Android Linux and a newer Samsung GSM

[Edmund]

Hi

My new Samsung GSM /Linux won't download data from the micro SD card in
the Samsung.
When the card is almost empty it works however it takes a very long time
to "mount" or show any content. When the card - or more precise -a
folder- contains a lot of data, it fails!
The other folders containing less data are still accessible.
My older GSM never gave me any problem but it had only a 16 Gig memory
card and the new one 64 Gig.
Tried all MTP tools I could find, so far, nothing works.

Edmund

[John B. Slocomb]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 07:32:55 +0000 (UTC), Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I've been using Mint Linux for several years now and the present
version (17) connects to all the Android devices I've tried, as did
several previous versions. Plug in the USB cable and after a while
there is a connection. Have to tell the android to use USB but that is
about it.

I have noticed that the length of time from plugging in a USB until a
notice appears on the computer screen varies from computer to
computer, all using the same version of Mint.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Edmund]

Well that is not the problem here, is finds the device and if the folders
on it are not too big, it even works.
As said, the problems start if the folders are getting bigger, then it
fails.
I can and will check a Mint version on my wifes laptop but I will be very
surprised if that will work, if so I will report here.

Edmund

[Edmund]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 18:00:06 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Mint doesn't work either, the folder containing the pictures an movies
are reported as empty.

Edmund

[John B. Slocomb]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:17:53 +0000 (UTC), Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com>

After reading your, above, I plugged my Chinese hand phone in and
checked the drive identified as 24 GB, which is the User Supplied
Memory chip. Looked in a directory labeled "Pictures". Nothing. Then
checked the (reported) 31 GB internal and in the DCIM directory there
is all my pictures. Tried to copy a picture to the Desktop and no
problems at all.

Re your other post about not being to access/ copy a directory with a
lot stored on it, my "epub" directory on the User supplied memory is
about 6 GB and no problems copying to or from.

"USB debugging" is not selected.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Edmund]

OK thanks.
I don't have any problem with my old/former 16 gig card GSM either.
But there is definitely something wrong with the linux MTP-stuff.

Edmund

[Alan Meyer]

I seem to recall that there's a difference in the file systems for cards
ranging up to 32 GB and cards that are larger.

Are you sure that the Samsung phone supports 64 GB memory cards? My ZTE
Valet phone only supports up to 32 GB.

Are you sure that your Linux supports 64 GB cards?

I don't know if that has anything to do with your problem, but you might
be able to find out by putting the 16 GB card from your old phone into
your new phone and trying to mount it on Linux. If it works fine, I'd
suspect that the new card is the culprit.

Check out the card itself by inserting it into a recent Windows computer
without the phone - if you've got one handy and have a card slot or USB
card reader.

If it works fine, my suspicion would be that the file system isn't
working as expected. If it fails then there's a problem with the card.

There may also be documentation from Samsung that addresses this issue.

Alan

[Alan Meyer]

On 10/9/2014 5:34 PM, Alan Meyer wrote:

> I seem to recall that there's a difference in the file systems for cards
> ranging up to 32 GB and cards that are larger.
>
> Are you sure that the Samsung phone supports 64 GB memory cards? My ZTE
> Valet phone only supports up to 32 GB.

Another thing to try, if you haven't already done so, is to ask the
phone to format the card. It may format it to 32 GB and then work fine
with it.

Alan

[Edmund]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:34:34 -0400, Alan Meyer wrote:

> On 10/8/2014 3:32 AM, Edmund wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> My new Samsung GSM /Linux won't download data from the micro SD card in
>> the Samsung.
>> When the card is almost empty it works however it takes a very long
>> time to "mount" or show any content. When the card - or more precise -a
>> folder- contains a lot of data, it fails!
>> The other folders containing less data are still accessible.
>> My older GSM never gave me any problem but it had only a 16 Gig memory
>> card and the new one 64 Gig.
>> Tried all MTP tools I could find, so far, nothing works.
>>
>> Edmund
>
> I seem to recall that there's a difference in the file systems for cards
> ranging up to 32 GB and cards that are larger.
>
> Are you sure that the Samsung phone supports 64 GB memory cards? My ZTE
> Valet phone only supports up to 32 GB.

Yes it is format is called eFat I believe.

>
> Are you sure that your Linux supports 64 GB cards?

Pretty sure.

>
> I don't know if that has anything to do with your problem, but you might
> be able to find out by putting the 16 GB card from your old phone into
> your new phone and trying to mount it on Linux. If it works fine, I'd
> suspect that the new card is the culprit.

Maybe but I still need a solution then.

>
> Check out the card itself by inserting it into a recent Windows computer
> without the phone - if you've got one handy and have a card slot or USB
> card reader.

The card is fine and works perfect in my phone and I already tried, it
works also perfect under Windows XP. I can copy to and from my phone
without any problem.

>
> If it works fine, my suspicion would be that the file system isn't
> working as expected. If it fails then there's a problem with the card.
>
> There may also be documentation from Samsung that addresses this issue.

That is worth a try too.
>
> Alan

I the meantime I found out that believe it or not, "Shotwell" one of the
many picture viewers CAN download the pictures.
It is getting stranger every time, how is it possible that an application
can do that while the basic file browser cannot?
It looks like shotwell has some "own" code that should be included in
linux.
It not ideal but at least it is usable that way.

Edmund

[Alan Meyer]

On 10/9/2014 6:04 PM, Edmund wrote:

> I the meantime I found out that believe it or not, "Shotwell" one of the
> many picture viewers CAN download the pictures.
> It is getting stranger every time, how is it possible that an application
> can do that while the basic file browser cannot?
> It looks like shotwell has some "own" code that should be included in
> linux.
> It not ideal but at least it is usable that way.
>
> Edmund

I was using Ubuntu Linux 12.04 and had to install some open source mtp
drivers I found on the net to talk to my Android devices.

When I later installed Ubuntu 14.04 I didn't have to do that. 14.04 had
built in drivers that just worked. If you're not using the latest
Linux, maybe an upgrade will solve the problem.

I've used four different Android devices with my Linux installation.
Three of them work fine. One works but requires setting some USB
settings when mounting the device on Linux. I don't remember what they
were.

One last idea: If you have a wireless network in your home you can talk
to the device via WiFi instead of wired USB. I use AirDroid, a really
nice piece of free software (and spyware? who knows anymore with
Android) that enables me to exchange files using any web browser on my
Linux or Windows machines. There are other similar programs.

Alan

[Jonathan N. Little]

Alan Meyer wrote:
>
> When I later installed Ubuntu 14.04 I didn't have to do that. 14.04 had
> built in drivers that just worked. If you're not using the latest
> Linux, maybe an upgrade will solve the problem.

He was told that before. I believe he is still on 13.10.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Edmund]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 20:26:19 -0400, Alan Meyer wrote:

> On 10/9/2014 6:04 PM, Edmund wrote:
>
>> I the meantime I found out that believe it or not, "Shotwell" one of
>> the many picture viewers CAN download the pictures.
>> It is getting stranger every time, how is it possible that an
>> application can do that while the basic file browser cannot?
>> It looks like shotwell has some "own" code that should be included in
>> linux.
>> It not ideal but at least it is usable that way.
>>
>> Edmund
>
> I was using Ubuntu Linux 12.04 and had to install some open source mtp
> drivers I found on the net to talk to my Android devices.
>
> When I later installed Ubuntu 14.04 I didn't have to do that. 14.04 had
> built in drivers that just worked. If you're not using the latest
> Linux, maybe an upgrade will solve the problem.

I use the 14.04 and not only that I tried all tricks and tools suggested,
nothing changed it still doesn't work.

>
> I've used four different Android devices with my Linux installation.
> Three of them work fine. One works but requires setting some USB
> settings when mounting the device on Linux. I don't remember what they
> were.
>
> One last idea: If you have a wireless network in your home you can talk
> to the device via WiFi instead of wired USB. I use AirDroid, a really
> nice piece of free software (and spyware? who knows anymore with
> Android) that enables me to exchange files using any web browser on my
> Linux or Windows machines. There are other similar programs.

I appreciate suggestions like this but it isn't what I am looking for.
Since I have my new phone which I specifically bought for it's photo/
movie capabilities I am disappointed to find out that Samsung/Google
really sabotaged the newer products by blocking the ability to install
applications to the extern memory card and filling the intern memory
with crap I do not want but cannot remove it!
You mention spyware and got that right! If you just read what all those
playgoogle apps DEMAND access to, unbelievable!

Anyway I have managed to get an GPS app on my phone and now there is
absolutely no space left for anything else.
When the warranty is over I will root my phone and remove all that
Samsung/google spyware.


>
> Alan

Edmund

[Frank Slootweg]

[Quoted out of sequence:]

Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> Anyway I have managed to get an GPS app on my phone and now there is
> absolutely no space left for anything else.
> When the warranty is over I will root my phone and remove all that
> Samsung/google spyware.

See my response (of yesterday, October 9) in the thread "Not enough
space..." for a method for 'trimming down' the space of "all that
Samsung/google spyware". That might free quite some space in your
'Internal storage'.

Hope this helps.

BTW, which GPS app did you install? I tried many and all of them had
the 'Move to SD card' function on the app's 'App info' page.

[Jump up:]

> Since I have my new phone which I specifically bought for it's photo/
> movie capabilities I am disappointed to find out that Samsung/Google
> really sabotaged the newer products by blocking the ability to install
> applications to the extern memory card and filling the intern memory
> with crap I do not want but cannot remove it!

FWIW, unless Samsung apps are involved, Samsung is not responsible for
"blocking the ability to install applications to the extern memory card".
It's an app's developer wich determines whether or not an app can be
installed on or (partly) moved to the SD card. And yes, Google is a
major offender, because many Google developed apps can only installed on
the 'Internal' storage and cannot be moved.

Samsung and Google of course *are* responsible for "filling the intern
memory with crap I do not want but cannot remove it!".

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-10-09, Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/2014 3:32 AM, Edmund wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> My new Samsung GSM /Linux won't download data from the micro SD card in
>> the Samsung.
>> When the card is almost empty it works however it takes a very long time
>> to "mount" or show any content. When the card - or more precise -a
>> folder- contains a lot of data, it fails!
>> The other folders containing less data are still accessible.
>> My older GSM never gave me any problem but it had only a 16 Gig memory
>> card and the new one 64 Gig.
>> Tried all MTP tools I could find, so far, nothing works.
>>
>> Edmund
>
> I seem to recall that there's a difference in the file systems for cards
> ranging up to 32 GB and cards that are larger.
>
> Are you sure that the Samsung phone supports 64 GB memory cards? My ZTE
> Valet phone only supports up to 32 GB.

I have a 64G card in my phone.

>
> Are you sure that your Linux supports 64 GB cards?

I've used 64G cards with Linux.

MTP in general is not great and Samsung's apparently even buggier
than the rest. There are multiple MTP implentations available in Linux.
I use an alternative one from Google since the people that maintain the
one that Ubuntu uses chose not to backport Samsung related bug fixes.

Although I find it easier to just use SSH.

[deletia]

If his phone is newer than mine there might also be issuse with USB
identification. What his distro has might be out of date. It's not quite
a driver issue but it's something comparable what users of other OSes
might be impacted by.

--

MSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact |||
that it is most compatable with itself. / | \

[Edmund]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:36:52 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> [Quoted out of sequence:]
>
> Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyway I have managed to get an GPS app on my phone and now there is
>> absolutely no space left for anything else.
>> When the warranty is over I will root my phone and remove all that
>> Samsung/google spyware.
>
> See my response (of yesterday, October 9) in the thread "Not enough
> space..." for a method for 'trimming down' the space of "all that
> Samsung/google spyware". That might free quite some space in your
> 'Internal storage'.

I think I did that before to find out it later had downloaded updates
again!
I don't know exactly maybe it resets after a shut down?

>
> Hope this helps.
>
> BTW, which GPS app did you install? I tried many and all of them had
> the 'Move to SD card' function on the app's 'App info' page.

don't tell anyone, Igo

>
> [Jump up:]
>
>> Since I have my new phone which I specifically bought for it's photo/
>> movie capabilities I am disappointed to find out that Samsung/Google
>> really sabotaged the newer products by blocking the ability to install
>> applications to the extern memory card and filling the intern memory
>> with crap I do not want but cannot remove it!
>
> FWIW, unless Samsung apps are involved, Samsung is not responsible for
> "blocking the ability to install applications to the extern memory
> card".

I know, it's google.

> It's an app's developer wich determines whether or not an app can be
> installed on or (partly) moved to the SD card. And yes, Google is a
> major offender, because many Google developed apps can only installed on
> the 'Internal' storage and cannot be moved.
>
> Samsung and Google of course *are* responsible for "filling the intern
> memory with crap I do not want but cannot remove it!".

Edmund

[Frank Slootweg]

Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:36:52 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > [Quoted out of sequence:]
> >
> > Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Anyway I have managed to get an GPS app on my phone and now there is
> >> absolutely no space left for anything else.
> >> When the warranty is over I will root my phone and remove all that
> >> Samsung/google spyware.
> >
> > See my response (of yesterday, October 9) in the thread "Not enough
> > space..." for a method for 'trimming down' the space of "all that
> > Samsung/google spyware". That might free quite some space in your
> > 'Internal storage'.
>
> I think I did that before to find out it later had downloaded updates
> again!

You will get updates/update-notifications again if you do not
'Disable' the apps. I.e. doing the 'Disable' is an essential step,
because otherwise the whole procedure is in vain.

> I don't know exactly maybe it resets after a shut down?

Did not happen to me (yet? :-)).

[Edmund]

I will check it, thanks

Edmund

[Jonathan N. Little]

JEDIDIAH wrote:
> MSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact |||
> that it is most compatable with itself.

If only that were true. Sadly it is not. Some versions of MS office were
"lite" versions that where "Works" with a new paint job which produce
documents not compatible with "real" Office. But OO and LO will open
them so one can argue that OO and LO is more compatible with MS Office
than MS Office.

[@1straw.com scarecrow]

Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> You will get updates/update-notifications again if you do not
>'Disable' the apps. I.e. doing the 'Disable' is an essential step,
>because otherwise the whole procedure is in vain.

Some of the apps on my phone have the 'Disable' function grayed out.

So I just disable updates in Google Play Store settings. Two things: I
un-tick Notifications and change Auto-update apps to 'Do not
auto-update apps'. I purposely run older versions of some of my apps
and this keeps them from auto-updating as well. Course the apps are
still listed for update in 'My apps' but they are easily ignored
there.

