to recognize patterns in data, such as determining when to suggest a new
album in Google Photos to keep related photos together

to customize our services for you, such as providing recommendations and
personalized search results, content, and ads (which you can change or
turn off in Ads Settings)

This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is
stored.'

<https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en>

How can they do any of that if they're not reading your content?

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 12.11.20 um 13:50 schrieb Alan Baker:

> On 2020-11-12 1:02 a.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 12.11.20 um 08:54 schrieb Alan Baker:
>>> On 2020-11-11 11:07 p.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Do you know what end-to-end encyption means?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you trust Google?
>>
>> You don't know what it means.
>>
>
> I do know what it means.
>
> But I also know you must trust the provider of the encryption not to
> have produced a back door...
>
> 'Is Google Drive secure?

You have to ask yourself why you are using Android in the first place.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:15:24 -0800, Brutus wrote:

> By the by Costco has a special for a Seagate 8TB outboard hard drive for $119.99....

Funny thing you mention the Costco special of a few months ago & this month

I have both the Costco Seagate 5GB & 8GB external drive.
o For some reason, the 8GB drive _requires_ its own 12VDC power to work.

For the life of me, I can't understand why.
o I get it that the 8GB drive has bells & whistles (powered USB ports).

But why couldn't they design it to work off of the desktop USB also?

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:11:39 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> You urgently need professional help from a psychiatrist.

Thank you, yet again, for proving me correct about Apple apologists.
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

Apologists like Joerg often attack the _person_ who bears facts because
facts are literally a _danger_ to their imaginary belief systems about
Apple products.
o Facts instantly _destroy_ imaginary belief systems built by MARKETING

Jeorg, like all Apple apologists, has no adult defense to facts.
o That's why Joerg attacks me, the person, simply because I bear facts

o Whether they are Type I, Type II, or Type III Apple apologists
Apple apologists have no _adult_ response to facts

Joerg just proved it - which is why apologists hate me
o They can't stand that I speak facts about Apple products

NOTE: I speak facts about all products; it's only that Apple newsgroups are
filled to the brim with these Type I, Type II, and Type III apologists.
o Type I apologists (e.g., nospam) defend Apple MARKETING to the core
o Type II apologists (e.g., sms) believe MARKETING sans fact checking
o Type III apologists (e.g., Joerg) self identify as Apple cultists

Joerg Lorenz is an Apple apologist of the Type III category
o Joerg is a cultist whose very self worth is tied to Apple MARKETING

These Type III apologists (e.g., Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK, Chris et al.)
viciously attack the _bearer_ of facts because facts are a danger to them.

The adults on this newsgroup will note that my facts are _never_ wrong
o That's not because I'm smart (I'm just average in intelligence)

It's because I do not bullshit (like Type I apologists, e.g., nospam)
o And because I _check_ my facts (unlike Type II apologists, e.g., sms)

In two decades of posting scores of posts a day to Usenet nobody has ever
even once found my facts to be materially wrong.

What Apologists like Joerg can't stand are my assessments of those facts

But what these apologists don't realize is that _everyone_ who is logical
and reasonable assesses those facts the _same_ way that I do.

What these apologists really can't stand is they have no defense to facts.

[123456789]

Alan Baker wrote:

> 'Is Google Drive secure?

> Your files are being read by Google. As you already know, Google
> harvests your data for its own purposes. So while Google might be
> keeping your files secure, they are certainly not private.'

I do my own local encryption of sensitive files before I upload them to
Google Drive using an old version of FolderLatch.exe. Probably wouldn't
pass CIA muster but still makes me feel better. I don't do non-sensitive
stuff like photos. That way they're always available to bore people with
no matter which device I'm carrying...

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 15:37:41 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

>> I do know what it means.
>>
>> But I also know you must trust the provider of the encryption not to
>> have produced a back door...
>>
>> 'Is Google Drive secure?
>
> You have to ask yourself why you are using Android in the first place.

For the _adults_ on this newsgroup...
o This conversation between two known Type III apologists is revealing!

The first, presumably Alan Baker (whom I have killfiled, which is rare for
me, since very few people do I plonk even after decades on Usenet) believes
Apple MARKETING but not what is reported reliably in the media on cloud
storage:

o iCloud backups are NOT encrypted, by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk>

The second, Joerg Lorenz, seems to be intimating that iOS is, somehow,
magically "safer" simply because Apple paints entire sides of buildings
claiming that case (where the facts show that iOS is no safer than Android
is):
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems? <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs>

It's funny because _both_ apologists only believe Apple MARKETING.
o They're utterly immune to actual facts

Both self identify with the image that Apple portrays
o Which is why they're utterly immune to even the simplest of basic facts.
--

[Arlen Holder]

*Everything put to the iCloud is read _and_ analyzed by Apple*
o Some of that is _automatically_ sent to law enforcement, unencrypted.

Read details here from Apple owners themselves (i.e., it's not my thread):
o *iCloud backups are _NOT_ encrypted*, by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk>

BTW, it's hilarious that anyone is responding to Alan Baker, who, like
Joerg Lorenz, has proven time and again to be Dunning Kruger Quadrant 1
(i.e., both incredibly ignorant & incredibly confident at the same time).

Essentially, all Type III apologists like Joerg & Alan believe _only_ what
Apple MARKETING has fed them to believe, which they equate to their self
worth system (which is why they're utterly immune to facts, no matter
what).

o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

Note in that thread that it's incomprehensible that _anyone_ could be as
ignorant as Alan Baker proved he was, and Joerg Lorenz did the same thing
when he claimed all facts that were not reported in German media (e.g.,
anything from the BBC) were wrong. (I don't have a link to that thread as
I'd have to dig it up as it wasn't my thread so it's buried there but if he
wants to challenge me on the facts, I will dig it up & he knows that).
--
Apple takes away functionality from users so they can then sell it back.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:49:11 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> *Everything put to the iCloud is read _and_ analyzed by Apple*
> o Some of that is _automatically_ sent to law enforcement, unencrypted.

Ooops. That was supposed to be "manually" sent to LE (i.e., the metadata
analysis performed _automatically_ by Apple on all your iCloud uploads).

More details in this long Apple owners' thread (i.e., I didn't author it):

[Frank Slootweg]

To be fair, Google has recently (some months ago?) informed its users
- well, it at least informed me - to set up a 'Plan what happens to your
data if you can't use your Google Account anymore'. It's actually a
quite elaborate facility which accounts for all kinds of contingencies.

