bluetooth file transfer apps

[crankypuss]

I'm looking for a good file transfer app that will send files via
bluetooth, not wifi.

I've located two that look okay, but do you know of or use others?

SHAREit: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/shareit-fastest-cross-platform/id725215120?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D8]

Send Anywhere: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/send-anywhere-file-transfer/id596642855?mt=8]

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
[Sat Mar 26: "Documentation and Portability"]

[nospam]

In article <njkp1j$ul2$1...@dont-email.me>, crankypuss

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I'm looking for a good file transfer app that will send files via
> bluetooth, not wifi.

why? bluetooth is slow. wifi is multiple orders of magnitude faster.

> I've located two that look okay, but do you know of or use others?

check again. they don't use bluetooth to transfer files.

> SHAREit:
> [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/shareit-fastest-cross-platform/id725215120?mt
> =8&ign-mpt=uo%3D8]

that doesn't use bluetooth:

€ Transfer HUGE files and videos in secondsŠ up to 40x faster than
Bluetooth®.
€ Share without the need for Bluetooth, you don¹t pay a cent for
network charges. Devices may wirelessly connect directly.

> Send Anywhere: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/send-anywhere-file-transfer/id596642855?mt=8]

at a minimum, that requires a network connection to ping their server
to get the code, and in some cases, the transfer actually goes through
their server (perhaps even all, you can't be sure).

what is clear is that it doesn't use bluetooth.

[Jolly Roger]

crankypuss <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I'm looking for a good file transfer app that will send files via
> bluetooth, not wifi.

Why?

iOS comes with a built-in feature called AirDrop that uses Bluetooth to
automatically discovers nearby devices and then automatically sets up a
peer-to-peer WiFi connection (no router required) and transfers stuff as
fast as possible. Your grandfather's Bluetooth file transfers are nowhere
near as fast or as simple to use as AirDrop. Other built- in features like
Continuity and iTunes WiFi sync make transfer and sync brain-dead easy
(automatic) as well. More often than not, when you use iOS as designed
there's no reason to even think about transferring files here and there.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[crankypuss]

nospam wrote:

> In article <njkp1j$ul2$1...@dont-email.me>, crankypuss
> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a good file transfer app that will send files via
>> bluetooth, not wifi.
>
> why? bluetooth is slow. wifi is multiple orders of magnitude faster.

Bluetooth is plenty good enough for transferring files between a Dell
xps-13 running linux and an Android, or a BlackBerry phone, why is the
iPad defective in its support of bluetooth other than that Apple wants
to sell me a MacBook? I'd love to have a MacBook, just not yet, I'm not
going to marry some skank after the first date just because she's pretty
and good in bed.

>> I've located two that look okay, but do you know of or use others?
>
> check again. they don't use bluetooth to transfer files.

I tried half a dozen last night, all seems to be crap, they behave a lot
like a linux system that's misconfigured. Just trying to find the
easiest way of transferring files, not that big a deal now, since I can
snag image-files over the charger cable and upload a pdf to google drive
once in a while, or work with a doc-prep system like LibreOffice Writer
and the image files on linux. The less I have to do the better,
especially if it involves a requirement to be baptized into believing
that Apple is the whole world and I have to buy a MacBook in order to
get my work done using a device I've already purchased.

I love the iPad, maybe iOS not quite as much, maybe controlling
paternalism not much at all.

>> SHAREit:
>> [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/shareit-fastest-cross-platform/id725215120?mt
>> =8&ign-mpt=uo%3D8]
>
> that doesn't use bluetooth:
>
> € Transfer HUGE files and videos in secondsŠ up to 40x faster than
> Bluetooth®.
> € Share without the need for Bluetooth, you don¹t pay a cent for
> network charges. Devices may wirelessly connect directly.
>
>> Send Anywhere:
>> [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/send-anywhere-file-transfer/id596642855?mt=8]
>
> at a minimum, that requires a network connection to ping their server
> to get the code, and in some cases, the transfer actually goes through
> their server (perhaps even all, you can't be sure).
>
> what is clear is that it doesn't use bluetooth.

Yes, much is clearer to me than it was a week ago, thank you.

[nospam]

In article <njmlp7$nm4$1...@dont-email.me>, crankypuss

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> >> I'm looking for a good file transfer app that will send files via
> >> bluetooth, not wifi.
> >
> > why? bluetooth is slow. wifi is multiple orders of magnitude faster.
>
> Bluetooth is plenty good enough for transferring files between a Dell
> xps-13 running linux and an Android, or a BlackBerry phone,

both the dell xps and ipad have 802.11ac wifi, which is over 100x
faster than bluetooth. why would you *not* want to use that???

> why is the
> iPad defective in its support of bluetooth other than that Apple wants
> to sell me a MacBook?

the ipad isn't what's defective nor do you need a macbook. any
wifi-capable device will work, which is just about everything.

> I'd love to have a MacBook, just not yet, I'm not
> going to marry some skank after the first date just because she's pretty
> and good in bed.

perhaps you should.

> >> I've located two that look okay, but do you know of or use others?
> >
> > check again. they don't use bluetooth to transfer files.
>
> I tried half a dozen last night, all seems to be crap, they behave a lot
> like a linux system that's misconfigured. Just trying to find the
> easiest way of transferring files, not that big a deal now, since I can
> snag image-files over the charger cable and upload a pdf to google drive
> once in a while, or work with a doc-prep system like LibreOffice Writer
> and the image files on linux. The less I have to do the better,
> especially if it involves a requirement to be baptized into believing
> that Apple is the whole world and I have to buy a MacBook in order to
> get my work done using a device I've already purchased.

you don't need to buy a macbook, however, you do need to have an open
mind to new ways of doing things rather than bash apple for developing
new and more productive ways to do things.

as i mentioned in another post, the easiest way for you is likely to be
an sftp share extension, which will let you send/receive files to any
machine anywhere in the world, assuming you have access credentials.