[The Real Bev]

On 10/10/2014 07:36 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [Quoted out of sequence:]
>
> Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyway I have managed to get an GPS app on my phone and now there is
>> absolutely no space left for anything else.
>> When the warranty is over I will root my phone and remove all that
>> Samsung/google spyware.
>
> See my response (of yesterday, October 9) in the thread "Not enough
> space..." for a method for 'trimming down' the space of "all that
> Samsung/google spyware". That might free quite some space in your
> 'Internal storage'.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> BTW, which GPS app did you install? I tried many and all of them had
> the 'Move to SD card' function on the app's 'App info' page.

Almost every downloaded app offers that option, but it's a fraud. See
below.

> [Jump up:]

Not on your life, baby!

>> Since I have my new phone which I specifically bought for it's photo/
>> movie capabilities I am disappointed to find out that Samsung/Google
>> really sabotaged the newer products by blocking the ability to install
>> applications to the extern memory card and filling the intern memory
>> with crap I do not want but cannot remove it!

Mine takes mediocre pix/movies, and since I have limited external space
I move them to the /storage/sdcard1/Photos subdirectory
("storage/sdcard1" is the actual external card, as opposed to
"/storage/sdcard" which is just part of the internal memory)
immediately. The "Gallery" still finds them there.

> FWIW, unless Samsung apps are involved, Samsung is not responsible for
> "blocking the ability to install applications to the extern memory card".
> It's an app's developer wich determines whether or not an app can be
> installed on or (partly) moved to the SD card. And yes, Google is a
> major offender, because many Google developed apps can only installed on
> the 'Internal' storage and cannot be moved.

It may be noted that one partition of the internal storage -- the one
that apps can be moved to -- is called "sdcard". Perhaps a holdover
from when it meant an actual external sd card instead of internal memory
masquerading as an sd card.

> Samsung and Google of course *are* responsible for "filling the intern
> memory with crap I do not want but cannot remove it!".

Unfortunately, the only other options are worse :-(


--
Cheers, Bev
" While in high school, we were encouraged to keep a daily journal.
I never liked it, especially when early on I realized that anybody
could find it and read it. Fortunately, the jury never saw it."
-- Anonymous, for obvious reasons

[Caver1]

Root your android and you can remove the apps you don't want and control
the others. Rooting gives you root permissions does nothing else.

http://myrootsolution.com/

This programs enables you to set all permissions for apps. You can stop
them from calling home, sending your location home... Naturally some
programs actually need some of those permissions, most don't.
You can stop the data mining.

http://www.androidtipsandhacks.com/root/control-android-app-permissions-xprivacy-xposed/



--
Caver1

[Bob Martin]

in 13119 20141011 041146 Caver1 <cav...@inthemud.org> wrote:

>
>Root your android and you can remove the apps you don't want and control
>the others. Rooting gives you root permissions does nothing else.
>
>http://myrootsolution.com/
>
>This programs enables you to set all permissions for apps. You can stop
>them from calling home, sending your location home... Naturally some
>programs actually need some of those permissions, most don't.
>You can stop the data mining.
>
>http://www.androidtipsandhacks.com/root/control-android-app-permissions-xprivacy-xposed/

Most of the posters here don't want to solve their problems, they just want
something to moan about. :-)

[Anssi Saari]

Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> writes:

> But there is definitely something wrong with the linux MTP-stuff.

I think there's something wrong with MTP in general. In my old Windows 7
work machine at least, if I tried to copy all files from a "large"
directory (a few thousand files) from the phone to the PC, the copy
operation just quit at some point, no warning or error. Seemed weird. I
usually use aafm in Linux now and for those big transfers like syncing
Titanium's backup dir I use rsync.

Actually I just noticed LG does the coolest thing for file transfers
with the G2 at least: you can turn the phone into a Windows share on the
network. Just awesome and what Google should be doing instead of this
weird MTP shit. There are some apps in the play store to do this but as
I recall there's the problem that they aren't Windows compatible unless
one has root on the phone.

[Edmund]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 12:17:20 +0300, Anssi Saari wrote:

> Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> But there is definitely something wrong with the linux MTP-stuff.
>
> I think there's something wrong with MTP in general. In my old Windows 7
> work machine at least, if I tried to copy all files from a "large"
> directory (a few thousand files) from the phone to the PC, the copy
> operation just quit at some point, no warning or error.

That is somewhat comparable with the error I encounter under linux,
however my phone works fine under XP.

> Seemed weird. I
> usually use aafm in Linux now and for those big transfers like syncing
> Titanium's backup dir I use rsync.
>
> Actually I just noticed LG does the coolest thing for file transfers
> with the G2 at least: you can turn the phone into a Windows share on the
> network. Just awesome and what Google should be doing instead of this
> weird MTP shit. There are some apps in the play store to do this but as
> I recall there's the problem that they aren't Windows compatible unless
> one has root on the phone.

I prefer things as simple as possible but not simpler, so access my phone
via USB not special crap just like a ( working ) USB stick.

Edmund

[Frank Slootweg]

Of course I noted the smiley, but that's blaming the *user* for
fundamental *product* problems.

Needing to become root in order to be able to *use* a freakin' *phone*!?

What's next? We need to become root to use our PVR, TV, media-player,
modem, router, etc., etc. ad infinitum!? I don't think so!

Note that the posters 'moan' because their phone has not enough
internal storage *left* to install apps, while being able to add your
own apps is the very reason these phones exist in the first place.

At the same time, *Google*, the developer of Android, is one of the
major - if not the major - offender of making *gigantic* *system* apps,
which can not be installed on, or (partly) moved to, a SD card and
cannot be uninstalled.

If even the posters here - who in general have (much) more expertise
than (can be expected from) Joe Average User - have to 'moan', then
that's very telling.

No, blaming the user is not on. This is bad, BAD *product* design,
period!

[@1straw.com scarecrow]

Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote:

>> Most of the posters here don't want to solve their problems, they just want
>> something to moan about. :-)
>
> Of course I noted the smiley, but that's blaming the *user* for
>fundamental *product* problems.

> Needing to become root in order to be able to *use* a freakin' *phone*!?

Most don't need or want to root and never have space problems.

> What's next? We need to become root to use our PVR, TV, media-player,
>modem, router, etc., etc. ad infinitum!? I don't think so!

Tried to work on your car lately?

> Note that the posters 'moan' because their phone has not enough
>internal storage *left* to install apps, while being able to add your
>own apps is the very reason these phones exist in the first place.

The original gripe was for an obsolete phone with only 4 GB.

> At the same time, *Google*, the developer of Android, is one of the
>major - if not the major - offender of making *gigantic* *system* apps,
>which can not be installed on, or (partly) moved to, a SD card and
>cannot be uninstalled.

Google may take a large percentage of 4 GB. But in a 16 GB phone not
so much. Mine currently has 3 GB free for apps and 8 GB user memory
free.

>This is bad, BAD *product* design, period!

My phone works fine so I guess the product design is good for it. :)

[Edmund]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:53:28 -0700, scarecrow wrote:

> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>> Most of the posters here don't want to solve their problems, they just
>>> want something to moan about. :-)
>>
>> Of course I noted the smiley, but that's blaming the *user* for
>>fundamental *product* problems.
>
>> Needing to become root in order to be able to *use* a freakin'
>> *phone*!?
>
> Most don't need or want to root and never have space problems.

The other 49% also paid for there equipment you know?

>
>> What's next? We need to become root to use our PVR, TV, media-player,
>>modem, router, etc., etc. ad infinitum!? I don't think so!
>
> Tried to work on your car lately?

He is talking about USING, and yes I drove my car today, guess what? I
can drove forward to left, right and reverse without a calling a garage.

>
>> Note that the posters 'moan' because their phone has not enough
>>internal storage *left* to install apps, while being able to add your
>>own apps is the very reason these phones exist in the first place.
>
> The original gripe was for an obsolete phone with only 4 GB.

That 4 gig phone is released a few moths ago and you are missing the
point.

Edmund

[@1straw.com scarecrow]

Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:53:28 -0700, scarecrow wrote:

>> Most don't need or want to root and never have space problems.
>
>The other 49% also paid for there equipment you know?

You really think 49% root their phones? And owning a phone doesn't
give one a right to access all its software. Anyway it's a free
market, if you dislike a phone's design then buy another you like.

>> Tried to work on your car lately?
>
>He is talking about USING, and yes I drove my car today, guess what? I
>can drove forward to left, right and reverse without a calling a garage.

My analogy (perhaps a poor one) was that manufacturers make it
difficult for you to modify the innards of their devices be it a car
or phone. It saves *them* customer service trouble.

>That 4 gig phone is released a few moths ago and you are missing the
>point.

A 4 GB phone these days is obsolete no matter when it was made. If you
want to carry a bunch of stuff get car, not a motorcycle.

[Frank Slootweg]

scarecrow <scarcrow @1straw.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >> Most of the posters here don't want to solve their problems, they just want
> >> something to moan about. :-)
> >
> > Of course I noted the smiley, but that's blaming the *user* for
> >fundamental *product* problems.
>
> > Needing to become root in order to be able to *use* a freakin' *phone*!?
>
> Most don't need or want to root and never have space problems.

There's no data to support that one way or another, so that's an
irrelevant argument.

> > What's next? We need to become root to use our PVR, TV, media-player,
> >modem, router, etc., etc. ad infinitum!? I don't think so!
>
> Tried to work on your car lately?

I said *use*, not repair.

> > Note that the posters 'moan' because their phone has not enough
> >internal storage *left* to install apps, while being able to add your
> >own apps is the very reason these phones exist in the first place.
>
> The original gripe was for an obsolete phone with only 4 GB.

His phone is a recent one and 4GB phones/tablets are still very
current.

> > At the same time, *Google*, the developer of Android, is one of the
> >major - if not the major - offender of making *gigantic* *system* apps,
> >which can not be installed on, or (partly) moved to, a SD card and
> >cannot be uninstalled.
>
> Google may take a large percentage of 4 GB. But in a 16 GB phone not
> so much. Mine currently has 3 GB free for apps and 8 GB user memory
> free.

The usual (non) 'solution' of throwing more hardware at bad software.

> >This is bad, BAD *product* design, period!
>
> My phone works fine so I guess the product design is good for it. :)

Google licensed Android for 4GB devices and wrote the bulky crap apps
for it: Bad, BAD *product* design, period!

[Frank Slootweg]

scarecrow <scarcrow @1straw.com> wrote:
> Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:53:28 -0700, scarecrow wrote:
>
> >> Most don't need or want to root and never have space problems.
> >
> >The other 49% also paid for there equipment you know?
>
> You really think 49% root their phones?

He's not saying that.

> And owning a phone doesn't give one a right to access all its software.

Huh? You probably mean that rooting voids the warranty.

> Anyway it's a free market, if you dislike a phone's design then buy
> another you like.

Once more: It's not the phone's design. It's the 'design' of Google's
crap apps.

[...]

> >That 4 gig phone is released a few moths ago and you are missing the
> >point.
>
> A 4 GB phone these days is obsolete no matter when it was made. If you
> want to carry a bunch of stuff get car, not a motorcycle.

You *really* should get out more. 4GB devices (i.e. phones and
tablets) are *very* common.

The point is that most users fully understand that if they want to add
many/large apps, they need (more) physical memory for it. So they buy
the needed SD card, only to find out that that doesn't help due to
Google crap design. So they have *plenty* of memory, but can't use it.
And that's the user's fault!? Get real!

If Google had made their apps not so bloated or/and (partly) moveable
to the SD card, this problem wouldn't exist. And to add insult to
injury, they often do not even provide a way to put an app's - often
large - *data* on the SD card! How stupid can you get!?

[@1straw.com scarecrow]

Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>scarecrow <scarcrow @1straw.com> wrote:

>> And owning a phone doesn't give one a right to access all its software.
>
> Huh? You probably mean that rooting voids the warranty.

I meant that the manufacturer doesn't intend for the customer to
access all the embedded software for several obvious reasons. I will
admit that you probably have the right to screw up your phone any way
you want.

> Once more: It's not the phone's design. It's the 'design' of Google's
>crap apps.

Google's crap apps don't bother my phone's operation. I just ignore
most of them. My phone has adequate memory for them *plus* the stuff
I really want.

> The point is that most users fully understand that if they want to add
>many/large apps, they need (more) physical memory for it.

Agreed. They need to buy a phone with adequate memory to run all the
stuff they want.

>So they buy
>the needed SD card, only to find out that that doesn't help due to
>Google crap design.

Google probably figured that most people with modern phones now have
adequate memory to run modern software.

> If Google had made their apps not so bloated

Those bloated apps (that I also can't get rid of) are easily ignored
on my phone.

>or/and (partly) moveable
>to the SD card, this problem wouldn't exist.

Heck my 16 GB Nexus 7 tablet doesn't even have a place to plug in an
SD card and I have no memory space problems on it either.

>And to add insult to
>injury, they often do not even provide a way to put an app's - often
>large - *data* on the SD card! How stupid can you get!?

I still own a 2 GB Linux netbook that worked fine in its day. But
these days it is also quite obsolete.

[John B. Slocomb]

On 11 Oct 2014 19:13:51 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

An analogy to your complaints is the bloke that goes to the store to
buy a bottle of beer and comes home with a bottle of coke. His Mama
roars down to the store with fire in her eyes, "I sent my kid down to
the store to get a bottle of beer, and he came home with a bottle of
coke!" The store guy says, "Well lady, that is the bottle he selected
and paid for."
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On 11 Oct 2014 18:44:03 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

Hmmm. Google sold you a telephone. The telephone worked perfectly when
you bought it. You than tinkered with the telephone and now the phone
doesn't work. This is google's fault?

But more to the point. If google is such a bunch of screw ups one can
only wonder why you flaunt your ignorance by buying an Android phone
when you could have easily purchased an Apple?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Bob Martin]

You certainly proved my point, Frank.
Would you buy a Nissan Micra then complain that it wouldn't carry 8 people
at 200 mph? (I suspect that you would).

Decide your requirements then go and buy a phone that meets those requirements.
A modern smartphone is a technological miracle.

[Frank Slootweg]

Ah, I see we have arrived at cowardly silently snipping 'inconvenient'
arguments! Didn't take long, never does.

QED.

EOD.