Have a look at the 'Inactive Account Manager' in your account.

<https://myaccount.google.com/inactive>

(You get there from the main page -> 'Data & Personalisation' ->
'Download, delete or make a plan for your data' -> 'Make a plan for your
account')

[Alan Baker]

I'm not.

I choose to use products from a company that makes its money by...

...selling the hardware.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-12 8:28 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 15:37:41 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>>> I do know what it means.
>>>
>>> But I also know you must trust the provider of the encryption not to
>>> have produced a back door...
>>>
>>> 'Is Google Drive secure?
>>
>> You have to ask yourself why you are using Android in the first place.
>
> For the _adults_ on this newsgroup...
> o This conversation between two known Type III apologists is revealing!
>
> The first, presumably Alan Baker (whom I have killfiled, which is rare for
> me, since very few people do I plonk even after decades on Usenet) believes
> Apple MARKETING but not what is reported reliably in the media on cloud
> storage:
> o iCloud backups are NOT encrypted, by JF Mezei
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk>

JF Mezei is "the media"?

iCloud backups ARE encrypted...

...but Apple also has a key.

'The question even came up in a Speigle interview with Apple's CEO, Tim
Cook, translated by Google:

"Our users have a key there, and we have one. We do this because some
users lose or forget their key and then expect help from us to get their
data back. It is difficult to estimate when we will change this
practice. But I think that in the future it will be regulated like the
devices. We will therefore no longer have a key for this in the future."'

<https://www.imore.com/apples-icloud-backup-plans-and-fbi>

Apple being able to decrypt iCloud backups is not them not being
encrypted at all.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-12 8:49 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:19:11 -0700, 123456789 wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>> 'Is Google Drive secure?
>>
>>> Your files are being read by Google. As you already know, Google
>>> harvests your data for its own purposes. So while Google might be
>>> keeping your files secure, they are certainly not private.'
>>
>> I do my own local encryption of sensitive files before I upload them to
>> Google Drive using an old version of FolderLatch.exe. Probably wouldn't
>> pass CIA muster but still makes me feel better. I don't do non-sensitive
>> stuff like photos. That way they're always available to bore people with
>> no matter which device I'm carrying...
>
> *Everything put to the iCloud is read _and_ analyzed by Apple*
> o Some of that is _automatically_ sent to law enforcement, unencrypted.

Cite, please!

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-12 8:55 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:49:11 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> *Everything put to the iCloud is read _and_ analyzed by Apple*
>> o Some of that is _automatically_ sent to law enforcement, unencrypted.
>
> Ooops. That was supposed to be "manually" sent to LE (i.e., the metadata
> analysis performed _automatically_ by Apple on all your iCloud uploads).

So you made a factual error...

...as you can hardly claim that "automatically" was just a typo.

:-)

[Paul]

The 8TB drive is 3.5".

The power requirements are 12V for motor, 5V for logic.

3.5" drives are available up to 14TB or so in capacity
(at least, at your nearest retailer you might find them).
Some of the larger ones than that, are only intended
for data centers (host managed versus drive managed).

The 5TB drive is a 2.5". It's the largest 2.5"
they make. It runs off 5V only. 5V for motor, 5V for logic.
Generally 2.5" drives try to draw no more than 1 ampere,
and this occurs during spinup. The current consumed on
the small 15mm tall 2.5" drives, drops back once they're
up to speed.

The 2.5" drives come in a variety of heights. 7mm & 9.5mm
is useful in a laptop. The laptop bay is not big
enough to support 15mm drives. The 15mm drives were
made specifically for usage in portable external
enclosures. It's also why you don't tend to find
much information on 15mm ones, since they're not
intended to be sold as "raw" drives at retail.
As they don't fit in laptops, and nobody wants
a steady stream of customers bringing raw 15mm
drives back for a refund because they don't fit.

External drives have a USB connector. Some drives used
in such devices, the USB connector is part of the drive,
and the drive cannot be "shucked" and removed for usage
inside a SATA computer. Other external drives, there is a
separate controller board which converts SATA protocol
to USB protocol. Those sorts of drives can be taken
apart and the disk reused. It's possible the 8TB Seagate
mentioned, a 3.5", can be removed from the enclosure and
reused. The warranty is likely void if the drive is
used in this way (outside of its housing). Running the
drive serial number on the warranty page, will show the
drive itself in the bare state, has no warranty. The number
on the housing could indicate a valid warranty exists for
the entire item.

Paul

[sms]

Be careful doing that these days. Some of the external drives have the
USB controller built onto the PCB with no SATA interface available to
the user.

[Ant]

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
...

> iCloud backups ARE encrypted...

> ...but Apple also has a key.

> 'The question even came up in a Speigle interview with Apple's CEO, Tim
> Cook, translated by Google:

> "Our users have a key there, and we have one. We do this because some
> users lose or forget their key and then expect help from us to get their
> data back. It is difficult to estimate when we will change this
> practice. But I think that in the future it will be regulated like the
> devices. We will therefore no longer have a key for this in the future."'

> <https://www.imore.com/apples-icloud-backup-plans-and-fbi>

> Apple being able to decrypt iCloud backups is not them not being
> encrypted at all.

I'm not even surprised. :(
--
Life's so loco! ..!.. *isms, sins, hates, (d)evil, tiredness, z, my body, illnesses (e.g., COVID-19 & SARS-CoV-2), deaths (RIP), heat, interruptions, issues, conflicts, obstacles, stresses, fires, out(r)ages, dramas, unlucky #4, 2020, greeds, bugs (e.g., crashes & female mosquitoes), etc. D:
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

[Ant]

Ugh. Is there a list of USB HDDs that have and don't have SATA interfaces?

[nospam]

In article <n-2dnW6Q9q7UPDDC...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> > > For a while Best Buy had 8TB WD Red drives inside a USB housing for that
> > > price or less.  Maybe last Black Friday.   Remove it from the housing
> > > and you had a really nice internal drive.
>
> > Be careful doing that these days. Some of the external drives have the
> > USB controller built onto the PCB with no SATA interface available to
> > the user.
>
> Ugh. Is there a list of USB HDDs that have and don't have SATA interfaces?

check the relevant disk drive forums. it's mainly a few 2.5" drives.