> I love the iPad, maybe iOS not quite as much, maybe controlling
> paternalism not much at all.

there is no controlling paternalism.

[crankypuss]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> crankypuss <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> I'm looking for a good file transfer app that will send files via
>> bluetooth, not wifi.
>
> Why?

Good question, I'll presume that you really want to know.

1. I live in a forest miles from the nearest town or cell-tower, and my
only internet access is metered-cellular.

2. The only wifi that I have is a Verizon MIFI unit, and if I get pissed
enough at Verizon I won't even have that.

3. Although I have wifi through the MIFI unit, I went from Windows where
everything was untrustworthy to linux where everything you can configure
manually is trustworthy insofar that it isn't actively out to get you,
whether it actually works or not. As a result I don't fully understand
WIFI and I don't care to take the time to start reading RFC's and
learning some more protocols.

4. I'm a retired developer, I need to move at least image files from
system to system for documentation purposes before moving on to my next
hobby, and I'm a bit tardy since the butterflies are already flitting
around in my particular location.

I can already move image files via the cable just by plugging it in. I
can already transfer a completed pdf file through google-drive. It just
isn't all that convenient to plug in a cable to move images that are
evolving quickly, lazy me.

So wifi is out, internet is out, I can still get the job done eventually
with things as they are, using only the charger cable. It's a timesaver
pure and simple. I hope to buy a MacBook but so far none meet my specs,
I expect that eventually Apple will produce something MacBook-ish, that
does meet my specs, and I'll buy it and live happily ever after. Happy,
happy, happy, in the ideal world I'm working on OS X or linux or iOS or
BlackBerry-OS or Android, and doing whatever I need to do with the data
at hand, no matter the device-de-jour.

Whether I port first to iOS or Android or BlackBerry-OS doesn't make a
lot of difference to me. Nor, really, does it make a lot of difference
what direction the industry goes in the future. In the future I'll
probably be able to spend about what a tank of gasoline costs for a time
machine system the size of a credit-card that runs on bluetooth
connected to my google-glasses as the google-car drives me, instead of
home as I asked, directly to the nearest asylum. I prefer the
independence of being able to move my own files across my own systems
without asking permission from Apple or Google or DropBox or fuckever,
without needing to purchase a machine that is soon to become its own
antique predecessor.

> iOS comes with a built-in feature called AirDrop that uses Bluetooth
> to automatically discovers nearby devices

Excellent, I have nearby devices by the armful, BlackBerry, Android, and
linux devices that support bluetooth *and* wifi, although I do not grok
wifi. All I have to do is learn to use AirDrop and all my problems are
solved, happy happy happy!

Is that correct, AirDrop is on (or available for) my iPad Pro 9.7"
mobile running iOS 9.3.2(?), and I can use it to exchange files with my
Android and linux and BlackBerry systems? Is there a best place to
learn all about AirDrop?

> and then automatically sets
> up a peer-to-peer WiFi connection (no router required)

Is that right, no router required? Shows how little I've had time to
learn about wifi and modern networking in general. I've no religious
prejudice against using wifi, other than that I believe it's a polling
network and continually transmits thus eating battery at a phenomenal
rate. I like the energy usage of bluetooth devices.

5. Living in a forest as I do, when I was building my house here, I
found that simply *connecting* to the electric grid would cost about
twice what it actually did cost to design and install an offgrid system
based on solar, wind, or generator as availability dictates. I wasn't
willing to pay quite that much for the privilege of paying a monthly
bill. I prefer not to have to replace components in my electrical
system like batteries and panels simply because our usage "needs" have
outgrown our system.

6. I live in a forest, fulltime, year-round. In the winter my exercise
comes from shoveling snow. In the summer my exercise comes from
dragging downed trees up steep hills and cutting them before I split and
stack them so that next winter I can sit cozily in front of the
woodstove and do fuckever on my iPad. I believe that the man who
chooses to live in the forest is wise to at least consider remaining
mobile. Our forest hasn't burned in 150+ years so I make sure the
insurance payment is never overdue. If we have 15 minutes to pick up
and leave, we pick up and leave. Besides, I've never seen Europe or
Japan, if the wife gets itchy to travel, that doesn't mean I'll sit in
the sun drinking mint juleps all day, wherever we might end up.

Well, you did ask.

> and transfers
> stuff as fast as possible. Your grandfather's Bluetooth file transfers
> are nowhere near as fast or as simple to use as AirDrop. Other built-
> in features like Continuity and iTunes WiFi sync make transfer and
> sync brain-dead easy (automatic) as well. More often than not, when
> you use iOS as designed there's no reason to even think about
> transferring files here and there.

The whole Apple deal sounds wonderful, it's just that many years bring
more accurate expectations regarding the possibility that one will buy
the perfect device all bright and shiny to find that it's cheap plating
that chips off and cuts your hand in the process like a cheap wrench.

I'll jot down a note to research AirDrop, thank you very much, if this
whole confusion I've undergone has been mere understanding I will enjoy
slapping my forehead.

[nospam]

In article <njmpm1$gnm$1...@dont-email.me>, crankypuss

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:



>
> > iOS comes with a built-in feature called AirDrop that uses Bluetooth
> > to automatically discovers nearby devices
>
> Excellent, I have nearby devices by the armful, BlackBerry, Android, and
> linux devices that support bluetooth *and* wifi, although I do not grok
> wifi. All I have to do is learn to use AirDrop and all my problems are
> solved, happy happy happy!
>
> Is that correct, AirDrop is on (or available for) my iPad Pro 9.7"
> mobile running iOS 9.3.2(?), and I can use it to exchange files with my
> Android and linux and BlackBerry systems? Is there a best place to
> learn all about AirDrop?

airdrop is mac/ios only.

for other devices, you can send/receive over your local wifi network,
without needing an internet connection.