[Frank Slootweg]

John B. Slocomb <sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2014 18:44:03 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >scarecrow <scarcrow @1straw.com> wrote:
> >> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Most of the posters here don't want to solve their problems, they just want
> >> >> something to moan about. :-)
> >> >
> >> > Of course I noted the smiley, but that's blaming the *user* for
> >> >fundamental *product* problems.
> >>
> >> > Needing to become root in order to be able to *use* a freakin' *phone*!?
> >>
> >> Most don't need or want to root and never have space problems.
> >
> > There's no data to support that one way or another, so that's an
> >irrelevant argument.
> >
> >> > What's next? We need to become root to use our PVR, TV, media-player,
> >> >modem, router, etc., etc. ad infinitum!? I don't think so!
> >>
> >> Tried to work on your car lately?
> >
> > I said *use*, not repair.
> >
> >> > Note that the posters 'moan' because their phone has not enough
> >> >internal storage *left* to install apps, while being able to add your
> >> >own apps is the very reason these phones exist in the first place.

Non response duly noted.

> >> The original gripe was for an obsolete phone with only 4 GB.
> >
> > His phone is a recent one and 4GB phones/tablets are still very
> >current.
> >
> >> > At the same time, *Google*, the developer of Android, is one of the
> >> >major - if not the major - offender of making *gigantic* *system* apps,
> >> >which can not be installed on, or (partly) moved to, a SD card and
> >> >cannot be uninstalled.

Non response duly noted.

> >> Google may take a large percentage of 4 GB. But in a 16 GB phone not
> >> so much. Mine currently has 3 GB free for apps and 8 GB user memory
> >> free.
> >
> > The usual (non) 'solution' of throwing more hardware at bad software.
> >
> >> >This is bad, BAD *product* design, period!
> >>
> >> My phone works fine so I guess the product design is good for it. :)
> >
> > Google licensed Android for 4GB devices and wrote the bulky crap apps
> >for it: Bad, BAD *product* design, period!
>
> Hmmm. Google sold you a telephone. The telephone worked perfectly when
> you bought it. You than tinkered with the telephone and now the phone
> doesn't work. This is google's fault?

As for the others: Address the *arguments* made, instead of making
incorrect and silly statements. (No, the user did not 'tinker' with it,
he just *used* the *advertized* functionality (adding and updating apps)
and yes, as I have explained and you have failed to counter, it *is*
Google's fault for the stupid 'design' I have described.)

> But more to the point. If google is such a bunch of screw ups one can
> only wonder why you flaunt your ignorance by buying an Android phone
> when you could have easily purchased an Apple?

Huh? Since when are we talking about my phone? But heh, I realize that
if you don't have any real arguments, the only 'escape' is to make it
personal.

As to my 'ignorance': Don't worry, I have more than enough experience
and expertise in this field to recognize a bad design when I see it.

OTOH, all You Guys (TINYG) do, is shoot the messenger and ignore the
message. Quite unimpressive.

[Frank Slootweg]

John B. Slocomb <sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:

Next time try to address the arguments made, instead of uttering silly
and totally incomparable 'analogies'.

[Frank Slootweg]

Non response duly noted.

> >If Google had made their apps not so bloated or/and (partly) moveable
> >to the SD card, this problem wouldn't exist. And to add insult to
> >injury, they often do not even provide a way to put an app's - often
> >large - *data* on the SD card! How stupid can you get!?

Non response duly noted.

> You certainly proved my point, Frank.
> Would you buy a Nissan Micra then complain that it wouldn't carry 8 people
> at 200 mph? (I suspect that you would).

All these 'analogies' utterly fail, because we are talking about
devices to which you can add functionality (apps) and which are -
*advertized as* - expandable (memory).

> Decide your requirements then go and buy a phone that meets those
> requirements.

The whole idea with these devices is that you do *not* need to know
all your *future* 'requirements' upfront.

> A modern smartphone is a technological miracle.

And a badly designed one.

So once more, address the *arguments* made, instead of blaming the
user for Google's bad design.

Or is it for You Guys (TINYG) another case of, "My choice can't be
wrong, so if someone says someting negative about it, I'll shoot the
messenger."?

[John B. Slocomb]

On 12 Oct 2014 10:05:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>

You didn't buy the phone?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On 12 Oct 2014 10:05:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>

"Nearly 3 out of 4 smartphones sold between July and September were
Android devices, according to a new report....

"Gartner Inc, a research firm, reported that Googles Android-based
smartphones accounted for 72.4 percent of all smartphones sales in the
third quarter, ...
Read More at smartphones2013.com/how-many-android-phones-are-there/ "

So something like 3 out of every 4 smart phones sold are android but
you claim that they are no good.

Another report says, "

\u2022 Blog > Geography > World > Number of Android Phones Sold |

How many Android phones have been sold worldwide?

8,450,420.

There have been a total of 8,450,420 Android phones sold since its
release in October 2008 up until the end of 2009. This is based on a
report published by the market research firm Canalys on February 8,
2010. In 2009 Android phones made up only 4.7% of the total market
share for OS vendors of smart phones."

Just think of it - that is a whole bunch of phones sold and they keep
selling more and more.... But you claim they are no good.

But you claim that it isn't personal?

> As to my 'ignorance': Don't worry, I have more than enough experience
>and expertise in this field to recognize a bad design when I see it.

Right! You better hurry to tell Samsung before they get the next
million shipped.

> OTOH, all You Guys (TINYG) do, is shoot the messenger and ignore the
>message. Quite unimpressive.

Well given that in 2009 there were already eight million singing a
song and here you are singing a different one...

You remind me of the old joke about the "Fond Mother" watching the
parade and as the boys march by she sings out, "Oh! Look! There's my
Johnny; and look, everyone is out of step except him!"
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Balwinder S Dheeman]

More than 90% of PC's still use Windows or a crapware and, or virusware
even in these days, whereas the Unix, designed by best programmers, was
introduced in October 1973 does that mean it's bad compared with that
most popular one?

BTW, have you ever looked and Plan 9 from Bell Labs? If not please check
it and do read all available whitepapers on the technology and, or ideas
behind.

IMHO, Android and most of other Linux based distributions are far behind
Unix philosophy or have distracted to away from the ideas on which
Unix/Linux were/are based.

--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman (http://bdheeman.BlogSpot.in/)
"Working together, works! The proof is GNU/Linux and F/LOSS Projects;
Do you too voluntarily work on or contribute to making any difference?"

[@1straw.com scarecrow]

On 12 Oct 2014 10:05:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

> Ah, I see we have arrived at cowardly silently snipping 'inconvenient'
>arguments! Didn't take long, never does.
>
> QED.
>
> EOD.

Not sure who you're trying to ding but it is common Usenet courtesy to
snip the stuff you're not commenting on so that the thread doesn't
become unnecessarily long.

Oh, and another thing. Top posting is verboten.

YAADS.

SGTFOOH.

[Frank Slootweg]

Why don't you respond to these facts? Do you really have nothing but
sales and marketing hype?

> >> >> The original gripe was for an obsolete phone with only 4 GB.
> >> >
> >> > His phone is a recent one and 4GB phones/tablets are still very
> >> >current.
> >> >
> >> >> > At the same time, *Google*, the developer of Android, is one of the
> >> >> >major - if not the major - offender of making *gigantic* *system* apps,
> >> >> >which can not be installed on, or (partly) moved to, a SD card and
> >> >> >cannot be uninstalled.
> >
> > Non response duly noted.

See above.

> >> >> Google may take a large percentage of 4 GB. But in a 16 GB phone not
> >> >> so much. Mine currently has 3 GB free for apps and 8 GB user memory
> >> >> free.
> >> >
> >> > The usual (non) 'solution' of throwing more hardware at bad software.
> >> >
> >> >> >This is bad, BAD *product* design, period!
> >> >>
> >> >> My phone works fine so I guess the product design is good for it. :)
> >> >
> >> > Google licensed Android for 4GB devices and wrote the bulky crap apps
> >> >for it: Bad, BAD *product* design, period!
> >>
> >> Hmmm. Google sold you a telephone. The telephone worked perfectly when
> >> you bought it. You than tinkered with the telephone and now the phone
> >> doesn't work. This is google's fault?
> >
> > As for the others: Address the *arguments* made, instead of making
> >incorrect and silly statements. (No, the user did not 'tinker' with it,
> >he just *used* the *advertized* functionality (adding and updating apps)
> >and yes, as I have explained and you have failed to counter, it *is*
> >Google's fault for the stupid 'design' I have described.)

Non response duly noted.

> >> But more to the point. If google is such a bunch of screw ups one can
> >> only wonder why you flaunt your ignorance by buying an Android phone
> >> when you could have easily purchased an Apple?
> >
> > Huh? Since when are we talking about my phone? But heh, I realize that
> >if you don't have any real arguments, the only 'escape' is to make it
> >personal.

Non response duly noted.

> "Nearly 3 out of 4 smartphones sold between July and September were
> Android devices, according to a new report....
>
> "Gartner Inc, a research firm, reported that Googles Android-based
> smartphones accounted for 72.4 percent of all smartphones sales in the
> third quarter, ...
> Read More at smartphones2013.com/how-many-android-phones-are-there/ "
>
> So something like 3 out of every 4 smart phones sold are android but
> you claim that they are no good.

The volume (3 out of 4) argument is a straw men / red herring (take
your pick). And I say that the Google apps are badly designed, which is
something different than the phones being no good.

[More marketing hype deleted.]

> But you claim that it isn't personal?

Why on earth would it be personal? *My* arguments are technical. The
arguments of You Guys (TINYG) are anything *but* technical, and *are*
personal, because you attack the person(s) instead of their arguments
and seem to be defending - and utterly failing - your own personal
choice.

[More marketing hype and childish 'analogy' deleted.]

If you are able to have an adult technical/factual discussion, I'm
still here. Otherwise don't bother.

[Frank Slootweg]

This thread isn't about my phone, but hey what's a few more logical
fallacies amongst 'friends'!?

[The Real Bev]

On 10/12/2014 12:18 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
> in 13130 20141011 201351 Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>scarecrow <scarcrow @1straw.com> wrote:
>>> Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:53:28 -0700, scarecrow wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Most don't need or want to root and never have space problems.

Those are probably people who buy expensive plans with high-end phones.
Some people, however, don't live their life throwing their money away
on useless trivia. (These people are generally able to retire in their
40s as opposed to NEVER.) I know people who never personalize their
software and who reformat and reinstall their windows OS whenever it
starts to behave badly. There are always off-the-shelf people, but I
doubt that many of them are posting here.

>>> >The other 49% also paid for there equipment you know?
>>>
>>> You really think 49% root their phones?
>>
>>He's not saying that.
>>
>>> And owning a phone doesn't give one a right to access all its software.
>>
>>Huh? You probably mean that rooting voids the warranty.
>>
>>> Anyway it's a free market, if you dislike a phone's design then buy
>>> another you like.
>>
>>Once more: It's not the phone's design. It's the 'design' of Google's
>>crap apps.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> >That 4 gig phone is released a few moths ago and you are missing the
>>> >point.
>>>
>>> A 4 GB phone these days is obsolete no matter when it was made. If you
>>> want to carry a bunch of stuff get car, not a motorcycle.

Frugal people can have both :-) I have two of each.

>>You *really* should get out more. 4GB devices (i.e. phones and
>>tablets) are *very* common.
>>
>>The point is that most users fully understand that if they want to add
>>many/large apps, they need (more) physical memory for it. So they buy
>>the needed SD card, only to find out that that doesn't help due to
>>Google crap design. So they have *plenty* of memory, but can't use it.
>>And that's the user's fault!? Get real!

It may be noted that NOWHERE in any of the documentation, reviews, etc.,
that I read before I bought was there any indication that apps could NOT
be run on the external memory card. I can only conclude that this was a
deliberate oversight on the part of the manufacturers and reviewers --
never say anything negative about the product.

It would seem to be in the manufacturers' interest to trumpet this
information loudly, thereby encouraging customers to trade up to the
models with more expensive internal memory rather than cheaping out by
buying a low-memory device and adding an external card. OTOH, perhaps
that would keep the low-end consumers completely out of the market.
Perhaps the total profit from the low-end devices is greater than that
of the high-end ones...

The lesson is, of course, that one should always read the relevant
newsgroup before purchasing a complex device whose characteristics can
NOT be determined from the printed literature but only from actual use
of the device.

>>If Google had made their apps not so bloated or/and (partly) moveable
>>to the SD card, this problem wouldn't exist. And to add insult to
>>injury, they often do not even provide a way to put an app's - often
>>large - *data* on the SD card! How stupid can you get!?
>
> You certainly proved my point, Frank.
> Would you buy a Nissan Micra then complain that it wouldn't carry 8 people
> at 200 mph? (I suspect that you would).
>
> Decide your requirements then go and buy a phone that meets those requirements.
> A modern smartphone is a technological miracle.

Indeed. "In my pocket I carry a device which enables me to access the
total knowledge of the entire planet; I use it to look at cat pictures
and argue with strangers."


--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
American Public." -- H.L. Mencken

[John B. Slocomb]

I've always liked your description above... Yup, Windows is a
miserable operating system.... But you know, I've noticed that every
store that uses "point of sale" computer systems seems to use Windows;
every ATM machine I've seen seems to be using Windows; every "check
in" station at airports is using Windows. And, as you say, 90% of the
P.C.'s seem to use Windows.

>BTW, have you ever looked and Plan 9 from Bell Labs? If not please check
>it and do read all available whitepapers on the technology and, or ideas
>behind.
>

Yup. Plan 9 was released in about 1992, if I remember correctly and
has taken the computer world by storm...... well maybe not exactly not
storm. In fact Eric Raymond has said that

"Plan 9 failed simply because it fell short of being a compelling
enough improvement on Unix to displace its ancestor. Compared to Plan
9, Unix creaks and clanks and has obvious rust spots, but it gets the
job done well enough to hold its position.

There is a lesson here for ambitious system architects: the most
dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is
just good enough."

>IMHO, Android and most of other Linux based distributions are far behind
>Unix philosophy or have distracted to away from the ideas on which
>Unix/Linux were/are based.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On 12 Oct 2014 18:08:46 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>

Nice try at deflecting the fact that you initially claimed that a
response was a personal attack. As I said, innumerable owners don't
have a problem with Android, but you do. Which obviously proves that
Android and Google are wrong and you are RIGHT!

Sort of like the old bedtime story about Chicken Little who rushed
around the farm yard shouting, "The Sky is Falling!" and strangely,
the rest of the farm animal's ignored him.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[@1straw.com scarecrow]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Those are probably people who buy expensive plans with high-end phones.

My nationwide unlimited talk/text/1GB is $60/mo per phone.