[geoff]

Maybe because the current requirements are beyond USBs spec ?

geoff

[geoff]

Not to mention Voltage ...

geoff

[Big Al]

On 11/11/20 2:26 PM, this is what Arlen Holder wrote:
> "All photos and documents uploaded before June 1st [2021]
> will not count against that 15GB cap"
>
> "Google points out that it offers more free storage than others
> you get 15GB instead of the paltry 5GB that Apple's iCloud gives you"
>
> o Google Photos will end its free unlimited storage on June 1st, 2021
> <https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/11/21560810/google-photos-unlimited-cap-free-uploads-15gb-ending>
>
> "After five years of offering unlimited free photo backups at
> high quality, Google Photos will start charging for storage once more
> than 15 gigs on the account have been used.
>
> The change will happen on June 1st, 2021, and it comes with other Google
> Drive policy changes like counting Google Workspace documents and
> spreadsheets against the same cap.

>
> Google is also introducing a new policy of deleting data from inactive
> accounts that haven't been logged in to for at least two years."
>

> "Pixel owners will still be able to upload high-quality (not original)
> photos for free after June 1st without those images counting against
> their cap."
>
How-to-Geek had an interesting article today about how to download ALL of your google info. It was specifically talking about your google
photos, but you can also download a bunch of other things. Email happened to be another.

takeout.google.com

But here's the link.
https://www.howtogeek.com/695839/how-to-export-your-google-photos-library/

I downloaded all of my google photos in a zip file. I don't have many and it didn't take but 3-4 minutes. You get an email with a link to
download the zip when it's done.

Al

--
Linux Mint Cinnamon 19.3 64bit, Dell Inspiron 5570, Quad Core i7-8550U, 16G Memory

[Ant]

Which ones? Maybe someone should do the same in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage and comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage
newsgroups too which I prefer!

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-12 12:09 p.m., Ant wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> ...
>> iCloud backups ARE encrypted...
>
>> ...but Apple also has a key.
>
>> 'The question even came up in a Speigle interview with Apple's CEO, Tim
>> Cook, translated by Google:
>
>> "Our users have a key there, and we have one. We do this because some
>> users lose or forget their key and then expect help from us to get their
>> data back. It is difficult to estimate when we will change this
>> practice. But I think that in the future it will be regulated like the
>> devices. We will therefore no longer have a key for this in the future."'
>
>> <https://www.imore.com/apples-icloud-backup-plans-and-fbi>
>
>> Apple being able to decrypt iCloud backups is not them not being
>> encrypted at all.
>
> I'm not even surprised. :(
>

Neither am I... ...but I'm also not concerned about.

Apple's business model doesn't revolve around monetizing information
about its customers.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:25:51 -0500, Paul wrote:

> The 8TB drive is 3.5".
> The power requirements are 12V for motor, 5V for logic.
>

> The 5TB drive is a 2.5". It's the largest 2.5"
> they make. It runs off 5V only. 5V for motor, 5V for logic.

Hi Paul,

Regarding
o 5TB Costco Item #3005555 P/N 2R2AY1-570 (STHP5000600 on sticker)
o 8TB Costco Item #8888881 P/N 1XAAY5-570 (STEL800401 on sticker)

Here are photos I just snapped for you of the two Costco drives:
o <https://i.postimg.cc/MpjQMNM7/hdd01.jpg> size & weight difference
o <https://i.postimg.cc/5tdFwgLZ/hdd02.jpg> Costco packaging
o <https://i.postimg.cc/76XGrydk/hdd03.jpg> Model numbers

Thanks for that purposefully helpful information where I must comment that
the sheer physical size & weight difference of these two Seagate devices is
immense.
o The 5TB Seagate drive weighs a puny 7 1/4 ounces all alone
o The 8TB Seagate drive weighs a whopping 30 1/2 ounces all alone
<https://i.postimg.cc/MpjQMNM7/hdd01.jpg>

Side by side the sheer physical size difference is also huge:
o <https://i.postimg.cc/5tdFwgLZ/hdd02.jpg>

These are the respective model numbers of the two hard drives:
o 8TB Seagate Backup Plus Hub P/N 1XAAP3-500 [aka Model SRD0PV1] 12VDC, 1A
o 12VDC 3.0A Schenzhen Honor Model ADS-40J-12 12036EPCU Switching Adapter
o 5TB Seagate Backup Plus Portable P/N 2R2APM-505
o <https://i.postimg.cc/76XGrydk/hdd03.jpg>

What I love about the 5TB is it doesn't require an additional 12VDC power
supply, which means, I would think, perhaps, maybe, it's more likely to
work in a decade or so, but I'm not sure of the correct logic on that.

Which is more likely to work in a decade or two from now?

> The 2.5" drives come in a variety of heights. 7mm & 9.5mm
> is useful in a laptop. The laptop bay is not big
> enough to support 15mm drives.

I do not know how tall the 5TB drive is, inside.

> External drives have a USB connector. Some drives used
> in such devices, the USB connector is part of the drive,
> and the drive cannot be "shucked" and removed for usage
> inside a SATA computer.

The possibility of being "shucked" makes a difference because we want this
drive to work in a decade or two from now.

> Running the
> drive serial number on the warranty page, will show the
> drive itself in the bare state, has no warranty. The number
> on the housing could indicate a valid warranty exists for
> the entire item.

1. I went to the Seagate warranty page
<https://www.seagate.com/support/warranty-and-replacements/>

2. I enter the 8-character serial number from the Costco sticker.

3. Your Product = Backup Plus Portable <== this is the 5TB
Model Number = STHP5000600
Serial Number = xxxxxxxx
Warranty Valid Until November 29, 2021

Your Product = Backup Plus HUB <== this is the 8TB
Model Number = STEL8000401
Serial Number = xxxxxxxx
Warranty Valid Until October 10, 2022

I'm not so much worried about warranty as I am the basic stone cold logic
of which drive is most likely to be still working a decade or two from now.
--
On Windows newsgroups everyone is always helpful even if we don't like M$.

[Alan Baker]

If you're depending on a hard drive to be working a decade or more from
now, you're an even bigger fool than I thought.