> > and then automatically sets
> > up a peer-to-peer WiFi connection (no router required)
>
> Is that right, no router required?

it is.

airdrop is peer to peer wifi. no router required.

it uses bluetooth to *establish* a wifi connection and then uses wifi
to transfer the content as fast as possible. all of that is done just
by choosing a target device from a list. no configuration needed.

> Shows how little I've had time to
> learn about wifi and modern networking in general. I've no religious
> prejudice against using wifi, other than that I believe it's a polling
> network and continually transmits thus eating battery at a phenomenal
> rate. I like the energy usage of bluetooth devices.

the ipad battery lasts over 10 hours in normal use. who cares. not only
that but turning off wifi/bluetooth won't make much of a difference.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-06-13, crankypuss <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> crankypuss <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> I'm looking for a good file transfer app that will send files via
>>> bluetooth, not wifi.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Good question, I'll presume that you really want to know.
>

> [typical rambling bullshit omitted]

Thanks for confirming who you really are - a nym-shifting brain-dead
troll. Yet another nym to add to the kill file. You can run, but you
can't hide, old man. Now off you go!

[crankypuss]

nospam wrote:

> In article <njmpm1$gnm$1...@dont-email.me>, crankypuss
> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> > iOS comes with a built-in feature called AirDrop that uses
>> > Bluetooth to automatically discovers nearby devices
>>
>> Excellent, I have nearby devices by the armful, BlackBerry, Android,
>> and linux devices that support bluetooth *and* wifi, although I do
>> not grok
>> wifi. All I have to do is learn to use AirDrop and all my problems
>> are solved, happy happy happy!
>>
>> Is that correct, AirDrop is on (or available for) my iPad Pro 9.7"
>> mobile running iOS 9.3.2(?), and I can use it to exchange files with
>> my
>> Android and linux and BlackBerry systems? Is there a best place to
>> learn all about AirDrop?
>
> airdrop is mac/ios only.
>
> for other devices, you can send/receive over your local wifi network,
> without needing an internet connection.

I do not own a local wifi network.

[nospam]

In article <njokvk$el5$1...@dont-email.me>, crankypuss

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> >>
> >> > iOS comes with a built-in feature called AirDrop that uses
> >> > Bluetooth to automatically discovers nearby devices
> >>
> >> Excellent, I have nearby devices by the armful, BlackBerry, Android,
> >> and linux devices that support bluetooth *and* wifi, although I do
> >> not grok
> >> wifi. All I have to do is learn to use AirDrop and all my problems
> >> are solved, happy happy happy!
> >>
> >> Is that correct, AirDrop is on (or available for) my iPad Pro 9.7"
> >> mobile running iOS 9.3.2(?), and I can use it to exchange files with
> >> my
> >> Android and linux and BlackBerry systems? Is there a best place to
> >> learn all about AirDrop?
> >
> > airdrop is mac/ios only.
> >
> > for other devices, you can send/receive over your local wifi network,
> > without needing an internet connection.
>
> I do not own a local wifi network.

why not? you have a bunch of systems.

wifi base stations are cheap, particularly a used one now that people
are upgrading to 802.11ac.

[Pat Dixon]

crankypuss wrote:

> I've located two that look okay, but do you know of or use others?

Bluetooth file transfer doesn't work on iOS mobile devices.
Complain to Apple.
Or buy anything other than Apple devices all of which have bluetooth
file transfer.

[nospam]

In article <njqk2v$163h$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Pat Dixon

troll.

[Pat Dixon]

I'm not the troll for telling the OP the truth.

The OP asked the question. I gave him/her the truthful answer.

What part of what I said was untruthful?

If none, then you are the troll.

[Pat Dixon]

nospam wrote:

> why? bluetooth is slow. wifi is multiple orders of magnitude faster.

troll

[Pat Dixon]

nospam wrote:

> both the dell xps and ipad have 802.11ac wifi, which is over 100x
> faster than bluetooth. why would you *not* want to use that???

troll

[Pat Dixon]

nospam wrote:

> for other devices, you can send/receive over your local wifi network,
> without needing an internet connection.

troll

[nospam]

In article <njqktc$1724$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Pat Dixon

<patd...@whyme.net> wrote:

> >>
> >> > I've located two that look okay, but do you know of or use others?
> >>
> >> Bluetooth file transfer doesn't work on iOS mobile devices.
> >> Complain to Apple.
> >> Or buy anything other than Apple devices all of which have bluetooth
> >> file transfer.
> >
> > troll.
>
> I'm not the troll for telling the OP the truth.

there is no need for bluetooth file transfer anymore because *far*
better options exist. it's completely pointless.

it's like asking toyota to put a crank on the front of their cars.

> The OP asked the question. I gave him/her the truthful answer.

it's not a helpful answer. it's trolling.

[Pat Dixon]

nospam wrote:

> it's not a helpful answer. it's trolling.

It's the correct answer.
For you to say otherwise is trolling.

[Lewis]

In message <njqk2v$163h$1...@gioia.aioe.org>

Pat Dixon <patd...@whyme.net> wrote:
> crankypuss wrote:

>> I've located two that look okay, but do you know of or use others?

> Bluetooth file transfer doesn't work on iOS mobile devices.

"Isn't supported" is not the same as "doesn't work."

> Complain to Apple.

That would be pointless. Apple has a FAR better solution for ad hoc
transfers.

> Or buy anything other than Apple devices all of which have bluetooth
> file transfer.

Yes, please, do that.

--
Let the Wookiee win.

[crankypuss]

It all seems to work for Apple-to-Apple. I'm thinking that (a)
temporarily, I can get by using the charger cable or dropbox since I
don't need to transfer many files often yet, and (b) all the computers
I've ever owned (in a long time, anyway) are non-Apple hardware, and
they all seem to last about 2 years before some nickel part like a USB
port breaks and it's time to change everything around. I've been
reading posts from people who are unhappy that they'll need to upgrade
their 7-year-old Apple devices one of these days, and that sounds kind
of good to me after dancing the 2-year-shuffle for a couple decades.