My 16GB phone's actual price is in the low $300 range. But I took the
subsidy so the up front cost for me was $00.

>It may be noted that NOWHERE in any of the documentation, reviews, etc.,
>that I read before I bought was there any indication that apps could NOT
>be run on the external memory card.

But did the manufacturer specifically say that your phone *could run*
apps off the memory card? And even if it did the apps author still
could deny that privilege. Not to mention OS update problems.

>The lesson is, of course, that one should always read the relevant
>newsgroup before purchasing a complex device whose characteristics can
>NOT be determined from the printed literature but only from actual use
>of the device.

Perhaps the lesson in this case should be to (next time) get a phone
with enough memory to do what you want without relying on the card.

BTW my carrier allows returns within 14 days for situations like this.
There is a $35 restocking fee but that's better than living with a
phone you dislike. Perhaps your carrier has something similar (for
next time).

[Balwinder S Dheeman]

On 10/13/2014 06:52 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:31:29 +0530, Balwinder S Dheeman
> <bdheeman...@outlook.com> wrote:

[snipped, too many quoted lines]

>> More than 90% of PC's still use Windows or a crapware and, or virusware
>> even in these days, whereas the Unix, designed by best programmers, was
>> introduced in October 1973 does that mean it's bad compared with that
>> most popular one?
>
> I've always liked your description above... Yup, Windows is a
> miserable operating system.... But you know, I've noticed that every
> store that uses "point of sale" computer systems seems to use Windows;
> every ATM machine I've seen seems to be using Windows; every "check
> in" station at airports is using Windows. And, as you say, 90% of the
> P.C.'s seem to use Windows.

I also agree with you, I, indeed, forget to describe the other kinds of
machines.

>> BTW, have you ever looked and Plan 9 from Bell Labs? If not please check
>> it and do read all available whitepapers on the technology and, or ideas
>> behind.
>>
> Yup. Plan 9 was released in about 1992, if I remember correctly and
> has taken the computer world by storm...... well maybe not exactly not
> storm. In fact Eric Raymond has said that
>
> "Plan 9 failed simply because it fell short of being a compelling
> enough improvement on Unix to displace its ancestor. Compared to Plan
> 9, Unix creaks and clanks and has obvious rust spots, but it gets the
> job done well enough to hold its position.
>
> There is a lesson here for ambitious system architects: the most
> dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is
> just good enough."

+1 ;)

>> IMHO, Android and most of other Linux based distributions are far behind
>> Unix philosophy or have distracted to away from the ideas on which
>> Unix/Linux were/are based.

--

[Edmund]

I am always somewhat puzzled by people responding the way you do.
Why is it people -supposed costumers!!!- choose to take side from a
seller who deliberately fuck up the costumers options.
If you didn't know it, the phone is designed to give the costumer the
option to install apps.
Note : under he previous Google OS such phones worked perfectly with
1 Gig and less memory. We could simply install apps on the SD card.
Google fucked that up, not any costumer.

>
> But more to the point. If google is such a bunch of screw ups one can
> only wonder why you flaunt your ignorance by buying an Android phone
> when you could have easily purchased an Apple?

For starters, the google OS worked fine in the past and they didn't tell
me they fucked it up. My phone has more then 4 times the amount of memory
my old phone had, and the old one worked fine.
Not to mention the "external" memory, which is now doubled.
How much choice do you really think "we" ( customers ) have?
And where is the Apple phone with 10 times optical zoom in the camera?

BTW if there was any choice, for sure I would never again buy android.

Edmund

[Frank Slootweg]

John B. Slocomb <sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2014 18:08:46 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:

[Total snip. There's just no point.]

[Noting that you *still* did/could not address *any* of the factual
arguments.]

> As I said, innumerable owners don't
> have a problem with Android, but you do. Which obviously proves that
> Android and Google are wrong and you are RIGHT!

Where did I say that I have a problem with Android? I said that
Google's apps are badly designed.

But let's summarize *your* 'reasoning':

"The large majority - 3 out of 4 - of people buy Android phones, which
means they are good/perfect and do not have a single flaw!"

Do you see/realize how silly/unsupportable your position is!?

All I'm saying is that 'Android' - actually Google's apps, including
Play Store - has some major design flaws. That those design flaws mainly
affect users of small ('4GB', which is actually ~1GB usable) devices, is
nice for the unaffected users, but does not mean that the flaws do not
exist and do not affect a substantial number of users.

Any - real - counter arguments to these facts?

Finally: You seem to be fond of analogies, so instead of the bogus
ones which you presented sofar, let's try a more realistic one:

"The large majority - 9+ out of 10 - of people buy Windows computers,
which means they are good/perfect and do not have a single flaw!"

You would not make such a silly statement, would you!? Then why *do*
you - effectively - make a similar statement about Android phones?

[The Real Bev]

On 10/12/2014 09:36 PM, scarecrow wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Those are probably people who buy expensive plans with high-end phones.
>
> My nationwide unlimited talk/text/1GB is $60/mo per phone.

I regard that as outrageously expensive. I pay only $4/month for my
VOIP landline service and rarely need to make cell calls. My prepaid
cell service costs me $10/year and I have perhaps 10 hours banked should
I ever NEED to make more calls.

> My 16GB phone's actual price is in the low $300 range. But I took the
> subsidy so the up front cost for me was $00.

You obviously need to use your phone more than I do. My daughter the
tourguide uses hers constantly for multiple purposes. I regard mine as
a pocket-size computer and would be happy with the 2GB/month of data
that T-Mobile will give to people with SIM-containing tablets.

>>It may be noted that NOWHERE in any of the documentation, reviews, etc.,
>>that I read before I bought was there any indication that apps could NOT
>>be run on the external memory card.

> But did the manufacturer specifically say that your phone *could run*
> apps off the memory card? And even if it did the apps author still
> could deny that privilege. Not to mention OS update problems.

Computers have internal memory, hard drives and/or SSDs. We are dused
to thinking about computers in terms of processor, internal memory
(ROM/RAM) and storage as three separate items, all of which are usable.
I run programs on my hard drives, shouldn't it work the same way with
tablets with external sd cards? I've used a personal computer since
1985. I've built several of them. I think I'm entitled to make certain
assumptions about "computers" unless somebody tells me different.

>>The lesson is, of course, that one should always read the relevant
>>newsgroup before purchasing a complex device whose characteristics can
>>NOT be determined from the printed literature but only from actual use
>>of the device.
>
> Perhaps the lesson in this case should be to (next time) get a phone
> with enough memory to do what you want without relying on the card.

Did YOU know you couldn't run apps on the external card before you
bought your first phone? If so, where did you find this information?

Moreover, apparently it used to be possible to run apps on the card;
was it publicized that NOW YOU CAN'T DO THAT? Was it -- more recently
-- publicized that TOUGH LUCK IF YOU UPGRADED YOUR ANDROID AND CAN NO
LONGER WRITE TO YOUR EXTERNAL CARD WITH 3RD-PARTY APPS? That was a
taking for which noone was compensated and which you had no choice about
in certain cases -- my husband built a separate home network for one of
his Samsungs so he could download books wirelessly to it without going
on the internet; the other one insisted on updating as soon as he went
on line with it, thereby removing what he regarded as one of its most
valuable functions.

> BTW my carrier allows returns within 14 days for situations like this.
> There is a $35 restocking fee but that's better than living with a
> phone you dislike. Perhaps your carrier has something similar (for
> next time).

I bought it from Staples, with a similar return policy. Since this is
my first smartphone and I rarely use it for making phone calls, it
really didn't occur to me that 4 GB was a really piddling number. AND I
thought that the "sdcard" referred to in the menus meant "external sd
card), which it did not.

Yeah, I should have known better. The nurse who just got ebola DID know
better and caught it anyway.

--
Cheers, Bev
=========================================
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other
dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson

[@1straw.com scarecrow]

Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>the google OS worked fine in the past and they didn't tell
>me they fucked it up.

Don't feel bad. Google never checks with me either before they change
things.

[@1straw.com scarecrow]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>scarecrow wrote:

>> My nationwide unlimited talk/text/1GB is $60/mo per phone.
>
>I regard that as outrageously expensive. I pay only $4/month for my
>VOIP landline service and rarely need to make cell calls.

That's a good deal for you. It's great to have these choices isn't it.

>You obviously need to use your phone more than I do.

I have no landline and travel around the country.

> I run programs on my hard drives, shouldn't it work the same way with
>tablets with external sd cards?

You can't run many programs off an SD card plugged into your computer
either. The analogy may fall down but your phone's hard drive is in
its innards. (Otherwise you phone wouldn't work without the SD card
inserted.)

>Did YOU know you couldn't run apps on the external card before you
>bought your first phone? If so, where did you find this information?

I didn't. Never even checked. Perhaps it never occurred to me that I
would need to. My card is always filled with music, photos, books, and
junk.

>TOUGH LUCK IF YOU UPGRADED YOUR ANDROID AND CAN NO
>LONGER WRITE TO YOUR EXTERNAL CARD WITH 3RD-PARTY APPS?

I get it why you're upset.

>That was a
>taking for which noone was compensated and which you had no choice about
>in certain cases

You expect compensation??

>my husband built a separate home network for one of
>his Samsungs so he could download books wirelessly to it without going
>on the internet; the other one insisted on updating as soon as he went
>on line with it, thereby removing what he regarded as one of its most
>valuable functions.

Stuff happens. Some of my apps have broken on updates as well.

>I bought it from Staples, with a similar return policy. Since this is
>my first smartphone and I rarely use it for making phone calls, it
>really didn't occur to me that 4 GB was a really piddling number. AND I
>thought that the "sdcard" referred to in the menus meant "external sd
>card), which it did not.

That's how we (me included) learn. Have you checked around. Some
lightly used 16GB phones are going for under $50.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:13:01 +0000 (UTC), Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

The response was to a remark that the original poster wrote. But to
respond to you, the company that sold the phone, sold a telephone with
some auxiliary functions. The purchaser then added software to the
telephone that filled up its memory. And blamed it on the phone maker
and the company that wrote the operating system.

If an individual bought a , say one gallon bottle, and discovered that
he could not carry two gallons of water in it what would you say?
Would you complain that the bottle maker was wrong?

Reviewing smart phone specifications I see that the majority are
described as something like: "1.7GHz octa-core MediaTek processor
Mali-450 GPU, 1GB RAM, 32GB internal storage, microSD up to 32GB, 8 MP
rear camera with auto focus and LED flash 5 MP front-facing camera,
etc.

Is there any mention of running Apps from this "up to" memory? Nope.

Does it say that there is a microSD installed of any size? Nope.

In short, your argument is actually about someone that bought a one
gallon bottle and didn't know that you couldn't pour two gallons of
water into it.

Or to phrase it a bit differently, someone who didn't know what they
were doing and never made an effort to learn something about it and is
now bitching.

>> But more to the point. If google is such a bunch of screw ups one can
>> only wonder why you flaunt your ignorance by buying an Android phone
>> when you could have easily purchased an Apple?
>
>For starters, the google OS worked fine in the past and they didn't tell
>me they fucked it up. My phone has more then 4 times the amount of memory
>my old phone had, and the old one worked fine.
>Not to mention the "external" memory, which is now doubled.
>How much choice do you really think "we" ( customers ) have?
>And where is the Apple phone with 10 times optical zoom in the camera?
>
>BTW if there was any choice, for sure I would never again buy android.
>
>Edmund

As I told the original poster, or tried to, the phone companies aren't
interested in what "YOU" want, they are interested in what the
majority of their customers want and from reviewing the sales record
of, say Samsung, it looks like they are keeping the vast majority of
their customers happy. Millions and millions of them apparently.

I doubt that you will agree with me. Apparently some people assume
something, and when it turns out that they are wrong they then attempt
to blame their shortcomings on someone else rather then face the
reality that they were wrong.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On 13 Oct 2014 14:47:54 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>

And, as I have mentioned in other posts, every ATM machine I've seem
was running Windows, Every "point of sales" machine I've seen was
running Windows, and every airport "check in" counter was running
Windows machines. Strangely, they don't seem to have a problem.

While I certainly can't testify to world wide usage I can certainly
say that in my little corner a hell of a lot of computer that are
involved in, lets call it serious business, the banks, the airlines
and almost every store that I shop in are running Windows machines.

Strange, isn't it, that while you say that Windows is no good these
places that are involved in money do use them.

But of course, the nation's largest banks are wrong, major airlines
and airports are all wrong and international retail businesses are
wrong.> You would not make such a silly statement, would you!? Then

why *do*
>you - effectively - make a similar statement about Android phones?

(Or maybe you just don't know what you are talking about )

--
Cheers,

John B.

[The Real Bev]

On 10/13/2014 11:21 AM, scarecrow wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>scarecrow wrote:
>
>>> My nationwide unlimited talk/text/1GB is $60/mo per phone.
>>
>>I regard that as outrageously expensive. I pay only $4/month for my
>>VOIP landline service and rarely need to make cell calls.
>
> That's a good deal for you. It's great to have these choices isn't it.
>
>>You obviously need to use your phone more than I do.
>
> I have no landline and travel around the country.
>
>> I run programs on my hard drives, shouldn't it work the same way with
>>tablets with external sd cards?
>
> You can't run many programs off an SD card plugged into your computer
> either. The analogy may fall down but your phone's hard drive is in
> its innards. (Otherwise you phone wouldn't work without the SD card
> inserted.)

I would imagine that I could run almost any program that only took up 10
MB of space from an SD card.

>>Did YOU know you couldn't run apps on the external card before you
>>bought your first phone? If so, where did you find this information?
>
> I didn't. Never even checked. Perhaps it never occurred to me that I
> would need to. My card is always filled with music, photos, books, and
> junk.

I put a lot of photos on it at first, but when I discovered how long it
took to find what I wanted I deleted the whole thing. I put the good
ones up in my picasa account and the picasa app works nicely as long as
I have wifi. I've got a lot of music and books and still have used only
~5 GB out of 32. I was really counting on running apps from the card.

>>TOUGH LUCK IF YOU UPGRADED YOUR ANDROID AND CAN NO
>>LONGER WRITE TO YOUR EXTERNAL CARD WITH 3RD-PARTY APPS?
>
> I get it why you're upset.
>
>>That was a
>>taking for which noone was compensated and which you had no choice about
>>in certain cases
>
> You expect compensation??