[nospam]

In article <iOmdnfEOzu7SKDDC...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> > >
> > > Ugh. Is there a list of USB HDDs that have and don't have SATA interfaces?
>
> > check the relevant disk drive forums. it's mainly a few 2.5" drives.
>
> Which ones? Maybe someone should do the same in
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage and comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage
> newsgroups too which I prefer!

there's a couple of reddit subs about shucking and it gets discussed on
other hardware related forums too.

the easiest way is search on the part number.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 14:09:46 -0600, Ant wrote:

>> Apple being able to decrypt iCloud backups is not them not being
>> encrypted at all.
>
> I'm not even surprised. :(

Hi Ant,

It's demeaning for me to even have to explain this to you about Alan Baker.

You're not an apologist so I have to warn you that you're dealing with Alan
Baker, who is so incomprehensibly stupid that it's hard to fathom people
like that actually exist (i.e., classic Dunning Kruger Quadrant 1).

Given Alan Baker is an Apple Type III apologist par excellence, his entire
self worth is wrapped up in Apple MARKETING mantra, such that he can't
comprehend that Apple routinely decrypts _every_ single file uploaded.

Alan Baker is so stupid that he claims this isn't the case where it's easy
to prove Alan never even read the thread's cites, all of which come from
extremely reliable sources (and which Apple themselves do not deny).

My main caution in telling you this is that if you try to interact with
Alan Baker, you have to realize almost everything, if not every single
thing he claims, is always dead wrong.

All the Type III apologists are that petrifyingly stupid, sadly to say.

o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

Having gone to the best schools in this country, and having retired from
decades of Silicon Valley startups, I would have thought people as
petrifyingly shockingly unbelievably stupid as Alan Baker _always_ proves
to be would have been worked out of the species by now.

Rest assured, nothing Alan claims is ever correct - he simply denies
everything he doesn't like _without_ even reading _any_ of the cites.

Read the thread from JF Mezei (which contains _plenty_ of reliable sources)
and make up your own mind - but please don't insult the rest of us by
responding to Alan Baker as if a single thing he has ever said is fact.

Just don't.
It's demeaning for me to even have to explain this to you about Alan Baker.
--
This week in the news November 12, 2020:

[Arlen Holder]

On 12 Nov 2020 22:47:47 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> I'm not even surprised. :(
>

> There's nothing "surprising" or even "concerning" about it. It's yet
> another lame non-issue raised by clueless Apple haters.

IMHO, Apple sold their customers' privacy down the river to Google.

Do any of these Type III apologists (e.g., Joerg Lorenz, Alan Baker, Lewis,
Jolly Roger, et al.) notice that about a fifth of Apple's total revenue is
from selling out their customers to Google (which is also Google's _largest
single payment yearly)?

Details here:
o Google Pays Apple $8-12 Billion Per Year to be Default iOS Search Engine
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/yU6d7f670Ho>

"Apple now receives an estimated $8 billion to $12 billion in annual
payments, up from $1 billion a year in 2014, in exchange for
building Google's search engine into its products."

"It is probably the single biggest payment that Google makes to anyone
and accounts for 14 to 21 percent of Apple's annual profits."

o Apple, Google and a Deal That Controls the Internet
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/technology/apple-google-search-antitrust.html>
--
Bringing FACTS to all the Usenet ngs, even the child-like Apple newsgroups.

[Arlen Holder]

On 12 Nov 2020 19:59:21 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>>> *Everything put to the iCloud is read _and_ analyzed by Apple*
>>> o Some of that is _automatically_ sent to law enforcement, unencrypted.
>>
>> Cite, please!
>

> You'll get no objective evidence to back up this asinine assertion,
> because: troll.

o Apple has confirmed it's automatically scanning images backed up to iCloud
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VkODI4K1SC8>

Adults on this newsgroup will note that all these Type III Apple
Apologists, e.g., Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, etc.,
literally _hate_ what Apple does so much they deny all facts about Apple.

o Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT>

Like flat earth cultists, Type III apologists simply deny the facts exist.

o Apple scans photos to check for child abuse
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/01/08/apple-scans-icloud-photos-check-child-abuse/>

And yet, the facts exist to all but the apologists (as usual).
o Apple doesn't even dispute those facts.

It's only the Apple Apologists (who didn't even read the thread) who
dispute the facts were indisputable in the cites (Apple said they do it).

Details here (which the Type III apologists deny sans even reading):
o iCloud backups are NOT encrypted, by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk>

Note: That thread contains the cites to reliable sources that the
apologists are clueless about because these Type III apologists are in
Quadrant I Dunning Kruger (they don't need any facts to form their belief
system which they're so very sure of, and yet, they're always dead wrong).
--
The Apple apologists simply deny all facts about Apple they don't like.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect they _hate_ what Apple is so by denying facts, they can maintain
their purely imaginary belief systems intact (like flat earth cultists).

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 09:01:42 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> UPDATE (dated today):
> o Search warrant shows how Apple tackles [scanning] images on iCloud and email
> <https://9to5mac.com/2020/02/11/child-abuse-images/>
>
> This article has additional details as to what Apple's process might be.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-12 4:11 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2020 19:59:21 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>>> *Everything put to the iCloud is read _and_ analyzed by Apple*
>>>> o Some of that is _automatically_ sent to law enforcement, unencrypted.
>>>
>>> Cite, please!
>>
>> You'll get no objective evidence to back up this asinine assertion,
>> because: troll.
>
> o Apple has confirmed it's automatically scanning images backed up to iCloud
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VkODI4K1SC8>

Even if you're correct about them scanning images, images are hardly
"everything".

Oh, and your source explicitly says they're not "reading" your photos,
but applying a hashing function to compare them against the hashes of
known images of child sexual abuse:

'Since 2008, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
(NCMEC) has made available a list of hash values for known child sexual
abuse images, provided by ISPs, that enables companies to check large
volumes of files for matches without those companies themselves having
to keep copies of offending images.'

And they're doing so while keeping the images themselves encrypted:

'Recent advances in encryption and hashing mean that technologies like
PhotoDNA can operate within a service with end-to-end encryption.
Certain types of encryption algorithms, known as partially or fully
homomorphic, can perform image hashing on encrypted data. This means
that images in encrypted messages can be checked against known harmful
material without Facebook or anyone else being able to decrypt the
image. This analysis provides no information about an image’s contents,
preserving privacy, unless it is a known image of child sexual abuse.'

You lose.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-12 4:11 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On 12 Nov 2020 22:47:47 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> I'm not even surprised. :(
>>
>> There's nothing "surprising" or even "concerning" about it. It's yet
>> another lame non-issue raised by clueless Apple haters.
>
> IMHO, Apple sold their customers' privacy down the river to Google.