I expect that in the mid-term I'll be running linux in a virtual machine
on a MacBook, that way maybe I'll be able to flip it back to OS X and
close the lid without losing my work. Linux will get there, but I'm
very appreciative of the idea that I might be able to use a somewhat
more stable (non-Windows) OS until it does. And running OS X in a
virtual machine, I'd be able to run linux or switch back to OS X to use
AirDrop or iTunes or whatever else.

Beats me, it's not even noon yet. Last night I ordered one of these
things, which if it works might solve my particular issues with backup
dependencies:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B017QS7BQ4/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

If both iOS and Android can use it, then mostly I'm home free, I already
keep some bootable sdcard backups that just happen to include a fat32
primary partition. There's an app in the Apple store that's called
iflashdrive or something like that which is reputed able to access what
amounts to /user/myId and copy it to the sdcard.

Hell, by the time I get done, I might start to understand Apple-speek,
the language spoken by them thar folks what have no backspace key except
the one that claims to be "delete".

[nospam]

In article <njs14j$vi$1...@dont-email.me>, crankypuss

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
> It all seems to work for Apple-to-Apple.

obviously that will provide the best user experience, but that doesn't
mean files can't be transferred to non-apple devices.

they can, and quite easily. it's just that some people want to make it
as difficult as possible and then rant about big bad apple when the
problem is of their own making.

> I expect that in the mid-term I'll be running linux in a virtual machine
> on a MacBook, that way maybe I'll be able to flip it back to OS X and
> close the lid without losing my work.

why bother with a vm when linux apps can run natively in macos?

most linux apps have already been ported so you don't even need to
compile them (but you can if you really want).

> Hell, by the time I get done, I might start to understand Apple-speek,
> the language spoken by them thar folks what have no backspace key except
> the one that claims to be "delete".

it is delete.

microsoft changed the delete key to mean forward delete and used
backspace to mean normal delete, creating mass confusion.

[crankypuss]

I like being able to remove characters either to the left or the right
of the insertion point. With only your "delete" key, if the insertion
point is just left of the character to remove, you must first advance
the cursor and then delete backward. There is no keyboard mechanism I
can find for doing this on the abominably-configured soft-keyboard, so
it's necessary to go touch the right place if you're lucky or you don't
mind waiting for the magnifying glass to pop up. I have better things
to do with my time; if I'd realized that when younger perhaps I could
work slower now. Think about it. "Use the right tool for the job." I
realize that everyone here except me is used to the way things are. The
way things are is pretty good, but it isn't so good that it couldn't be
improved and still fall short of perfection.

[nospam]

In article <njs9nc$2fk$1...@dont-email.me>, crankypuss

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
> I like being able to remove characters either to the left or the right
> of the insertion point. With only your "delete" key, if the insertion
> point is just left of the character to remove, you must first advance
> the cursor and then delete backward. There is no keyboard mechanism I
> can find for doing this on the abominably-configured soft-keyboard, so
> it's necessary to go touch the right place if you're lucky or you don't
> mind waiting for the magnifying glass to pop up.

there isn't a lot of space in the onscreen keyboard so some keys are on
a secondary level (e.g., symbols) and some aren't there at all.

backwards delete is *far* more common than forward delete, so the
keyboard is optimized for that.

if you use forward delete a lot, then get a bluetooth keyboard with
both a delete & forward delete. any standard bluetooth keyboard will
work.

there are also apps that have a customized keyboard which may include
forward delete, cursor keys, macros, etc., ad if you do a lot of
writing, such an app is probably worth getting.

on macs where there is only a delete key (namely laptops for space
reasons), forward delete is done using the fn key modifier (fn+delete)
or even emacs bindings (in most apps).

> I have better things
> to do with my time; if I'd realized that when younger perhaps I could
> work slower now. Think about it. "Use the right tool for the job." I
> realize that everyone here except me is used to the way things are. The
> way things are is pretty good, but it isn't so good that it couldn't be
> improved and still fall short of perfection.

what you want to do is easily done.

[dorayme]

In article <njqktc$1724$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Pat Dixon <patd...@whyme.net> wrote:

> What part of what I said was untruthful?
>
> If none, then you are the troll.

I am pretty sure this is a non sequitur.

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article <njs9nc$2fk$1...@dont-email.me>,
crankypuss <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I
> realize that everyone here except me is used to the way things are.

Not everyone is happy about things on the iPad. There are many very
poor things, it would be true that some of us realising this are
resigned to it and still like the iPad for its greater pluses. Your
remarks about inserting a cursor point accurately are one of the
annoying things, I agree.

--
dorayme

[Seul-ki Goh]

nospam wrote:

> there isn't a lot of space in the onscreen keyboard so some keys are on
> a secondary level (e.g., symbols) and some aren't there at all.

Why not just change keyboards to it that you like?

I define key and shortcut and move key anywhere I want on keyboards.

I use ai.keyboard free.
It can does all that and much more it can does.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[nospam]

In article <nk04b2$14lc$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Seul-ki Goh

<Seul-k...@hinbiro.kp> wrote:

>
> > there isn't a lot of space in the onscreen keyboard so some keys are on
> > a secondary level (e.g., symbols) and some aren't there at all.
>
> Why not just change keyboards to it that you like?

that's an option.

there may be third party keyboards with forward delete. i never looked.

there definitely are apps with it.

> I define key and shortcut and move key anywhere I want on keyboards.
>
> I use ai.keyboard free.
> It can does all that and much more it can does.

ai.keyboard is for android. the ios version is called ai.type keyboard
plus. either way, i don't see any mention of forward delete, but it
does have a bunch of themes and emojis.

[Erilar]

I can usually insert a cursor with my finger. What's the problem?