No, but I wonder if I could sue google in local small claims court and
win. They'd lose by default, of course, and then send a tame lawyer to
appeal. It would be kind of cool to have the marshals seize some google
property for me, though. Apparently something like that happened to a
large corporation who ignored the judgment and suddenly found their
headquarters up for sale.

>>my husband built a separate home network for one of
>>his Samsungs so he could download books wirelessly to it without going
>>on the internet; the other one insisted on updating as soon as he went
>>on line with it, thereby removing what he regarded as one of its most
>>valuable functions.
>
> Stuff happens. Some of my apps have broken on updates as well.

This was by intent and design, not accident, and destroys a very basic
function. Very different.

>>I bought it from Staples, with a similar return policy. Since this is
>>my first smartphone and I rarely use it for making phone calls, it
>>really didn't occur to me that 4 GB was a really piddling number. AND I
>>thought that the "sdcard" referred to in the menus meant "external sd
>>card), which it did not.
>
> That's how we (me included) learn. Have you checked around. Some
> lightly used 16GB phones are going for under $50.

Yeah, but I'm going to wait a while. I really hate to just toss
something that cost me $150 a year ago if it's not actually broken. I
don't do things like that.

--
Cheers, Bev
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
As the shopper placed her groceries on the checkout stand, the
bagger asked "Paper or plastic?" "Doesn't matter," she replied,
"I'm bisackual."

[scarecrow]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/13/2014 11:21 AM, scarecrow wrote:

>> You can't run many programs off an SD card plugged into your computer

>I would imagine that I could run almost any program that only took up 10
>MB of space from an SD card.

When I said computer I meant a PC running Windows. Which Windows app
uses only 10MB of space??

I know that you can run some Windows programs from a card. This Agent
newsreader I'm using is such a program. It is completely portable and
can carried on a card and plugged into any PC and run.

But the vast majority of programs on my PC require involvement with
that devil's incarnation called the registry and have to be installed
on the hard drive and won't run from a card.

>I put a lot of photos on it at first, but when I discovered how long it
>took to find what I wanted I deleted the whole thing.

Love that 32GB card. I especially enjoy boring people with the family
photos. And I no longer have to carry a separate mp3 player. And I can
read my books when I'm bored waiting for you know who shopping. Yes, I
love that card.

>I put the good
>ones up in my picasa account and the picasa app works nicely as long as
>I have wifi. I've got a lot of music and books and still have used only
>~5 GB out of 32.

Storing photos, music and books in the cloud is fine unless you want
to access them on your phone. Data charges are expensive.

>> You expect compensation??
>
>No, but I wonder if I could sue google in local small claims court and
>win.

I think the manufacturer of your phone is probably more culpable than
Google. And I'm guessing that the TOS you agreed to when you initiated
your phone probably did away with any rights you had anyway.

>> Stuff happens. Some of my apps have broken on updates as well.
>
>This was by intent and design, not accident, and destroys a very basic
>function. Very different.

They are allowed to remove functions since it is their OS. (See TOS
comment above.) Most of my DOS programs, some of which I paid a few
bucks for, no longer work on my current Windows machine either.

>> That's how we (me included) learn. Have you checked around. Some
>> lightly used 16GB phones are going for under $50.
>
>Yeah, but I'm going to wait a while. I really hate to just toss
>something that cost me $150 a year ago if it's not actually broken. I
>don't do things like that.

Perhaps you can sell it to ease the pain. Life's too short to suffer
with a phone that doesn't do what you want.

[The Real Bev]

On 10/13/2014 10:24 PM, scarecrow wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/13/2014 11:21 AM, scarecrow wrote:
>
>>> You can't run many programs off an SD card plugged into your computer
>
>>I would imagine that I could run almost any program that only took up 10
>>MB of space from an SD card.
>
> When I said computer I meant a PC running Windows. Which Windows app
> uses only 10MB of space??

Not a clue. I've probably got a lot of DOS things I could run if I
wanted to. Plenty of linux utilities. All you have to do is put the
card in the path.

> I know that you can run some Windows programs from a card. This Agent
> newsreader I'm using is such a program. It is completely portable and
> can carried on a card and plugged into any PC and run.

People used to like Agent a lot. I tried it, but I still use Thunderbird.

> But the vast majority of programs on my PC require involvement with
> that devil's incarnation called the registry and have to be installed
> on the hard drive and won't run from a card.

'Nuff said :-)

>>I put a lot of photos on it at first, but when I discovered how long it
>>took to find what I wanted I deleted the whole thing.
>
> Love that 32GB card. I especially enjoy boring people with the family
> photos. And I no longer have to carry a separate mp3 player. And I can
> read my books when I'm bored waiting for you know who shopping. Yes, I
> love that card.
>
>>I put the good
>>ones up in my picasa account and the picasa app works nicely as long as
>>I have wifi. I've got a lot of music and books and still have used only
>>~5 GB out of 32.
>
> Storing photos, music and books in the cloud is fine unless you want
> to access them on your phone. Data charges are expensive.

No data plan. I have always depended on the kindness of strangers for
away-from-home wifi.

>>> You expect compensation??
>>
>>No, but I wonder if I could sue google in local small claims court and
>>win.
>
> I think the manufacturer of your phone is probably more culpable than
> Google. And I'm guessing that the TOS you agreed to when you initiated
> your phone probably did away with any rights you had anyway.

No, I'm pretty sure that BLUProducts didn't invent Android; Samsung has
the same problems.

>>> Stuff happens. Some of my apps have broken on updates as well.
>>
>>This was by intent and design, not accident, and destroys a very basic
>>function. Very different.
>
> They are allowed to remove functions since it is their OS. (See TOS
> comment above.) Most of my DOS programs, some of which I paid a few
> bucks for, no longer work on my current Windows machine either.

What I really miss is f-prot. Every once in a while I would run it just
to make sure that nothing nasty had invaded, and it never had. Then
they stopped updating the virus files for the free DOS version, and I
was never willing to pay for the windows version of something that I
didn't seem to actually need.

>>> That's how we (me included) learn. Have you checked around. Some
>>> lightly used 16GB phones are going for under $50.
>>
>>Yeah, but I'm going to wait a while. I really hate to just toss
>>something that cost me $150 a year ago if it's not actually broken. I
>>don't do things like that.
>
> Perhaps you can sell it to ease the pain. Life's too short to suffer
> with a phone that doesn't do what you want.

It does what I want, I just have to be careful about doing it. Our
attitude toward money enabled us to retire when my husband was 40. I
retired when I was 55 because I liked working -- until my good boss
retired and left me in the clutches of HIS boss, the main reason MY boss
retired.

--
Cheers, Bev
When you wish upon a falling star your dreams can come true. Unless
it's really a meteorite hurtling to the earth which will destroy all
life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for.
Unless it's death by meteor. --Demotivators

[scarecrow]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/13/2014 10:24 PM, scarecrow wrote:

>> Storing photos, music and books in the cloud is fine unless you want
>> to access them on your phone. Data charges are expensive.
>
>No data plan. I have always depended on the kindness of strangers for
>away-from-home wifi.

Unless I want to jog in circles around my house the cloud/WiFi just
won't work for phone music. The card however works wherever I go.

>> I think the manufacturer of your phone is probably more culpable than
>> Google.
>

>No, I'm pretty sure that BLUProducts didn't invent Android; Samsung has
>the same problems.

Samsung sells 4 GB phones?

[Edmund]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:10:03 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:13:01 +0000 (UTC), Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 11:15:33 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 Oct 2014 18:44:03 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>scarecrow <scarcrow @1straw.com> wrote:
>>>>> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>

----------------------------

>>>>>
>>>>> My phone works fine so I guess the product design is good for it.
>>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> Google licensed Android for 4GB devices and wrote the bulky crap
>>>> apps
>>>>for it: Bad, BAD *product* design, period!
>>>
>>> Hmmm. Google sold you a telephone. The telephone worked perfectly when
>>> you bought it. You than tinkered with the telephone and now the phone
>>> doesn't work. This is google's fault?
>>
>>I am always somewhat puzzled by people responding the way you do.
>>Why is it people -supposed costumers!!!- choose to take side from a
>>seller who deliberately fuck up the costumers options.
>>If you didn't know it, the phone is designed to give the costumer the
>>option to install apps.
>>Note : under he previous Google OS such phones worked perfectly with 1
>>Gig and less memory. We could simply install apps on the SD card. Google
>>fucked that up, not any costumer.
>>
>>
> The response was to a remark that the original poster wrote.

That was me.

> But to

> respond to you, the company that sold the phone, sold a telephone with

> some auxiliary functions. The purchaser then added software to the

> telephone that filled up its memory. And blamed it on the phone maker

> and the company that wrote the operating system.

That is way out of context, more precise is:

Someone ( me ) bought a NEWER phone with -supposedly- the same OS

as he had before ( android ) and which worked as expected.
The newer phone had at least 4 times the amount of internal memory, is
faster and has 4 times the amount of “external” ( SD card ) memory.
Why on earth I would even suspect LESS possibilities with nothing but
increased specs?

AFTER I bought that Samsung/google Spyware device, disguised as a phone,
I found out that :
It was filled with spyware
That that spyware cannot be removed
I cannot install apps on the external memory anymore something that is
possible with all previous versions of Google/Android.

>

> If an individual bought a , say one gallon bottle, and discovered that

> he could not carry two gallons of water in it what would you say? Would

> you complain that the bottle maker was wrong?

Your analogy is very poor in this case.

>

> Reviewing smart phone specifications I see that the majority are

> described as something like: "1.7GHz octa-core MediaTek processor

> Mali-450 GPU, 1GB RAM, 32GB internal storage, microSD up to 32GB, 8 MP

> rear camera with auto focus and LED flash 5 MP front-facing camera, etc.

>

> Is there any mention of running Apps from this "up to" memory? Nope.

English is not my native language so I won't go into language tricks,
memory “expandable” by means of an SD card at least suggests ( to me )
that is it usable but more important, in previous version it just worked
just as the internal memory like is to be expected.
Since Google/Android decided to take away that possibility without
telling anyone.
It is very unreasonable and unrealistic to expect costumers to know about
such newly introduced limitations.

>

> Does it say that there is a microSD installed of any size? Nope.

It does ( in my case) say one could extent the memory by means of an SD
card up to 64Gig.
It DIDN'T !! mention anything about any limitation in using such memory
and it is usable in all previous android versions.

>

> In short, your argument is actually about someone that bought a one

> gallon bottle and didn't know that you couldn't pour two gallons of

> water into it.

>

> Or to phrase it a bit differently, someone who didn't know what they
> were doing and never made an effort to learn something about it and is

> now bitching.

>

>>> But more to the point. If google is such a bunch of screw ups one can

>>> only wonder why you flaunt your ignorance by buying an Android phone

>>> when you could have easily purchased an Apple?

>>

>>For starters, the google OS worked fine in the past and they didn't tell

>>me they fucked it up. My phone has more then 4 times the amount of

>>memory my old phone had, and the old one worked fine.

>>Not to mention the "external" memory, which is now doubled.

>>How much choice do you really think "we" ( customers ) have?

>>And where is the Apple phone with 10 times optical zoom in the camera?

>>

>>BTW if there was any choice, for sure I would never again buy android.

>>

>>Edmund

>

> As I told the original poster, or tried to, the phone companies aren't

> interested in what "YOU" want,

You got that right!!!

> they are interested in what the majority

> of their customers want

Wrong! ( imo) There is no reason at all any costumer would WANT there
memory to be unusable.
Google makes billions by spying on everyone and that is there main goal,
knowing everything from everyone and abuse that information for even more
money.

> and from reviewing the sales record of, say

> Samsung, it looks like they are keeping the vast majority of their

> customers happy. Millions and millions of them apparently.

Not apparently, first, we have NO alternative Second, Since I own not one
but TWO android devices, I am one of those Millions that you count as a
happy costumer but I am not.
I think that all that spyware crap is illegal or at least it should be.

> I doubt that you will agree with me. Apparently some people assume

> something, and when it turns out that they are wrong they then attempt

> to blame their shortcomings on someone else rather then face the reality

> that they were wrong.

You are right.................. I don't agree with you.


Edmund

[John B. Slocomb]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:22:20 +0000 (UTC), Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com>

Actually my "analogy" was an attempt to say something with overtly
insulting the reader.

Perhaps I should have said, "You bought something about which you
obviously knew very little and then complain because it isn't what you
thought it would be."

i.e., an attempt to pour two gallons into a one gallon bottle.

>> Reviewing smart phone specifications I see that the majority are
>> described as something like: "1.7GHz octa-core MediaTek processor
>> Mali-450 GPU, 1GB RAM, 32GB internal storage, microSD up to 32GB, 8 MP
>> rear camera with auto focus and LED flash 5 MP front-facing camera, etc.
>>
>> Is there any mention of running Apps from this "up to" memory? Nope.
>
>English is not my native language so I won't go into language tricks,
>memory �expandable� by means of an SD card at least suggests ( to me )
>that is it usable but more important, in previous version it just worked
>just as the internal memory like is to be expected.

Except is obviously isn't, and you equally obviously didn't know that.
But is it the maker's fault that you didn't know, or is it a
shortcoming on your part that you didn't bother to educate yourself
about what you were buying.

>Since Google/Android decided to take away that possibility without
>telling anyone.
>It is very unreasonable and unrealistic to expect costumers to know about
>such newly introduced limitations.
>>
>> Does it say that there is a microSD installed of any size? Nope.
>
>It does ( in my case) say one could extent the memory by means of an SD
>card up to 64Gig.
>It DIDN'T !! mention anything about any limitation in using such memory
>and it is usable in all previous android versions
>

Well, all I can say is that according to information freely available
Samsung, apparently the largest vendor of Android phones, sold some 18
million units during 3rd quarter 2012.

Again according to available information during 2nd quarter 2014 it
sold some 74.3 million units.

So obviously a very large segment of the "smart phone" buyers does not
agree with you.

Which is exactly what I said above.

>
>> and from reviewing the sales record of, say
>> Samsung, it looks like they are keeping the vast majority of their
>> customers happy. Millions and millions of them apparently.
>
>Not apparently, first, we have NO alternative Second, Since I own not one
>but TWO android devices, I am one of those Millions that you count as a
>happy costumer but I am not.
>I think that all that spyware crap is illegal or at least it should be.
>

As for being unhappy with Android and Google's spying? If it really
bothers you then I suggest that rather then weeping and crying about
it you do something about it.

It is simple enough. Just buy an Apple phone.