Note the way Arlen has snipped that this sub-thread was about encryption
of iCloud backups...

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-12 4:17 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 09:01:42 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> UPDATE (dated today):
>> o Search warrant shows how Apple tackles [scanning] images on iCloud and email
>> <https://9to5mac.com/2020/02/11/child-abuse-images/>
>>
>> This article has additional details as to what Apple's process might be.
>
> On 12 Nov 2020 19:59:21 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>>> *Everything put to the iCloud is read _and_ analyzed by Apple*
>>>> o Some of that is _automatically_ sent to law enforcement, unencrypted.
>>>
>>> Cite, please!
>>
>> You'll get no objective evidence to back up this asinine assertion,
>> because: troll.
>
> o Apple has confirmed it's automatically scanning images backed up to
> iCloud
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/VkODI4K1SC8>

A lie.

Plain and simple.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:21:03 -0600, Ant wrote:

> Which ones? Maybe someone should do the same in
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage and comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage
> newsgroups too which I prefer!

See also this thread:
o Comparison of the hundred dollar Costco Seagate 5TB USB & 8TB USB HDD on sale now
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage/c/nXXYOAypvqs>

In these dejagoogle archives:
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-hardware-storage>
o <https://tinyurl.com/sys-ibm-pc-hardware-storage> (30 char limit)

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:58:57 -0500, Big Al wrote:

> How-to-Geek had an interesting article today about how to download ALL of your google info.

Hi Big Al,

Thanks for being purposefully helpful, and for knowing what you're talking
about, which is a rarity since the Apple newsgroups are on this thread.

I took the liberty of updating this thread with your helpful information,
so that, as always, everyone benefits from every action taken on Usenet.

o Tutorial on how to delete all information on Google servers that was backed up from your Android phone
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/On7_okP39ms>

While that nascent tutorial is intended to help Android users _not_ use
Google sync and Google apps, note that it applies to anyone who has a
Google Account who wants to clean up what Google stores on them.
--
See also this nascent thread on removing Google from Android:
o List of one-to-one replacement freeware for each of the current score of Android Google apps
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/IPorNMcyP3g>

[Paul]

Ant wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <n-2dnW6Q9q7UPDDC...@earthlink.com>, Ant
>> <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
>>>>> For a while Best Buy had 8TB WD Red drives inside a USB housing for that
>>>>> price or less. Maybe last Black Friday. Remove it from the housing
>>>>> and you had a really nice internal drive.
>>>> Be careful doing that these days. Some of the external drives have the
>>>> USB controller built onto the PCB with no SATA interface available to
>>>> the user.
>>> Ugh. Is there a list of USB HDDs that have and don't have SATA interfaces?
>
>> check the relevant disk drive forums. it's mainly a few 2.5" drives.
>
> Which ones? Maybe someone should do the same in
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage and comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage
> newsgroups too which I prefer!

The 15mm thick 2.5" drives for a start.

There's no reason for them to have a SATA connector,
because they're not to be offered to the retail
market as internal drives.

Those are an orphan product used only within 2.5"
external drives.

The 3.5" drives are still "suitable" for usage in
external housings or as raw drive mechanisms for
the retail market.

The 8TB drive in question, has a visual hint. It has
two USB connectors on the front. And one USB on the back.
This suggests a separate PCB to house the hub function.
It makes sense then, to also have a SATA to USB function
on the (separate) adapter board too (hub chip, converter chip).

But before getting too excited, the seagate drive is:

1) SMR (the good kind is PMR)
2) 120MB/sec ("hello to year 2007" or so, this is the SMR rate)
3) *Could* have aggressive spindown behavior.
Requires a tester to test. Without spindown the
drive could overheat.

Paul

[nospam]

In article <rol04t$9i3$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid>
wrote:

> >>> Ugh. Is there a list of USB HDDs that have and don't have SATA interfaces?
> >
> >> check the relevant disk drive forums. it's mainly a few 2.5" drives.
> >
> > Which ones? Maybe someone should do the same in
> > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage and comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage
> > newsgroups too which I prefer!
>
> The 15mm thick 2.5" drives for a start.

nope. they're sata.

> There's no reason for them to have a SATA connector,
> because they're not to be offered to the retail
> market as internal drives.

wrong on that too.

<https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-BarraCuda-Internal-2-5-Inch-ST5000LM000/
dp/B01M0AADIX>

> Those are an orphan product used only within 2.5"
> external drives.

nope.

they work perfectly fine in desktops (usually with a 3.5" adapter).

most external enclosures are not thick enough for a 15mm drive,
although there are some.

it will also work in a drive dock.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 12.11.20 um 19:17 schrieb Alan Baker:
> On 2020-11-12 6:37 a.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> You have to ask yourself why you are using Android in the first place.
>>
>
> I'm not.
>
> I choose to use products from a company that makes its money by...
>
> ....selling the hardware.
>
> :-)
It is not rational to trust Apple more than Google. We see what can
happen in the US. I don't want to have my important and confidential
data on servers where US-"authorities" have potential access.

There is a good reason why the European High Court killed the treaty
between the US and the European Union as far as data privacy and
protection is concerned.

[Mayayana]

"Joerg Lorenz" <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote

| > I choose to use products from a company that makes its money by...
| > ....selling the hardware.
| >

| It is not rational to trust Apple more than Google. We see what can
| happen in the US. I don't want to have my important and confidential
| data on servers where US-"authorities" have potential access.
|

Is Apple in the US? I thought they were based in China
and the Cayman Islands. If you've got a country that
allows slavery and another that allows tax evasion, why
would you want to be based in the US?

Though I saw an interview awhile back with Timmy
Cook, in which he was challenged about mistreatment of
Asian workers and building iPhones in Asia (so that Apple
can make the most possible profit when they service their
US addicts at the Apple Church Urgent Care Clinics).
Cook gushed that iPhones are "made by the whole world",
listing various locations that supply various parts. He's
so sweet. :)

I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
We'll send you all some shiny toys
You send all cash to me...

[nospam]

In article <rom3n9$nvr$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | > I choose to use products from a company that makes its money by...
> | > ....selling the hardware.
> | >
>
> | It is not rational to trust Apple more than Google. We see what can
> | happen in the US. I don't want to have my important and confidential
> | data on servers where US-"authorities" have potential access.
> |
>
> Is Apple in the US? I thought they were based in China
> and the Cayman Islands.

you thought wrong.