--
biblioholic medievalist via iPad

[dorayme]

In article <nk1dq5$bni$1...@dont-email.me>,

I can *always* insert a cursor in the middle of a word where there are
no spaces with a mouse on a Macbook, find it harder to do so with a
finger on an iPad. If I could see you doing it easily on my iPad
(usually, nearly all the time...?) maybe I could tell you what the
problem is! When I do it, the cursor falls to the right or left of the
word I'm trying to get into. Perhaps it is impossible to do and one
needs to live with that on an iPad, using alternatives like deleting
letters and retyping from the ends, using spellchecks where this is
appropriate etc.

--
dorayme

[crankypuss]

I can mostly place the cursor wherever it needs to be by using the
magnifying cursor insertion tool, but I wish there was a way to get that
tool to appear more quickly. I haven't found anywhere such values can
be set, or the repeat-key speed, or a number of other details I'm used
to being able to control.

The big problem I have is that when it's selected a word, and it has the
little movable handles at the bottom to change the area selected,
they're much too *tiny* for my fat fingers to reliably touch, and
missing one by even the least bit de-selects the previously selected
word. Using the pencil for that helps a lot, but it would be nice if
there was some trick for changing the selection by touch in a more
reliable way. I can change it using the smart-keyboard, but when that's
not already attached the game changes and it becomes more difficult for
the fat-fingered.

IMO it would all be much easier if it was possible to use a bluetooth
mouse, omitting the mouse driver when they packaged up iOS was a big
mistake, and the resizing handles should each be as big as a keyboard-
button; but, it is as it is.

It's sometimes difficult to keep in mind how *young* the touch paradigm
actually is, and accept that touch user-interfaces are still evolving.

Some people, for example nospam, are of the opinion that just because a
computer's hardware is packaged as a tablet that makes it all different
somehow; I think it isn't, it just has different hardware capabilities,
making it potentially *more* flexible than a laptop or desktop. But
computing devices packaged up as appliances are not the same as
computing devices configured for general-use computing.

It took me a while to get used to working an Android, it took me a while
to get used to a BlackBerry, it's going to take a while to get used to
the iPad. And it's awfully nice to have found a newsgroup where people
seem more interesting in chatting and helping others than they are in
further inflating their egos, my hat's off.

[nospam]

In article <nk357q$8kf$1...@dont-email.me>, crankypuss

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
> I can mostly place the cursor wherever it needs to be by using the
> magnifying cursor insertion tool, but I wish there was a way to get that
> tool to appear more quickly. I haven't found anywhere such values can
> be set, or the repeat-key speed, or a number of other details I'm used
> to being able to control.
>
> The big problem I have is that when it's selected a word, and it has the
> little movable handles at the bottom to change the area selected,
> they're much too *tiny* for my fat fingers to reliably touch, and
> missing one by even the least bit de-selects the previously selected
> word. Using the pencil for that helps a lot, but it would be nice if
> there was some trick for changing the selection by touch in a more
> reliable way. I can change it using the smart-keyboard, but when that's
> not already attached the game changes and it becomes more difficult for
> the fat-fingered.
>
> IMO it would all be much easier if it was possible to use a bluetooth
> mouse, omitting the mouse driver when they packaged up iOS was a big
> mistake, and the resizing handles should each be as big as a keyboard-
> button; but, it is as it is.

it wasn't a mistake.

ios was designed for direct manipulation (touch), not indirect
manipulation (mouse).

there are many ways to do what you want, *without* a mouse.

during text editing, you can use a two-finger touch to provide a cursor
which can directly be moved anywhere.

for selecting text, simply double-tap a word to select it or double-tap
with two fingers to select a paragraph. once there's a visible
selection, the two-finger gesture can be used to extend/contract the
selection by moving one finger to widen/shrink the gap between the
fingers.

no mouse required.

[crankypuss]

You sound very religious about your view of touch-enabled devices,
apparently thinking that this Dell laptop I'm using, which is touch-
enabled, has by merit of supporting an additional interface, become
useless as a regular laptop.

I think that's silly. I think the only thing that keeps an iPad from
being a small lightweight low-heat-emission slightly-underpowered
development system is iOS.

And you sound as though you are/were on the Apple touch-interface
development team, I can't see any reason to advocate more hand movements
over fewer, other than that it was one's very-own most-beloved idea.

Fortunately it isn't necessary that we agree on such philosophical
issues. The appliance works, I'm still learning ways to work with it
and around it, just like anything else new.

[nospam]

In article <nk4grf$ait$1...@dont-email.me>, crankypuss

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> >> IMO it would all be much easier if it was possible to use a bluetooth
> >> mouse, omitting the mouse driver when they packaged up iOS was a big
> >> mistake, and the resizing handles should each be as big as a
> >> keyboard- button; but, it is as it is.
> >
> > it wasn't a mistake.
> >
> > ios was designed for direct manipulation (touch), not indirect
> > manipulation (mouse).
> >
> > there are many ways to do what you want, *without* a mouse.
> >
> > during text editing, you can use a two-finger touch to provide a
> > cursor which can directly be moved anywhere.
> >
> > for selecting text, simply double-tap a word to select it or
> > double-tap with two fingers to select a paragraph. once there's a
> > visible selection, the two-finger gesture can be used to
> > extend/contract the selection by moving one finger to widen/shrink the
> > gap between the fingers.
> >
> > no mouse required.
>
> You sound very religious about your view of touch-enabled devices,
> apparently thinking that this Dell laptop I'm using, which is touch-
> enabled, has by merit of supporting an additional interface, become
> useless as a regular laptop.

microsoft tried to mix the two with windows 8 which turned out to be a
commercial failure.

touch is a new paradigm and requires rethinking how people interact
with computers.

> I think that's silly. I think the only thing that keeps an iPad from
> being a small lightweight low-heat-emission slightly-underpowered
> development system is iOS.

an ipad was never intended to be a development system.

if you want to do app development, then the ipad is the wrong device.

apple just released a new app, swift playground, which provides for
writing swift code on the ipad, but also completely reimagines how it's
done. it's *much* more than a text editor/compiler. however, you still
can't write full fledged apps on it.