>> I doubt that you will agree with me. Apparently some people assume
>> something, and when it turns out that they are wrong they then attempt
>> to blame their shortcomings on someone else rather then face the reality
>> that they were wrong.
>
>You are right.................. I don't agree with you.
>
>Edmund
>

--
Cheers,

John B.

[scarecrow]

Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Someone ( me ) bought a NEWER phone with -supposedly- the same OS
>as he had before ( android )

Being that I enjoy toys I own several Android tablets (and phones)
made by different manufacturers. Though the OSs are the same they are
also all a bit different. One tablet, a Trio (with only 4 GB of memory
I might add) has nothing Google on it at all (except the OS of
course). So it's quite normal for the Android OS to be different
across devices and different across time.

>and which worked as expected.
>The newer phone had at least 4 times the amount of internal memory, is
>faster and has 4 times the amount of �external� ( SD card ) memory.
>Why on earth I would even suspect LESS possibilities with nothing but
>increased specs?

I think if you examine things you will find that with 4 times the
internal memory and 4 times the SD card memory you now have many more
possibilities.

>AFTER I bought that Samsung/google Spyware device, disguised as a phone,
>I found out that It was filled with spyware

Which Samsung/Google apps do you consider spyware? Or do you mean
crapware.

>That that spyware cannot be removed

So far if I can't remove crapware, and can't disable it, I can easily
ignore it. Out of sight, out of mind.

>I cannot install apps on the external memory anymore something that is
>possible with all previous versions of Google/Android.

Why would you need to now that you have sufficient internal memory?

>English is not my native language so I won't go into language tricks,

My congratulations. You do very well. I once tried to learn a second
language and failed miserably.

>It is very unreasonable and unrealistic to expect costumers to know about
>such newly introduced limitations.

I doubt that most average phone customers would even know what you're
talking about.

> ( in my case) say one could extent the memory by means of an SD
>card up to 64Gig.

Hey. No fair. My Android phone only takes cards up to 32GB. An Android
limitation that Google should have told me about before I bought my
phone? Silly, isn't it.

>Google makes billions by spying on everyone and that is there main goal,
>knowing everything from everyone

When you get something for free, you're likely the product.

>and abuse that information for even more money.

Anything to back up that abuse charge? I'd like to know because I'm
about as deep into Google products as you can get.

[Frank Slootweg]

John B. Slocomb <sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:

[...]

> The response was to a remark that the original poster wrote. But to
> respond to you, the company that sold the phone, sold a telephone with
> some auxiliary functions. The purchaser then added software to the
> telephone that filled up its memory. And blamed it on the phone maker
> and the company that wrote the operating system.

Earth to Clueless: The added software did *not* "fill up its memory"!

The *Google* software *itself*, needs at least 200MB (and increasing
with every update) free on 'Internal storage' to be able to update its
*own* - i.e. *Google's* - software, notably/mainly 'Chrome browser'. If
it does not have that free memory, a background update will fail
silently (i.e. no message/icon whatsover) - and will continue to fail
silently forever and use needless bandwidth forever - and a foreground
update will fail with a meaningless message.

But of course this is all the user's fault. We can blame Google when
Google software fails due to Google's design flaws, can we!?

[...]

[Frank Slootweg]

John B. Slocomb <sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2014 14:47:54 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:

[...]

> > All I'm saying is that 'Android' - actually Google's apps, including
> >Play Store - has some major design flaws. That those design flaws mainly
> >affect users of small ('4GB', which is actually ~1GB usable) devices, is
> >nice for the unaffected users, but does not mean that the flaws do not
> >exist and do not affect a substantial number of users.
> >
> > Any - real - counter arguments to these facts?

You failed to deliver, so you lose.

QED.

HTH. HAND. EOD. NC.

[The Real Bev]

On 10/14/2014 01:22 AM, Edmund wrote:

> English is not my native language so I won't go into language tricks,

You're doing just fine with the exception of the there/their/they're
thing, which a lot of native English speakers do too.

> memory �expandable� by means of an SD card at least suggests ( to me )

> that is it usable but more important, in previous version it just worked
> just as the internal memory like is to be expected.
> Since Google/Android decided to take away that possibility without
> telling anyone.
> It is very unreasonable and unrealistic to expect costumers to know about
> such newly introduced limitations.

Yes. I think it's pointless to argue with the guy -- he's firmly stuck
in the "buyer beware" mode even though there is no practical way for
buyers to beware if the manufacturers hide the information; yes,
obfuscation counts as hiding.

> It does ( in my case) say one could extent the memory by means of an SD
> card up to 64Gig.
> It DIDN'T !! mention anything about any limitation in using such memory
> and it is usable in all previous android versions.

Not certain when that started; I don't have any versions previous to 4.2.

>>>BTW if there was any choice, for sure I would never again buy android.

I would simply because I refuse to buy apple or microsoft products.
I'll buy used microsoft mice at yard sales, but that's about it.

> Wrong! ( imo) There is no reason at all any costumer would WANT there
> memory to be unusable.
> Google makes billions by spying on everyone and that is there main goal,
> knowing everything from everyone and abuse that information for even more
> money.

The app-makers also make their money from ads and whatever they can
glean from our behavior. Ads are annoying, but every single person who
aims an ad at me is throwing his money away, no matter how small the amount.

> Not apparently, first, we have NO alternative Second, Since I own not one
> but TWO android devices, I am one of those Millions that you count as a
> happy costumer but I am not.
> I think that all that spyware crap is illegal or at least it should be.

Not illegal in the US. It probably shouldn't be, unless we actually
have to pay something to see something we don't want to see.


--
Cheers,
Bev
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Nobody needs to speak on behalf of idiots, they manage
to speak entirely too much for themselves already.

[The Real Bev]

On 10/14/2014 01:17 AM, scarecrow wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/13/2014 10:24 PM, scarecrow wrote:
>
>>> Storing photos, music and books in the cloud is fine unless you want
>>> to access them on your phone. Data charges are expensive.
>>
>>No data plan. I have always depended on the kindness of strangers for
>>away-from-home wifi.
>
> Unless I want to jog in circles around my house the cloud/WiFi just
> won't work for phone music. The card however works wherever I go.

Indeed. I rarely listen to music when I'm out of the house. I have a
classical radio station on all day at home, but I'm pretty sure the
people who are constantly plugged into their ipods are NOT listening to
classical. In the car I listen to the radio or audiobooks on CD when
I'm alone. It takes me about a year to finish a Tom Clancy, which is an
excellent choice for sporadic driving.

>>> I think the manufacturer of your phone is probably more culpable than
>>> Google.
>>
>>No, I'm pretty sure that BLUProducts didn't invent Android; Samsung has
>>the same problems.

You can't run apps on the external SD card on an android 4.+ (no idea
about previous major releases) Samsung either. And with the newest
Android version you can't copy files directly from your computer to the
external SD card. You have to use MyFiles (or whatever its name is) to
copy to the internal storage and then ES File Explorer to copy it to the
external card OR remove the card and plug it into your computer. A
definite nuisance.

> Samsung sells 4 GB phones?

No idea. They probably did at first.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================================
I didn't break it! It was doing that before I broke it... er...

[The Real Bev]

On 10/14/2014 09:51 AM, scarecrow wrote:
> Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Someone ( me ) bought a NEWER phone with -supposedly- the same OS
>> as he had before ( android )
>
> Being that I enjoy toys I own several Android tablets (and phones)
> made by different manufacturers. Though the OSs are the same they
> are also all a bit different. One tablet, a Trio (with only 4 GB of
> memory I might add) has nothing Google on it at all (except the OS
> of course). So it's quite normal for the Android OS to be different
> across devices and different across time.
>
>> and which worked as expected. The newer phone had at least 4 times
>> the amount of internal memory, is faster and has 4 times the amount

>> of �external� ( SD card ) memory. Why on earth I would even suspect

>> LESS possibilities with nothing but increased specs?
>
> I think if you examine things you will find that with 4 times the
> internal memory and 4 times the SD card memory you now have many
> more possibilities.
>
>> AFTER I bought that Samsung/google Spyware device, disguised as a
>> phone, I found out that It was filled with spyware
>
> Which Samsung/Google apps do you consider spyware? Or do you mean
> crapware.

Why do some apps insist on access to my information in spite of the fact
that their access benefits me in no way at all? NOBODY should have
access to my contacts list except for phone/email apps. I will not
allow my friends' information to be passed on to spammers; it may
happen, but not through me.

>> That that spyware cannot be removed
>
> So far if I can't remove crapware, and can't disable it, I can
> easily ignore it. Out of sight, out of mind.
>
>> I cannot install apps on the external memory anymore something
>> that is possible with all previous versions of Google/Android.
>
> Why would you need to now that you have sufficient internal memory?

Suppose you want to put the external card in a NEW phone, or even
duplicate it to put into a new phone. Like having a portable HD with a
lot of useful files that you can plug into any computer with a USB
socket. My daughter has one of those with wifi capability so it doesn't
even NEED USB. Portability is always good.

>> English is not my native language so I won't go into language
>> tricks,
>
> My congratulations. You do very well. I once tried to learn a second
> language and failed miserably.

I learned French, Spanish and a smattering of Latin when I was in high
school, but recent attempts at Mandarin and even Italian (which is
almost the same as Spanish) have been doomed to failure. Plus I've
forgotten a crapload of vocabulary which was once perfectly accessible
:-( Growing up sucks badly.

>> It is very unreasonable and unrealistic to expect costumers to know
>> about such newly introduced limitations.
>
> I doubt that most average phone customers would even know what
> you're talking about.

I suspect that the people who post here are NOT average consumers. If
you say "root" to the average consumer, he'll picture the underground
part of a plant. Does that mean that everything should be dumbed down
with no more capability than what the average consumer knows he wants?

>> ( in my case) say one could extent the memory by means of an SD
>> card up to 64Gig.
>
> Hey. No fair. My Android phone only takes cards up to 32GB. An
> Android limitation that Google should have told me about before I
> bought my phone? Silly, isn't it.

Products normally mention the maximum size external card they can use.

>> Google makes billions by spying on everyone and that is there main
>> goal, knowing everything from everyone
>
> When you get something for free, you're likely the product.

I'm willing to make that tradeoff provided it's not a big nuisance to
me. I take comfort in the fact that my information is of no value
whatsoever to anybody who's spending money to access it.

>> and abuse that information for even more money.
>
> Anything to back up that abuse charge? I'd like to know because I'm
> about as deep into Google products as you can get.

Google got its hands slapped for "accidentally" harvesting usernames and
passwords with its street-view cars. Maybe it really was an accident,
but the harvestees certainly didn't know that it was happening. I
certainly have no wish for google to know where I am at any given time,
but some apps demand that even if it's of no benefit to me. So far I
haven't wanted one of those bad enough to let google do that.

--
Cheers, Bev

[The Real Bev]

On 10/14/2014 01:22 AM, Edmund wrote:

> English is not my native language so I won't go into language tricks,

You're doing just fine with the exception of the there/their/they're
thing, which a lot of native English speakers do too.

> memory �expandable� by means of an SD card at least suggests ( to me )

> that is it usable but more important, in previous version it just worked
> just as the internal memory like is to be expected.
> Since Google/Android decided to take away that possibility without
> telling anyone.
> It is very unreasonable and unrealistic to expect costumers to know about
> such newly introduced limitations.

Yes. I think it's pointless to argue with the guy -- he's firmly stuck
in the "buyer beware" mode even though there is no practical way for
buyers to beware if the manufacturers hide the information; yes,
obfuscation counts as hiding.

> It does ( in my case) say one could extent the memory by means of an SD
> card up to 64Gig.
> It DIDN'T !! mention anything about any limitation in using such memory
> and it is usable in all previous android versions.

Not certain when that started; I don't have any versions previous to 4.2.

>>>BTW if there was any choice, for sure I would never again buy android.

I would simply because I refuse to buy apple or microsoft products. I'll
buy used microsoft mice at yard sales, but that's about it.

> Wrong! ( imo) There is no reason at all any costumer would WANT there
> memory to be unusable.
> Google makes billions by spying on everyone and that is there main goal,
> knowing everything from everyone and abuse that information for even more
> money.

The app-makers also make their money from ads and whatever they can
glean from our behavior. Ads are annoying, but every single person who
aims an ad at me is throwing his money away, no matter how small the amount.

> Not apparently, first, we have NO alternative Second, Since I own not one
> but TWO android devices, I am one of those Millions that you count as a
> happy costumer but I am not.
> I think that all that spyware crap is illegal or at least it should be.

[scarecrow]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Google got its hands slapped for "accidentally" harvesting usernames and
>passwords with its street-view cars.

I don't feel real sorry for people dumb enough to leave their WiFi
unsecured. Could have been worse. Someone could have used them to
download kiddy porn. The cops arrest first and sort things out later.

>I
>certainly have no wish for google to know where I am at any given time,
>but some apps demand that even if it's of no benefit to me. So far I
>haven't wanted one of those bad enough to let google do that.

Google Maps is very handy. But usually I just leave the GPS off. Saves
the battery.

[The Real Bev]

The phone's GPS is unfortunately flakey. It takes a long time to
connect and drops connection more often than it should and sometimes
makes up settings -- which are especially entertaining with my ski
tracking apps. My top speed one day was 235.3 mph, of which I am
inordinately proud.

The 10" Samsung tablet is, unfortunately, too large to carry around for
tracking purposes.

BTW, I tried the AppMgrIII (app2sd) app again. It claims to see the
external card, but refuses to move any apps thereto -- just to the
internal "sdcard". Useless.


--
Cheers, Bev
---------------------------------------------
"The primary purpose of any government entity
is to employ the unemployable."

[John B. Slocomb]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:17:15 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/14/2014 09:51 AM, scarecrow wrote:
>> Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone ( me ) bought a NEWER phone with -supposedly- the same OS
>>> as he had before ( android )
>>
>> Being that I enjoy toys I own several Android tablets (and phones)
>> made by different manufacturers. Though the OSs are the same they
>> are also all a bit different. One tablet, a Trio (with only 4 GB of
>> memory I might add) has nothing Google on it at all (except the OS
>> of course). So it's quite normal for the Android OS to be different
>> across devices and different across time.
>>
>>> and which worked as expected. The newer phone had at least 4 times
>>> the amount of internal memory, is faster and has 4 times the amount

>>> of �external� ( SD card ) memory. Why on earth I would even suspect

>>> LESS possibilities with nothing but increased specs?
>>
>> I think if you examine things you will find that with 4 times the
>> internal memory and 4 times the SD card memory you now have many
>> more possibilities.
>>
>>> AFTER I bought that Samsung/google Spyware device, disguised as a
>>> phone, I found out that It was filled with spyware
>>
>> Which Samsung/Google apps do you consider spyware? Or do you mean
>> crapware.
>
>Why do some apps insist on access to my information in spite of the fact
>that their access benefits me in no way at all? NOBODY should have
>access to my contacts list except for phone/email apps. I will not
>allow my friends' information to be passed on to spammers; it may
>happen, but not through me.
>

But Bev, you can either elect not to use said applications or if they
are not delete-able you can inert them so that they don't run.