> If you've got a country that
> allows slavery and another that allows tax evasion, why
> would you want to be based in the US?

apple does neither.

in fact, apple just cut off one of their suppliers due to labor law
violations.

<https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/9/21556154/apple-supplier-pegatron-stu
dent-labor-violation>
Apple has cut off major supplier Pegatron from new contracts
following the reveal of student labor violations at some of the
Taiwanese manufacturer零 China-based facilities. Bloomberg
reports that Apple found Pegatron to be falsifying paperwork
in order to cover up violations of Apple零 code of conduct for
suppliers.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 13.11.20 um 15:03 schrieb Mayayana:

> Is Apple in the US?

Legally yes.

We hav seen the turmoil with Miscrosoft and the data stored physically
in Ireland. The US blackmailed M$.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> See also this thread:
> o Comparison of the hundred dollar Costco Seagate 5TB USB & 8TB USB HDD on sale now
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage/c/nXXYOAypvqs>
>
> In these dejagoogle archives:
> o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-hardware-storage>
> o <https://tinyurl.com/sys-ibm-pc-hardware-storage> (30 char limit)

We have a response in those thread, but people forget these are _backup_
drives, which I guess I wasn't clear about, where _elapsed_ time is what
matters, not spinning time.

Here's the response verbatim just now....

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:12:02 -0600, jer...@juno.com wrote:

>>Which is more likely to work in a decade or two from now?
>

> Neither. Rotating drives wear out over time. So do SSDs. If an SSD is
> not used much, it could last longer--but I would not rely on it.
> Expect to replace any drive (with today's technology) within 5-7
> years.

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for trying to help, where I apologize that _time_ is the issue.
o Not rotation time.

The drives will likely have fewer than 100 hours on them in 25 years.

While I completely understand your answer, you have to remember these
drives are _external_ drives, connected via USB, for _backup_ purposes.

Hence, rotation time isn't an issue in and of itself.
o Elapsed time is the issue (and technology changes).

Given how standards change, and the fact the 2.5 inch "portable" drive
isn't the same mechanics as the 3.5 inch "hub", and given SATA connections
and other changes over time, the question is simply one of how to choose
between them.

I apologize for not being clear that rotation time is never the issue for
backup drives (which are only connected once every few months, and even
then, for only a few hours at a time).

What matters is the technology changes that may likely occur over time, and
the reliability of the equipment over long periods of elapsed time in
storage.

I'm not so much worried about spinning time as I am the basic stone cold

logic of which drive is most likely to be still working a decade or two

from now after being stored (and while technology changes over time)?

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 13.11.20 um 01:19 schrieb Alan Baker:

Stop feeding this sick Troll.

[Paul]

It's finally got a datasheet. This is proof of the possibility
of not getting a shuck or a pull. So they've changed their business plan.

Now all you have to do, is find a legitimate seller selling
real fresh product with an actual valid warranty. A non-shuck
for $230 USD ? So I should be able to find this on my local
computer store website (which is not a bazaar seller).
And my computer store does have a listing, for $270 CDN,
which means the US price should be quite a bit lower
(like less than $230).

https://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/barracuda-fam/barracuda-new/files/barracuda-2-5-ds1907-1-1609us.pdf

5TB

140MB/sec

5400RPM

Startup 5V @ 1.2A <=== a little high
Read 1.9W
Write 2.1W
Idle 1.1W

15mm

And this is an example of a serious but weird offering. I've
never heard of a thing like this before, a 2.5" drive with
both 12V and 5V power. It's suggestive of maybe the same
platters being used.

https://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/enterprise-hdd-fam/enterprise-capacity-2-5-hdd/en-us/docs/ent-capacity-2-5-hdd-ds1719-8-1602gb.pdf

2TB (no larger ones listed)

136MB/sec

7200RPM

Power Supply Requirements +12 V and +5 V !!!

Startup ?
Read 5.22W
Write ?
Idle ?

15mm 70mm x 100mm x 15mm

So you are correct Nospam, a leopard can change its spots.
Just be careful who you buy those from, so you don't
get some old stock. My local store sells them, but
has no local stock so would likely be ordering them
in. Not that I'm particularly attracted to a $270 CDN price
but still, if you wanted one, it's there. I don't
have an adapter to put something like that in a desktop.
Usually, it's an SSD if it is that size and you can just
lay the SSDs anywhere in the desktop. All my SSDs are
tiny capacity boot drives.

For $270 CDN (exactly the same price as that 5TB one),
I can get one of these: WD6003FZBX
which is a 3.5" 6TB Black.

Paul

[nospam]

In article <roma5c$6lu$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid>
wrote:

> >> The 15mm thick 2.5" drives for a start.
> >
> > nope. they're sata.
> >
> >> There's no reason for them to have a SATA connector,
> >> because they're not to be offered to the retail
> >> market as internal drives.
> >
> > wrong on that too.
> >
> > <https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-BarraCuda-Internal-2-5-Inch-ST5000LM000/
> > dp/B01M0AADIX>
> >
> >> Those are an orphan product used only within 2.5"
> >> external drives.
> >
> > nope.
> >
> > they work perfectly fine in desktops (usually with a 3.5" adapter).
> >
> > most external enclosures are not thick enough for a 15mm drive,
> > although there are some.
> >
> > it will also work in a drive dock.
>
> It's finally got a datasheet. This is proof of the possibility
> of not getting a shuck or a pull. So they've changed their business plan.

nothing has changed.

the 5tb drive has always had a data sheet and been available as a bare
drive.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 22:56:11 -0500, Paul wrote:

> The 15mm thick 2.5" drives for a start.
>
> There's no reason for them to have a SATA connector,
> because they're not to be offered to the retail
> market as internal drives.
>
> Those are an orphan product used only within 2.5"
> external drives.

Hi Paul,
I appreciate that you're always three things many others can't be:
1. Detailed
2. Knowledgeable
3. Purposefully helpful
(while I only own the first and last traits, and lack the middle).

This is good to know that the 15mm-thick 2.5" drives will likely never be
SATA, which means you can't as easily "shuck" them when needed (although
you may not need shucking as much since they also do not require an
additional 12VDC power source like my 8TB 3.5" Seagate needs to run.