[crankypuss]

Don't blame the technology just because one group mucked up an early
implementation. Apple's implementation could still be improved imo, and
that's no insult, just recognition that the medium is still being
explored by real users, on Apple and Android and BlackBerry devices,
along with various laptops that support touch.

> touch is a new paradigm and requires rethinking how people interact
> with computers.

Yes, touch is a new facility, and imo it has not yet been mastered as a
UI paradigm, furthermore I think it would be silly to judge a new and
largely unexplored facility based on what some few have done with it.

>> I think that's silly. I think the only thing that keeps an iPad from
>> being a small lightweight low-heat-emission slightly-underpowered
>> development system is iOS.
>
> an ipad was never intended to be a development system.
>
> if you want to do app development, then the ipad is the wrong device.

That depends on your definition of "iPad". There is iPad-hardware, and
iOS software, which combined make up "iPad". The hardware is fully
capable of being used as a development system, it is iOS that is
configured to limit, not the hardware.

If they chose to, Apple could sell a new device called an iDevTab or
something that was intended for developers, and I think they could do it
overnight. They don't need the money so the bother isn't economically
justifiable, they have more interesting plans whatever those might be.

Limitations are often/usually determined by the maker's assessment of
the end-user demographic. It would probably be unwise to give grandma
and the kids an appliance that permits the modification of the appliance
itself unless you have a bulletproof backup/recovery engine that she and
the kids can't muck up. I predict that such will come eventually, to
widespread and resounding fanfare, and Swift Playground is only the tip
of that iceberg imo.

I have no issues with having purchased a very useful internet appliance,
and I have no issues with the fact that iOS was designed to be as it is.

I do have issues with pigeon-hole thinking where one has allowed others
to determine the pigeon-holes one is allowed to think within, but those
are mine just as the way you think is yours.

> apple just released a new app, swift playground, which provides for
> writing swift code on the ipad, but also completely reimagines how
> it's done. it's *much* more than a text editor/compiler. however, you
> still can't write full fledged apps on it.

So far I haven't gotten deeply enough into Swift to be impressed by it
one way or another, but for some reason it's on my list of things to
look into. I was under the impression that Swift had been in use for
some time on the mac series.

The addition of Swift Playground only reinforces the existence of
WorkFlow as evidence that the iPad can be as much a development platform
as it is permitted to be.




I didn't buy the iPad to be a development platform. I bought it for
drawing diagrams and writing documents that contain both diagrams and
photos, for email and browsing, some internet shopping. It's working
out marvelously, aside from some problems with Safari autofill and a
little discontent with the way mail handling is set up by default, which
I expect is a matter of finding the right email app.

Back on the linux side of things I'm still working toward a couple of
applications that I consider worth the trouble of writing. Once they're
ready for porting, I'll see what the options are. If I can't develop
the apps on linux and get them signed somehow, I'll just port to Android
and BlackBerry and see what the situation has become by the time that's
done.

Mostly I'm trying to step away from the programming altogether but that
isn't easy, I've been addicted since early 1969 and the tracks run deep.
Not being able to use the iPad immediately as a development system is no
hindrance, in fact it's quite helpful.

[David Empson]

crankypuss <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> So far I haven't gotten deeply enough into Swift to be impressed by it
> one way or another, but for some reason it's on my list of things to
> look into. I was under the impression that Swift had been in use for
> some time on the mac series.

Swift was annnounced at Apple's developer conference two years ago,
initially for use developing iOS or Mac apps (as an alternative to or in
conjunction with Objective C). The initial version of the compilers only
existed on the Mac, since they were part of Xcode, Apple's IDE which
only runs on a Mac.

Swift is still somewhat of a moving target: there have been language
changes which required updating application source code with new
versions (largely automated via Xcode). Swift was open sourced in late
2015, and Apple released a Linux version. Other platforms can be
supported if someone else wants to do the work.

Apple are working on the release of Swift 3 later this year, for which
they are hoping to achieve a greater degree of forward compatibility
(for mixing code written in Swift 3 with code written in future
versions, including binary compatibility).

Once it reaches this point, Apple will be able to make greater use of
Swift for their own code (e.g. in operating system code and frameworks).
So far their use has been limited. (Swift Playgrounds is the first app
I'm aware of where Apple announced they had written it in Swift.)

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[nospam]

In article <nk5uqn$vec$1...@dont-email.me>, crankypuss

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:


>
> >> I think that's silly. I think the only thing that keeps an iPad from
> >> being a small lightweight low-heat-emission slightly-underpowered
> >> development system is iOS.
> >
> > an ipad was never intended to be a development system.
> >
> > if you want to do app development, then the ipad is the wrong device.
>
> That depends on your definition of "iPad". There is iPad-hardware, and
> iOS software, which combined make up "iPad". The hardware is fully
> capable of being used as a development system, it is iOS that is
> configured to limit, not the hardware.

then buy something that runs a different operating system.

ios was designed for an entirely different use case than software
development.

> If they chose to, Apple could sell a new device called an iDevTab or
> something that was intended for developers, and I think they could do it
> overnight. They don't need the money so the bother isn't economically
> justifiable, they have more interesting plans whatever those might be.

it wouldn't sell.

developers want multiple large displays and lots of hard drive space.

being able to experiment with swift on an ipad is cool for learning but
definitely not for writing a full fledged app.

> Limitations are often/usually determined by the maker's assessment of
> the end-user demographic. It would probably be unwise to give grandma
> and the kids an appliance that permits the modification of the appliance
> itself unless you have a bulletproof backup/recovery engine that she and
> the kids can't muck up. I predict that such will come eventually, to
> widespread and resounding fanfare, and Swift Playground is only the tip
> of that iceberg imo.
>
> I have no issues with having purchased a very useful internet appliance,
> and I have no issues with the fact that iOS was designed to be as it is.
>
> I do have issues with pigeon-hole thinking where one has allowed others
> to determine the pigeon-holes one is allowed to think within, but those
> are mine just as the way you think is yours.

it's not pigeon-holing. no one device is suitable for all tasks, no
matter what it is.