But as for your contacts list, remember when people used "telephones",
the kind that worked through a wire on a "telephone pole"? The
telephone company published a new phone book every year? Or "cards" do
people still use calling cards, with your name, address, telephone
numbers and even, possibly, education levels and business or fraternal
affiliations?

>>> That that spyware cannot be removed
>>
>> So far if I can't remove crapware, and can't disable it, I can
>> easily ignore it. Out of sight, out of mind.
>>
>>> I cannot install apps on the external memory anymore something
>>> that is possible with all previous versions of Google/Android.
>>
>> Why would you need to now that you have sufficient internal memory?
>
>Suppose you want to put the external card in a NEW phone, or even
>duplicate it to put into a new phone. Like having a portable HD with a
>lot of useful files that you can plug into any computer with a USB
>socket. My daughter has one of those with wifi capability so it doesn't
>even NEED USB. Portability is always good.
>

But Bev, this wasn't possible with, say the Apple II, and I don't
remember a lot of complaints on the Bulletin Boards of yore.

But it is. Do a Google search (:-) on big retail chain marketing
research and, from what I read, when WalMart first started logging
customer's sales items and sending out personalized adverts it added a
million dollars, or more, to their annual income.

>>> and abuse that information for even more money.
>>
>> Anything to back up that abuse charge? I'd like to know because I'm
>> about as deep into Google products as you can get.
>
>Google got its hands slapped for "accidentally" harvesting usernames and
>passwords with its street-view cars. Maybe it really was an accident,
>but the harvestees certainly didn't know that it was happening. I
>certainly have no wish for google to know where I am at any given time,
>but some apps demand that even if it's of no benefit to me. So far I
>haven't wanted one of those bad enough to let google do that.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:24:14 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/14/2014 01:22 AM, Edmund wrote:
>
>> English is not my native language so I won't go into language tricks,
>
>You're doing just fine with the exception of the there/their/they're
>thing, which a lot of native English speakers do too.
>

>> memory �expandable� by means of an SD card at least suggests ( to me )

>> that is it usable but more important, in previous version it just worked
>> just as the internal memory like is to be expected.
>> Since Google/Android decided to take away that possibility without
>> telling anyone.
>> It is very unreasonable and unrealistic to expect costumers to know about
>> such newly introduced limitations.
>
>Yes. I think it's pointless to argue with the guy -- he's firmly stuck
>in the "buyer beware" mode even though there is no practical way for
>buyers to beware if the manufacturers hide the information; yes,
>obfuscation counts as hiding.
>

The advantage of learning Latin :-)

"Caveat emptor" seems to have been a factor in U.S. law since at least
"Laidlaw v. Organ", a decision written in 1817 by Chief Justice John
Marshall, which is believed by scholars to have been the first U.S.
Supreme Court case which laid down the rule of caveat emptor in U.S.
law.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[scarecrow]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/14/2014 03:39 PM, scarecrow wrote:

>> Google Maps is very handy. But usually I just leave the GPS off. Saves
>> the battery.
>
>The phone's GPS is unfortunately flakey. It takes a long time to
>connect

My phones GPS takes around 30 seconds to acquire when first turned on.
I use a widget on the home screen to make toggling the GPS on and off
easy.

>and drops connection more often than it should

Are you sure you don't want to look into a new (or lightly used)
phone? That sounds very frustrating.

>The 10" Samsung tablet is, unfortunately, too large to carry around for
>tracking purposes.

I've got a Note 10.1 in my collection. Samsung makes nice gear.

[David Harmon]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:21:47 -0700 in comp.mobile.android, scarecrow
<scarcrow @1straw.com> wrote,

>You can't run many programs off an SD card plugged into your computer
>either.

Huh? Where did you get that? Of course I can.

[Edmund]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:51:17 -0700, scarecrow wrote:

> Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>

>>and which worked as expected.

>>The newer phone had at least 4 times the amount of internal memory, is

>>faster and has 4 times the amount of “external” ( SD card ) memory. Why

>>on earth I would even suspect LESS possibilities with nothing but

>>increased specs?

>

> I think if you examine things you will find that with 4 times the

> internal memory and 4 times the SD card memory you now have many more

> possibilities.

>

>>AFTER I bought that Samsung/google Spyware device, disguised as a phone,

>>I found out that It was filled with spyware

>

> Which Samsung/Google apps do you consider spyware? Or do you mean

> crapware.

Spyware and many, if not all!
Most of the apps not only WANT access to things that isn't of any concern
of such app, many times they DEMAND access to all kind of things,
starting with all of my contacts, my phone status my location, call
history, browse history..............

>

>>That that spyware cannot be removed

>

> So far if I can't remove crapware, and can't disable it, I can easily

> ignore it. Out of sight, out of mind.

Still taking up space.

>

>>I cannot install apps on the external memory anymore something that is

>>possible with all previous versions of Google/Android.

>

> Why would you need to now that you have sufficient internal memory?

I do not have sufficient memory, well I have but I cannot use it the way
I want and cannot install my GPS app on the SD card.
Only after fiddling around I was able to install it and now Google/Samsung
is warning me that I am running out of memory.

>

>>English is not my native language so I won't go into language tricks,

>

> My congratulations. You do very well. I once tried to learn a second

> language and failed miserably.

Thank you.

>

>>It is very unreasonable and unrealistic to expect costumers to know

>>about such newly introduced limitations.

>

> I doubt that most average phone customers would even know what you're

> talking about.

Most people don't care or don't even think about privacy either but I do.

>

>> ( in my case) say one could extent the memory by means of an SD

>>card up to 64Gig.

>

> Hey. No fair. My Android phone only takes cards up to 32GB. An Android

> limitation that Google should have told me about before I bought my

> phone? Silly, isn't it.

Are you sure it is an Android limitation, because I don't think so and
the it is specifically mentioned in the specs from my phone ( netherlands
).

>

>>Google makes billions by spying on everyone and that is there main goal,

>>knowing everything from everyone

>

> When you get something for free, you're likely the product.

>

>>and abuse that information for even more money.

>

> Anything to back up that abuse charge? I'd like to know because I'm

> about as deep into Google products as you can get.

Oh man your screwed :-)
For starters, look up/ google LOL Edward Snowden.
I think everybody knows that knowledge is power, google and many others
are gathering all kinds of data from people, things about there
whereabouts, surf history, contacts, conversations
there hobbies, what they bought, when and where they bought it,
everything!
That information is worth billions and they abuse it as much as they can
get away with and since they are filthy rich, they can get away with
murder.
Never wondered why you get pop ups and advertising of items you have
recently bought or searched for?
have fun but realize it is not really funny :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70p_VjsiIdk

Edmund

[Edmund]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:31:03 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

> On 10/14/2014 03:39 PM, scarecrow wrote:
>> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Google got its hands slapped for "accidentally" harvesting usernames
>>>and passwords with its street-view cars.
>>
>> I don't feel real sorry for people dumb enough to leave their WiFi
>> unsecured. Could have been worse. Someone could have used them to
>> download kiddy porn. The cops arrest first and sort things out later.
>>
>>>I
>>>certainly have no wish for google to know where I am at any given time,
>>>but some apps demand that even if it's of no benefit to me. So far I
>>>haven't wanted one of those bad enough to let google do that.
>>
>> Google Maps is very handy. But usually I just leave the GPS off. Saves
>> the battery.
>
> The phone's GPS is unfortunately flakey.

Hmm mine is much better then my dedicated GPS device.

It takes a long time to
> connect and drops connection more often than it should and sometimes
> makes up settings -- which are especially entertaining with my ski
> tracking apps. My top speed one day was 235.3 mph, of which I am
> inordinately proud.

And rightly so!

>
> The 10" Samsung tablet is, unfortunately, too large to carry around for
> tracking purposes.
>
> BTW, I tried the AppMgrIII (app2sd) app again. It claims to see the
> external card, but refuses to move any apps thereto -- just to the
> internal "sdcard". Useless.

Most/ All?? of such apps require root access.

Edmund

[John B. Slocomb]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:31:03 -0700, The Real Bev

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

>On 10/14/2014 03:39 PM, scarecrow wrote:
>> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Google got its hands slapped for "accidentally" harvesting usernames and
>>>passwords with its street-view cars.
>>
>> I don't feel real sorry for people dumb enough to leave their WiFi
>> unsecured. Could have been worse. Someone could have used them to
>> download kiddy porn. The cops arrest first and sort things out later.
>>
>>>I
>>>certainly have no wish for google to know where I am at any given time,
>>>but some apps demand that even if it's of no benefit to me. So far I
>>>haven't wanted one of those bad enough to let google do that.
>>
>> Google Maps is very handy. But usually I just leave the GPS off. Saves
>> the battery.
>
>The phone's GPS is unfortunately flakey. It takes a long time to
>connect and drops connection more often than it should and sometimes
>makes up settings -- which are especially entertaining with my ski
>tracking apps. My top speed one day was 235.3 mph, of which I am
>inordinately proud.
>

I don't know whether that is a fault with all phones but the ones I've
owned, which range from Samsung top of the line models to the cheapest
Chinese all seem to be far less responsive to any Marine GPS I've
owned, going back more then a few years.

But having said that every GPS I've owned did take an inordinate
amount to locate itself if it were "lost", not in an area it thought
it was :-)

I wonder if that is part of the problem?

>The 10" Samsung tablet is, unfortunately, too large to carry around for
>tracking purposes.
>
>BTW, I tried the AppMgrIII (app2sd) app again. It claims to see the
>external card, but refuses to move any apps thereto -- just to the
>internal "sdcard". Useless.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 23:11:12 -0700, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
wrote:

I don't believe so, at least on any computer I've owned. You can carry
a program around on a SD card but for it to run it has to be loaded
into the computer's RAM, i.e. internal memory.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Bob Martin]

Either you are confused or you are being overly pedantic.
Every program on every computer has to be loaded to RAM before it is run
(except for those in ROM - eg BIOS).
But it is quite possible to run programs from an SD card, I've been doing it
all morning.

[Frank Slootweg]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> BTW, I tried the AppMgrIII (app2sd) app again. It claims to see the
> external card, but refuses to move any apps thereto -- just to the
> internal "sdcard". Useless.

An app can only be (partly) moved to the SD-card if the app is
*designed* to be able to be moveable. That's why I "moaned" about
Google's crap apps, which can not be moved *and* violate Google's own
maximum-size for requiring this feature, any app bigger than 32MB must
be moveable.

BUT, AppMgr III *itself* *is* designed to be moveable. I can't
remember if AppMgr III can move itself, so you might try to do it
manually. (Basically AppMgr III does not do anything special, it only
makes moving apps easier and gives a nice view of what is where.)

To (try to) move AppMgr III itself to SD-card:

Settings -> APPS -> Manage apps -> DOWNLOADED tab -> tap 'AppMgr III'
->

The 'App info' page of AppMgr III should have a (non greyed-out) 'Move
to SD card' button. If it has a 'Move to phone' button, it has already
been moved and is already on the SD card. When an app is on the SD card,
the 'USB storage app' size under the 'Storage' heading is non-zero. The
'SD card' size can be zero, because that is the data size on the SD card
(in my case, for AppMgr III, it *is* zero ('0.00B').

If there's a 'Move to SD card' button, but it is greyed-out,
something is wrong, probably with (the setup of) your SD card.

HTH.

[Frank Slootweg]

John B. Slocomb <sloc...@invalid.com> wrote:

[...]

> The advantage of learning Latin :-)

Why doesn't that surprise us (TINU)!? :-(

[scarecrow]

Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:51:17 -0700, scarecrow wrote:
>
>> Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>AFTER I bought that Samsung/google Spyware device, disguised as a phone,
>>>I found out that It was filled with spyware
>>
>> Which Samsung/Google apps do you consider spyware? Or do you mean
>> crapware.
>
>Spyware and many, if not all!
>Most of the apps not only WANT access to things that isn't of any concern
>of such app, many times they DEMAND access to all kind of things,
>starting with all of my contacts, my phone status my location, call
>history, browse history..............

I repeat my last question: Which *Google/Samsung* apps (your words
above) do you consider spyware?

>>>I cannot install apps on the external memory anymore something that is
>>>possible with all previous versions of Google/Android.
>>
>> Why would you need to now that you have sufficient internal memory?
>
>I do not have sufficient memory, well I have but I cannot use it the way
>I want and cannot install my GPS app on the SD card.
>Only after fiddling around I was able to install it and now Google/Samsung
>is warning me that I am running out of memory.

You can't fit into a 16GB phone? It is a phone you know, not a home
computer.

>Most people don't care or don't even think about privacy either but I do.

I care about privacy too but these days you just do the best you can.
Thousands (perhaps millions) of employees have access to my personal
information at my ISP, water company, doctor, insurance companies,
electric company, financial institutions, Verizon, credit card
companies, credit bureaus, etc. etc. etc... So using Google won't add
that much to my exposure.

>Oh man your screwed :-)
>For starters, look up/ google LOL Edward Snowden.

My Governments (city-state-Feds) already know a lot about me since I
pay my taxes. And if needed, a quick subpoena to the above
organizations would get the rest. So on a government level Google
doesn't add that much to my exposure.

>I think everybody knows that knowledge is power, google and many others
>are gathering all kinds of data from people, things about there
>whereabouts,

As you say Google *and many others* are gathering the info. So why
single Google out?

>That information is worth billions and they abuse it as much as they can
>get away with and since they are filthy rich, they can get away with
>murder.

I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your charge of Google abuse.
You would think with hundreds of millions of customers there would be
more than a few documented cases of abuse of people like me.

>Never wondered why you get pop ups and advertising of items you have
>recently bought or searched for?

I know that Google computers (not people) go through my email to serve
up my ads. That's how I pay for my free email service.