> The 3.5" drives are still "suitable" for usage in
> external housings or as raw drive mechanisms for
> the retail market.
>
> The 8TB drive in question, has a visual hint. It has
> two USB connectors on the front. And one USB on the back.

The 8TB Seagate has 2 output USBs on the back & 1 USB 3.0 input in front.

o 8TB Costco Item #8888881 P/N 1XAAY5-570 (STEL800401 on sticker)

I get it though that it's a "visual hint" that there must be a "powered
hub" somewhere inside since each of those output ports has to fit the USB
standard on simultaneous output current sourcing.

> This suggests a separate PCB to house the hub function.
> It makes sense then, to also have a SATA to USB function
> on the (separate) adapter board too (hub chip, converter chip).

I understand the logic you present and do not disagree.
o Thanks for breaking it down into its component parts (which is helpful).

(NOTE: Logic needs to be stepwise; if steps are missed, it's "intuition",
and intuition is almost always wrong (read quantum mechanics for why).

Note below... understanding _each_ sentence you write takes me a while as I
have to look up each of the things you say (unlike those moronic Apple
Apologists like Alan Baker who never seem to look up _anything_ ever!).

> But before getting too excited, the seagate drive is:
>
> 1) SMR (the good kind is PMR)

Here you go again using those damn big words on me! :)

Looking up what the heck SMR & PMR are...
o What are PMR and SMR hard disk drives?
<https://www.synology.com/en-uk/knowledgebase/DSM/tutorial/Storage/PMR_SMR_hard_disk_drives>
o Perpendicular Magnetic Recording (aka Conventional Magnetic Recording)
o Shingled Magnetic Recording (offers greater areal density)

Hmmm... who knew about "idle time" being important?
"When the HDD becomes idle, it will enter a reorganization mode where the
old bits of data on the original track will be erased and made fully
available for future use. This reorganization mode must occur to
completely delete tracks, making the idle time essential for an SMR
drive."

Bearing in mind that these disks will not be used frequently, the question
is how that matters over _elapsed_ time of decades from now (the actual use
of a "backup" disk is, oh, let's say, oh, about, um, oh, one hour a month,
let's say, over a 25 year period - so that's 300 actual hours in 25 years
(let's make it 500 hours in 25 years just for easy numbers).

I guess it simply means that we can _double_ the time we hook up SMR
drives, such that the idle time is equal to the running time, which doubles
that spinning time to 1,000 hours in 25 years.

> 2) 120MB/sec ("hello to year 2007" or so, this is the SMR rate)

Hi Paul,
Unlike the Apple apologists, I'm all about "logic", where I don't think
read/write time should matter all that much for a _backup_ disk, do you?

It's a _backup_ disk, right?
o All I should care about is what matters to a _backup_ disk, right?

To me, the key thing that matters is the data must be available
25 years from now - and that the disk can be used an hour a month (or so)
to easily back up the data - and that it must hold a _lot_ of backup data.

Looking at this article on SMR speeds from Western Digital:
o <https://hddscan.com/blog/2020/hdd-wd-smr.html>
"it is not recommended to use SMR drives for applications
with significant load"

But this is a portable _backup_ drive.

By definition, the "load" on a portable _backup_ drive is puny, right?
o The thing spins for 1,000 hours in 25 years, max, right?

What seems to me to matter a lot about _backup_ drives is elapsed time.
o Will your data still be accessible to you in 25 years from now?

> 3) *Could* have aggressive spindown behavior.
> Requires a tester to test. Without spindown the
> drive could overheat.

I can appreciate overheating, but we have to always keep in mind these are
external _backup_ disks which have a known amount of cooling given they
basically sit temporarily on the desktop while being used an hour a month.

The key question for backup disks, particularly in light of the fact we're
storing precious photos of the kids and grandkids, is whether those photos
will be accessible in 25 years from now, due to technology changes and
storage issues (and the simple fact that fewer parts is better and more
interchangeable parts is better from the standpoint that we don't know if
we'll even have the cables handy in 25 years).

In summary, if we store our own photos, which of the two Costco
hundred-dollar backup drives are better for eventual use in a few decades?
--
Usenet allows an exchange of ideas & logic between us for all to benefit.

[Arlen Holder]

What's amazing is how the Type III apologists react to mere facts:
o On the adult OS newsgroups, people simply accept facts
(e.g., facts about Google or Microsoft)

It's only the Apple newsgroups where apologists can't accept facts.
1. Jolly Roger claims there are no facts (i.e., no cites for them)
2. Alan Baker claims all facts (in the cites) are all "lies"
3. Joerg Lorenz tells JR & AB to stop responding to any facts

Why are Apple apologists so deathly afraid of mere facts?
o I don't know why.

I suspect facts aren't what their belief systems are comprised of.
o Hence, facts instantly _destroy_ their imaginary belief systems.

Why do the Apple apologists react with personal vitriol to facts?
o I don't know why.

I suspect they _hate_ finding out what Apple is
o Much like a 5th-grade bully hates that Santa Claus is imaginary

In this case, the apologists _hate_ that Apple reads their data.

[Arlen Holder]

On 13 Nov 2020 17:05:00 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> He's really good at losing. It's all he does. Look at the timestamps of
> his posts. He spends his every waking moment trolling Apple news groups.
> He's just fucking pathetic.

Adults will notice how much hateful vitriol Type III apologists have.
o They literally personally hate anybody who bears facts they don't like

Notice the type I apologists (e.g., nospam) aren't hateful that way.
o Neither are the Type II apologists (e.g., Savageduck) hateful that way.

Type I apologists simply parrot (always!) exactly whatever MARKETING says
o Type II aren't malicious like the rest - they just don't check facts
(e.g., Steve Scharf still thinks Qualcomm royalties went down.)

The Type III apologists (Lewis, Jolly Roger, Alan Baker, Chris, Joerg, et
al.) are different than Type I or Type II in that they all despise any
person who bears facts they don't like.

Notice _every_ post by Jolly Roger to facts is to spew hateful vitriol
against the mere messenger of those facts which he simply doesn't like.

He can't dispute the facts (he tried by saying there were no cites)
o When provided with the cites, he then spewed hateful personal vitriol.

Why do these apologists spew hateful vitriol against the messenger of fact?
o I don't know why.

I suspect facts are a mortal _danger_ to their entire feeling of self worth
o I suspect that's because they identify with the Apple MARKETING messaging

I suspect these Type III Apple apologists hate the messenger of facts even
more than the facts themselves, since they can banish the facts from their
minds, but the messenger of facts is still there to bring new facts to the
fore.