> > apple just released a new app, swift playground, which provides for
> > writing swift code on the ipad, but also completely reimagines how
> > it's done. it's *much* more than a text editor/compiler. however, you
> > still can't write full fledged apps on it.
>
> So far I haven't gotten deeply enough into Swift to be impressed by it
> one way or another, but for some reason it's on my list of things to
> look into. I was under the impression that Swift had been in use for
> some time on the mac series.

it was announced 2 years ago.

> The addition of Swift Playground only reinforces the existence of
> WorkFlow as evidence that the iPad can be as much a development platform
> as it is permitted to be.

not really.

> I didn't buy the iPad to be a development platform. I bought it for
> drawing diagrams and writing documents that contain both diagrams and
> photos, for email and browsing, some internet shopping. It's working
> out marvelously, aside from some problems with Safari autofill and a
> little discontent with the way mail handling is set up by default, which
> I expect is a matter of finding the right email app.

it will work well for that.

for development, a different device would be better suited.

> Back on the linux side of things I'm still working toward a couple of
> applications that I consider worth the trouble of writing. Once they're
> ready for porting, I'll see what the options are. If I can't develop
> the apps on linux and get them signed somehow, I'll just port to Android
> and BlackBerry and see what the situation has become by the time that's
> done.
>
> Mostly I'm trying to step away from the programming altogether but that
> isn't easy, I've been addicted since early 1969 and the tracks run deep.
> Not being able to use the iPad immediately as a development system is no
> hindrance, in fact it's quite helpful.

if you want to do development, another system would be preferable. if
you want to do ios development, that would need to be a mac.

swift playground on an ipad would be helpful to learn swift, but not
for writing actual apps.

[Erilar]

Many things are easier with a mouse. The iPad, however, is much lighter and
smaller than my laptop, has apps that do things my laptop doesn't, fits
inside my travel purse, and has a longer battery life by far than my
unplugged laptop. You pays your money and you takes your choice 8-)

[AArdvarks]

Erilar wrote:

> Many things are easier with a mouse. The iPad, however, is much lighter and
> smaller than my laptop, has apps that do things my laptop doesn't, fits
> inside my travel purse, and has a longer battery life by far than my
> unplugged laptop. You pays your money and you takes your choice 8-)

While Android's more mature operating system has advantages in bluetooth
over iOS (as in the ability to transfer files via bluetooth, which iOS
completely lacks), even the more mature Android lacks bluetooth mouse
capabilities.

So, in that sense, the obviously less functional iOS bluetooth
capabilities are not considered a competitive disadvantage by most
Apple aficionados.

[nospam]

In article <nk99l7$1lth$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, AArdvarks

<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

>
> > Many things are easier with a mouse. The iPad, however, is much lighter and
> > smaller than my laptop, has apps that do things my laptop doesn't, fits
> > inside my travel purse, and has a longer battery life by far than my
> > unplugged laptop. You pays your money and you takes your choice 8-)
>
> While Android's more mature operating system has advantages in bluetooth
> over iOS (as in the ability to transfer files via bluetooth, which iOS
> completely lacks), even the more mature Android lacks bluetooth mouse
> capabilities.

there is no advantage in transferring files over bluetooth. none
whatsoever. it's absurdly slow and a pain in the ass to initiate.

it's like using a dial-up modem when you have gigabit ethernet.

> So, in that sense, the obviously less functional iOS bluetooth
> capabilities are not considered a competitive disadvantage by most
> Apple aficionados.

it's actually *significantly* more functional.

a couple of taps and just about anything can be transferred.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-06-20, AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> Erilar wrote:
>
>> Many things are easier with a mouse. The iPad, however, is much lighter and
>> smaller than my laptop, has apps that do things my laptop doesn't, fits
>> inside my travel purse, and has a longer battery life by far than my
>> unplugged laptop. You pays your money and you takes your choice 8-)
>
> While Android's more mature operating system

Android is no more mature than iOS.

> has advantages in bluetooth over iOS (as in the ability to transfer
> files via bluetooth, which iOS completely lacks),

Your so-called "advantage" of slow, cumbersome, insecure Bluetooth file
transfers is nowhere near as fast, easy, or secure as transfer options
available in iOS.

> even the more mature Android lacks bluetooth mouse
> capabilities.

Repeating the word "mature" doesn't magically make it come true.

> So, in that sense, the obviously less functional iOS bluetooth
> capabilities are not considered a competitive disadvantage by most
> Apple aficionados.

Because better things have come along. As usual, you are hopelessly
stuck in the past, old man. While you are fiddling with your clunky
Linux box and Android devices, the rest of us are already out the door.
Stay cranky, old fart! : )

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[AArdvarks]

nospam wrote:

> there is no advantage in transferring files over bluetooth. none
> whatsoever. it's absurdly slow and a pain in the ass to initiate.

You say that every time there is something in Android that you just
can't do on iOS.

Which means you say that a lot!

[AArdvarks]

Jolly Roger wrote:

>> While Android's more mature operating system
>
> Android is no more mature than iOS.

You've got to be kidding.

1. Compare the number of apps on Android, versus the number of apps
on iOS. Both are huge, but Android far exceeds iOS, especially
when you count free useful apps, where many useful apps that are
on Android just don't exist on iOS (e.g., sniffers).

2. Compare the number of Android devices out there, compared to the
number of iOS devices out there. Both are astoundingly high, but,
Android far exceeds iOS in both number of manufacturers (there are
only two manufacturers of iOS devices, one of which is in China and
which made the news recently).

3. Overall functionality on Android is far more mature than that on iOS.
Compare the number of free launchers on Android, for example, where
the choice is phenomenal. What does iOS have by way of launchers?
Answer = 1. Welcome to the walled garden.