>have fun but realize it is not really funny :
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70p_VjsiIdk

A real paranoid video. The funniest part is the size of the computer
monitor. :)

[The Real Bev]

On 10/14/2014 04:55 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:17:15 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/14/2014 09:51 AM, scarecrow wrote:
>>>
>>> Which Samsung/Google apps do you consider spyware? Or do you mean
>>> crapware.
>>
>>Why do some apps insist on access to my information in spite of the fact
>>that their access benefits me in no way at all? NOBODY should have
>>access to my contacts list except for phone/email apps. I will not
>>allow my friends' information to be passed on to spammers; it may
>>happen, but not through me.
>>
> But Bev, you can either elect not to use said applications or if they
> are not delete-able you can inert them so that they don't run.

Indeed. Unfortunately, most of them seem to demand permissions that
most of us would say NO to, even if just on general principles.

> But as for your contacts list, remember when people used "telephones",
> the kind that worked through a wire on a "telephone pole"? The
> telephone company published a new phone book every year? Or "cards" do
> people still use calling cards, with your name, address, telephone
> numbers and even, possibly, education levels and business or fraternal
> affiliations?

No idea. Nonetheless, I do not want to be the one who chooses to
disseminate here friends' email addresses/phone numbers/whatever to
total strangers. If it happens, it happens, but I don't want to be the
one to do it.

>>>> That that spyware cannot be removed
>>>
>>> So far if I can't remove crapware, and can't disable it, I can
>>> easily ignore it. Out of sight, out of mind.
>>>
>>>> I cannot install apps on the external memory anymore something
>>>> that is possible with all previous versions of Google/Android.
>>>
>>> Why would you need to now that you have sufficient internal memory?

Isn't that what google says? "Why delete anything since we give you
infinite or near-infinite storage?" Same with the hard drive peope. I'm
ashamed of having a 320GB working partition

Indeed, but their incremental gain from using MY personal information is
-0-.

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================================
"You know that I could go on the Internet right now under my
alternate screen name, "CherryXXX69," and get complete strangers to
email me a picture of their scrotum. I tell you, this country gave
the finger to privacy a long time ago." -- Bill Maher

[The Real Bev]

On 10/14/2014 05:12 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:24:14 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/2014 01:22 AM, Edmund wrote:
>>
>>> English is not my native language so I won't go into language
>>> tricks,
>>
>> You're doing just fine with the exception of the
>> there/their/they're thing, which a lot of native English speakers
>> do too.
>>

>>> memory �expandable� by means of an SD card at least suggests ( to

>>> me ) that is it usable but more important, in previous version it
>>> just worked just as the internal memory like is to be expected.
>>> Since Google/Android decided to take away that possibility
>>> without telling anyone. It is very unreasonable and unrealistic
>>> to expect costumers to know about such newly introduced
>>> limitations.
>>
>> Yes. I think it's pointless to argue with the guy -- he's firmly
>> stuck in the "buyer beware" mode even though there is no practical
>> way for buyers to beware if the manufacturers hide the information;
>> yes, obfuscation counts as hiding.
>
> The advantage of learning Latin :-)
>
> "Caveat emptor" seems to have been a factor in U.S. law since at
> least "Laidlaw v. Organ", a decision written in 1817 by Chief Justice
> John Marshall, which is believed by scholars to have been the first
> U.S. Supreme Court case which laid down the rule of caveat emptor in
> U.S. law.

In Gone With The Wind (the book, not the movie) Rhett tells Scarlett
that she should name her store the Caveat Emptorium. She almost did.

--
Cheers, Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why put fault tolerance in the OS, when it's already built
into the User?" -- Steve Shaw, regarding Win95

[The Real Bev]

On 10/14/2014 07:27 PM, scarecrow wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/14/2014 03:39 PM, scarecrow wrote:
>
>>> Google Maps is very handy. But usually I just leave the GPS off. Saves
>>> the battery.
>>
>>The phone's GPS is unfortunately flakey. It takes a long time to
>>connect

6 minutes typically.

> My phones GPS takes around 30 seconds to acquire when first turned on.
> I use a widget on the home screen to make toggling the GPS on and off
> easy.
>
>>and drops connection more often than it should
>
> Are you sure you don't want to look into a new (or lightly used)
> phone? That sounds very frustrating.

It is indeed, but it still works, with the exception of the Play Store
crap, and I'm assuming that will be fixed by a factory reset.

>>The 10" Samsung tablet is, unfortunately, too large to carry around for
>>tracking purposes.
>
> I've got a Note 10.1 in my collection. Samsung makes nice gear.

They really do, and when I replace this phone I'll probably buy a
Samsung of some sort. I can't in good conscience do it quite yet, though.

I don't understand how so many people wander around outdoors twiddling
with their phones. Even at the brightest settings my phones/tablets are
very nearly useless outside. I know I've got a focusing cloth somewhere
in what used to be our darkroom...

[The Real Bev]

They have SSDs for computers now. Expensive, but fast. Check it out.
You can even boot the machine from a flashdrive if your bios allows it
and you choose to let it. Same from a CD/DVD. Even Windows can do that :-)

[The Real Bev]

On 10/15/2014 02:58 AM, Edmund wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:31:03 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/2014 03:39 PM, scarecrow wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Google got its hands slapped for "accidentally" harvesting usernames
>>>>and passwords with its street-view cars.
>>>
>>> I don't feel real sorry for people dumb enough to leave their WiFi
>>> unsecured. Could have been worse. Someone could have used them to
>>> download kiddy porn. The cops arrest first and sort things out later.
>>>
>>>>I
>>>>certainly have no wish for google to know where I am at any given time,
>>>>but some apps demand that even if it's of no benefit to me. So far I
>>>>haven't wanted one of those bad enough to let google do that.
>>>
>>> Google Maps is very handy. But usually I just leave the GPS off. Saves
>>> the battery.
>>
>> The phone's GPS is unfortunately flakey.
>
> Hmm mine is much better then my dedicated GPS device.
>
> It takes a long time to
>> connect and drops connection more often than it should and sometimes
>> makes up settings -- which are especially entertaining with my ski
>> tracking apps. My top speed one day was 235.3 mph, of which I am
>> inordinately proud.
>
> And rightly so!

:-) Sig below is from a NZ downhiller who is, I believe, still in the
Top 10 as far as record speed goes. Brain cancer got him, but he fought
it to the end.

>> The 10" Samsung tablet is, unfortunately, too large to carry around for
>> tracking purposes.
>>
>> BTW, I tried the AppMgrIII (app2sd) app again. It claims to see the
>> external card, but refuses to move any apps thereto -- just to the
>> internal "sdcard". Useless.
>
> Most/ All?? of such apps require root access.

That claimed not to.

Another root-unnecessary thing is described here. Maybe I'll try that
one of these days...

http://techgage.com/article/moving_your_non-movable_android_apps_to_an_sd_card/

--
Cheers,
Bev
11111111111111111111111
"To turn is to admit defeat."
-- H. Grierson

[The Real Bev]

On 10/14/2014 01:22 AM, Edmund wrote:

> English is not my native language

NL, right? I've watched a few Dutch movies (Soldier of Orange comes to
mind) and thought that Dutch sounds exactly like English, but with
different words. The intonations, vowel sounds, etc., seem very similar.

What do you think?

[nospam]

In article <m1mks6$ti0$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

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

> >>> Google Maps is very handy. But usually I just leave the GPS off. Saves
> >>> the battery.
> >>
> >>The phone's GPS is unfortunately flakey. It takes a long time to
> >>connect
>
> 6 minutes typically.

seriously?? i've never seen a phone gps take more than a couple of
seconds. it's also off unless an app requests it.

...

> I don't understand how so many people wander around outdoors twiddling
> with their phones. Even at the brightest settings my phones/tablets are
> very nearly useless outside. I know I've got a focusing cloth somewhere
> in what used to be our darkroom...

they didn't buy phones with shitty displays.

[The Real Bev]

On 10/15/2014 07:17 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> BTW, I tried the AppMgrIII (app2sd) app again. It claims to see the
>> external card, but refuses to move any apps thereto -- just to the
>> internal "sdcard". Useless.
>
> An app can only be (partly) moved to the SD-card if the app is
> *designed* to be able to be moveable. That's why I "moaned" about
> Google's crap apps, which can not be moved *and* violate Google's own
> maximum-size for requiring this feature, any app bigger than 32MB must
> be moveable.
>
> BUT, AppMgr III *itself* *is* designed to be moveable. I can't
> remember if AppMgr III can move itself, so you might try to do it
> manually. (Basically AppMgr III does not do anything special, it only
> makes moving apps easier and gives a nice view of what is where.)
>
> To (try to) move AppMgr III itself to SD-card:
>
> Settings -> APPS -> Manage apps -> DOWNLOADED tab -> tap 'AppMgr III'
> ->
>
> The 'App info' page of AppMgr III should have a (non greyed-out) 'Move
> to SD card' button. If it has a 'Move to phone' button, it has already
> been moved and is already on the SD card.

Both of these refer ONLY TO INTERNAL MEMORY/STORAGE, not to the external

SD card.

> When an app is on the SD card,
> the 'USB storage app' size under the 'Storage' heading is non-zero. The
> 'SD card' size can be zero, because that is the data size on the SD card
> (in my case, for AppMgr III, it *is* zero ('0.00B').
>
> If there's a 'Move to SD card' button, but it is greyed-out,
> something is wrong, probably with (the setup of) your SD card.

Plain old SDcard (also known as sdcard0) is internal memory. The
external SD card is known as /storage/sdcard1 or /sdcard1 depending on
where you look. The names are slightly different on my Samsung tablet,
but the result is the same.

Blame the lying bastards for making this ambiguous and blame the app
writers for not disambiguating their output.

[scarecrow]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't understand how so many people wander around outdoors twiddling
>with their phones. Even at the brightest settings my phones/tablets are
>very nearly useless outside.

Awhile back I read of a phone that was to have two screens. The
regular screen on one side and an e-ink screen (good in direct
sunlight) on the other. I'd spend a few extra bucks for one of those.

[scarecrow]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Isn't that what google says? "Why delete anything since we give you
>infinite or near-infinite storage?"

Google only gives me a free 15GB. Over that I must pay.

[scarecrow]

On 10/14/2014 11:11 PM, David Harmon wrote:

>> <scarcrow @1straw.com> wrote,

>>You can't run many programs off an SD card plugged into your computer

> Huh? Where did you get that? Of course I can.

If you reread my comment (above) the key word is *many* since *most*
modern Windows programs require installation and registration and
won't run from a card. However I'm aware there are exceptions since
this newsreader is one.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:29:03 BST, Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com>
wrote:

Not pedantic, exact.

If you could actually "run programs from an SD card" why would your
computer require a "RAM", or core memory they used to call it, at all.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:42:47 -0700, The Real Bev

Bev, I happened to re-read the Samsung Galaxy S II manual yesterday
evening and here is what it says about the Owner Installed Memory
Card.

Under the title "Insert a memory card" it says,

quote:
To store additional multimedia files, you must insert
a memory card. Your device accepts microSD or
microSDHC memory cards with maximum capacities of
32 GB (depending on memory card manufacturer and type).
Samsung uses approved industry standards for memory
cards, but some brands may not be fully compatible
with your device. Using an incompatible memory card
may damage your device or the memory card and can
corrupt data stored on the card.

Your device supports only the FAT file structure for
memory cards. If you insert a card formatted with
a different file structure, your device will ask you to
reformat the memory card.

Frequent writing and erasing of data will shorten the
life span of memory cards.

When you insert a memory card in your device, the
file directory of the memory card will appear in the
sdcard/external_sd folder under the internal memory

unquote

So, apparently Samsung, at least, did tell the truth about what an
external memory card can be used for.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:43:34 -0700, The Real Bev

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

>On 10/14/2014 04:55 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:17:15 -0700, The Real Bev
>> <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

< Much deleted >

>> But it is. Do a Google search (:-) on big retail chain marketing
>> research and, from what I read, when WalMart first started logging
>> customer's sales items and sending out personalized adverts it added a
>> million dollars, or more, to their annual income.
>
>Indeed, but their incremental gain from using MY personal information is
>-0-.

I deleted much of this post as I am only asking one question.

What did you mean by the above "their incremental gain from using MY
personal information is 0" ?

Do you mean your phone number? In some cases these major collectors
could, whether they do or not I don't know, sell your phone number and
possible your home address and your shopping preferences, to an
outside agency.

If you are saying that documenting your shopping preferences doesn't
make them money, nonsense. Read
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news/walmart_knows.htm
which is a little bit frantic in tone, but does a pretty good job of
detailing just what the gain is to a major retailer in obtaining
information about their customers.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Balwinder S Dheeman]

I think, It is possible and should be feasible to run all ELF programs
including the OS directly from SD Card, SSD, ROM and, or EEPROM since
every binary has static code and data which we need not load into RAM
provided the OS is designed to do so, hence we will need the RAM for
variable data only.

I, however, am not sure whether any Linux system, Android or some other
OS has implemented this or not.

--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman (http://bdheeman.BlogSpot.in/)
"Working together, works! The proof is GNU/Linux and F/LOSS Projects;
Do you too voluntarily work on or contribute to making any difference?"

[The Real Bev]

I put my edited photos on picasa albums. Space is unlimited as long as
the max dimension of your photos is 1600 pixels. Videos are, last I
heard, completely free.
I don't like having my email floating around the cloud so I delete that
every once in a while. I used to also delete it from the 'all mail'
folder, but I'm getting lazy.

In gmail's favor, their spam filters are extremely good.

--
Cheers, Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The early bird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese.

[The Real Bev]

That sounds far-fetched unless the size is just wrong and you jam it in
anyway.

> Your device supports only the FAT file structure for
> memory cards. If you insert a card formatted with
> a different file structure, your device will ask you to
> reformat the memory card.
>
> Frequent writing and erasing of data will shorten the
> life span of memory cards.

A sensible scheme might be to always make new writes on a new part of
the card. Erasing stuff just marks it for deletion, which doesn't
actually happen until the card is filled and writing starts over again.
I wonder if they actually do that.

I think I've heard "10,000 re-writes" being bandied about, which is
probably enough anyway.

> When you insert a memory card in your device, the
> file directory of the memory card will appear in the
> sdcard/external_sd folder under the internal memory
>
> unquote
>
> So, apparently Samsung, at least, did tell the truth about what an
> external memory card can be used for.

Now I try to download the manual for whatever complex electronic thing
I'm contemplating buying, but when something is 600 pages (the Onkyo
receiver, for instance) and the "Quick" manual is only 130 pages, that
becomes a bit daunting :-( Some (many/all?) of the older pdf manuals
aren't searchable, which is the absolute best thing about pdf manuals.