Hence, apologists literally personally hate the messenger of mere facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-13 7:40 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> See also this thread:
>> o Comparison of the hundred dollar Costco Seagate 5TB USB & 8TB USB HDD on sale now
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage/c/nXXYOAypvqs>
>>
>> In these dejagoogle archives:
>> o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-hardware-storage>
>> o <https://tinyurl.com/sys-ibm-pc-hardware-storage> (30 char limit)
>
> We have a response in those thread, but people forget these are _backup_
> drives, which I guess I wasn't clear about, where _elapsed_ time is what
> matters, not spinning time.
>
> Here's the response verbatim just now....
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:12:02 -0600, jer...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >>Which is more likely to work in a decade or two from now?
> >
> > Neither. Rotating drives wear out over time. So do SSDs. If an SSD is
> > not used much, it could last longer--but I would not rely on it.
> > Expect to replace any drive (with today's technology) within 5-7
> > years.
>
> Hi Jerry,
>
> Thanks for trying to help, where I apologize that _time_ is the issue.
> o Not rotation time.
>
> The drives will likely have fewer than 100 hours on them in 25 years.

Let's do a little simple arithmetic, shall we?

Fewer than 100 hours in 25 years means 100 hours in 9,131 days, or 1,300
weeks.

So for a once daily backup, the drive would have to run for less than 40
seconds.

For a once weekly backup, you could have just more than 4.5 minutes of
run time.

I'd love to see the backup strategy where either of those is workable.

:-

[gray_wolf]

On 11/11/2020 11:26 pm, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/11/2020 07:15 PM, Brutus wrote:
>>
>> "Alan Baker" <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote in message
>> news:rohnoj$phl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 2020-11-11 2:03 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 20:48:14 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>    Google is also introducing a new policy of deleting data from inactive
>>>>>>    accounts that haven't been logged in to for at least two years."
>>>>>>
>>>>> The perfect backup! :-)
>>
>> By the by  Costco has a special for a Seagate 8TB outboard hard drive for
>> $119.99....

>
> For a while Best Buy had 8TB WD Red drives inside a USB housing for that price
> or less.  Maybe last Black Friday.   Remove it from the housing and you had a
> really nice internal drive.
>

That's what I've done. Good price and amuch better R/W speed than USB.

[nospam]

In article <T4FrH.200860$NB....@fx20.iad>, gray_wolf

<g_wolf@howling_mad.com> wrote:

> >
> > For a while Best Buy had 8TB WD Red drives inside a USB housing for that
> > price
> > or less.  Maybe last Black Friday.   Remove it from the housing and you had
> > a
> > really nice internal drive.
> >
>
> That's what I've done. Good price and amuch better R/W speed than USB.

usb 3 is faster than a hard drive, making the hard drive the limiting
factor, not usb.

[Alan Baker]

Is it faster than EVERY hard drive...

...even after you take USB's overhead into account?

[The Real Bev]

It's curious that when you put the drive in a USB housing it's cheaper.

--
Cheers, Bev
"If you watch TV news, you know less about the world than
if you just drank gin straight from the bottle."
- Garrison Keillor

[nospam]

In article <ron7oc$mhv$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker

<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:

> >>> For a while Best Buy had 8TB WD Red drives inside a USB housing for that
> >>> price or less.  Maybe last Black Friday.   Remove it from the housing and you
> >>> had a really nice internal drive.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's what I've done. Good price and amuch better R/W speed than USB.
> >
> > usb 3 is faster than a hard drive, making the hard drive the limiting
> > factor, not usb.
> >
>
> Is it faster than EVERY hard drive...
>
> ...even after you take USB's overhead into account?

for a single spindle, yes.

[nospam]

In article <ron8ms$rs9$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> It's curious that when you put the drive in a USB housing it's cheaper.

generally, those have shorter warranties (1 year) than a bare drive
(2-5 years).

also, shucking a drive voids any warranty you might have had, unless
you can somehow un-shuck it back into the case without any indication
it had been removed. most of the cases use snaps and clips which break,
or there's a tamper-seal, making that an impossibility.

[Alan Baker]

Is that assumption valid for the drive in question?

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 20:06:28 -0500, nospam wrote:

> also, shucking a drive voids any warranty you might have had, unless
> you can somehow un-shuck it back into the case without any indication
> it had been removed. most of the cases use snaps and clips which break,
> or there's a tamper-seal, making that an impossibility.

For the _adults_ on this newsgroup, regarding that "tamper seal"...
(i.e., the Apple apologists will claim all facts are "lies by liars")

We covered the well publicized FTC letter to manufacturers negating the
"if you touch this the warranty is void" seals, a long time ago on the
Apple newsgroups (since the articles claimed Apple was warned by the FTC).

o FTC Warns Companies 'Warranty Void if Removed' Stickers Are Flatly Illegal
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/IJxoXfBIqZY>

Given Apple apologists always claim Usenet threads that have cites don't
have cites (it's the game they always play which allows them to negate
facts they don't like), here's the cite in the very first line of that
thread.

o FTC Warns Companies 'Warranty Void if Removed' Stickers Are Flatly Illegal
<https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/267288-ftc-warns-companies-warranty-void-if-removed-stickers-are-flatly-illegal>
"If you've ever purchased a game console or other piece of electronics
gear, chances are you've seen a 'Warranty Void if Removed' sticker stuck
somewhere on the device. There's typically a peel-away tape used to
confirm whether a device has been opened. If it has, companies will
often attempt to deny warranty claims.
What many people don't realize is that this is illegal."

It's also illegal to specify certain parts or services:

Here's the FTC official notification of a warning to 6 manufacturers
(where the original article said Apple was almost certainly one of them)

<https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/04/ftc-staff-warns-companies-it-illegal-condition-warranty-coverage>
"The letters warn that FTC staff has concerns about the companies'
statements that consumers must use specified parts or service
providers to keep their warranties intact. Unless warrantors provide
the parts or services for free or receive a waiver from the FTC,
such statements generally are prohibited by the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, a law that governs consumer product warranties.
Similarly, such statements may be deceptive under the FTC Act."
--
The belief system of apologists is almost always completely imaginary.

[nospam]

In article <ronbq1$bmf$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker

yes