4. With respect to file transfer, which this thread was about, compare
the many ways that Android can transfer files (each of which has pros
and cons), and then compare the number of ways that iOS can transfer
files. Both have plenty of ways to transfer files, but Android is
far more mature in that you can transfer almost ANY FILE whether or
not the phone is rooted, and you can access your data any way you
like (e.g., ES File Explorer), and you can PUT your files anywhere
you want (especially with the freeware redirectors available), and
you can connect the Android device to any computer in the world
and you can transfer all your files to that computer, whether or not
you've "registered" your "library" with some major corporation.

There are only two places where iOS is "more mature" than Android,
and that is in overall security and overall privacy.

But, when it comes to overall functionality, there's absolutely no
way that iOS stands a chance if we were to list the 100 most important
things that people *want* to do.

One of them, clearly, is the simplicity of transferring files over
bluetooth without connecting to a WiFi network. You and nospam will
constantly give reasons why you can't do what everyone else can do,
and there's nothing wrong with your reasons (e.g., speed), but,
the fact is that Android can do that stuff too.

It just so happens that Android (and every other computer platform
not from Apple) also can do this.

That's why it's more mature. It can do far more stuff that people
want to do than iOS can.

Android is far more mature than iOS, except in two key areas.

[nospam]

In article <nk9l8t$9dd$3...@gioia.aioe.org>, AArdvarks

<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

>
> > there is no advantage in transferring files over bluetooth. none
> > whatsoever. it's absurdly slow and a pain in the ass to initiate.
>
> You say that every time there is something in Android that you just
> can't do on iOS.

no, i say that any time you rant about transferring files over
bluetooth.

nobody but you wants to transfer files over bluetooth because it's slow
and clumsy and there are *much* better methods available that android
*can't* do.

[nospam]

In article <nk9lv2$b9s$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, AArdvarks

<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> >> While Android's more mature operating system
> >
> > Android is no more mature than iOS.
>
> You've got to be kidding.

he's not.

it's well ahead of android, which is why android keeps copying things.

> 1. Compare the number of apps on Android, versus the number of apps
> on iOS. Both are huge, but Android far exceeds iOS, especially
> when you count free useful apps, where many useful apps that are
> on Android just don't exist on iOS (e.g., sniffers).

numbers don't mean anything and there are plenty of apps that are
ios-only.

> 2. Compare the number of Android devices out there, compared to the
> number of iOS devices out there. Both are astoundingly high, but,
> Android far exceeds iOS in both number of manufacturers (there are
> only two manufacturers of iOS devices, one of which is in China and
> which made the news recently).

most android devices are low end.

when you compare like with like, iphones outsell phones such as the
galaxy s5/6 etc.

only when you add in the cheap crap, most of which are barely more than
a feature phone, do the numbers tilt the other way.

that's why market share numbers are meaningless.

> 3. Overall functionality on Android is far more mature than that on iOS.
> Compare the number of free launchers on Android, for example, where
> the choice is phenomenal. What does iOS have by way of launchers?
> Answer = 1. Welcome to the walled garden.

while android has alternate launchers, the vast majority of android
users never change it.

> 4. With respect to file transfer, which this thread was about, compare
> the many ways that Android can transfer files (each of which has pros
> and cons), and then compare the number of ways that iOS can transfer
> files. Both have plenty of ways to transfer files, but Android is
> far more mature in that you can transfer almost ANY FILE whether or
> not the phone is rooted, and you can access your data any way you
> like (e.g., ES File Explorer), and you can PUT your files anywhere
> you want (especially with the freeware redirectors available), and
> you can connect the Android device to any computer in the world
> and you can transfer all your files to that computer, whether or not
> you've "registered" your "library" with some major corporation.

nonsense.

> There are only two places where iOS is "more mature" than Android,
> and that is in overall security and overall privacy.

much more than two, but those are two *very* important features.

> But, when it comes to overall functionality, there's absolutely no
> way that iOS stands a chance if we were to list the 100 most important
> things that people *want* to do.

you have no idea what people want to do.

you only know what *you* want to do.

> One of them, clearly, is the simplicity of transferring files over
> bluetooth without connecting to a WiFi network.

it's simpler and faster to do on ios.

that's something that can *easily* be measured.

> You and nospam will
> constantly give reasons why you can't do what everyone else can do,
> and there's nothing wrong with your reasons (e.g., speed),

you've just contradicted yourself. now you say it *can* be done, and
faster.

> but,
> the fact is that Android can do that stuff too.

no it can't.

> It just so happens that Android (and every other computer platform
> not from Apple) also can do this.

that's flat out wrong.

> That's why it's more mature. It can do far more stuff that people
> want to do than iOS can.

also wrong

> Android is far more mature than iOS, except in two key areas.

wrong on that too.

[AArdvarks]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Your so-called "advantage" of slow, cumbersome, insecure Bluetooth file
> transfers is nowhere near as fast, easy, or secure as transfer options
> available in iOS.

Clearly you have never used bluetooth file transfer on Android.

1. You view the file (e.g., a photo) & you press the blueetooth icon.
2. Up pops a list of bluetooth servers & you choose one.

That's it. You move on to your next photo while the file is transferring
in the background. I repeat, the file transfers in the background, so,
you don't "wait" for it to transfer.

The beauty is that it's so simple. Click, click. You're done.
And you move on to whatever you want to do while the file transfers.

You could do this on an airplane, and it would work, as long as the
one passenger with the bluetooth-enabled laptop accepts your photo.

If that is so "cumbersome", tell me how *you* would do that using
your vaunted iOS methods.

C'mon now. Tell me.

Here's a simple situation which I, myself have done:
a. Passenger 1 is has a laptop on the airplane at cruising altitude.
b. Passenger 2 has an Android device and is viewing pictures.
c. Passenger 1 wants to send a photo to passenger 2.

In that scenario, which I have done, passenger 1 just clicks on the
photo and selects the bluetooth enabled laptop's ID, and that's it.

Neither passenger cares how long it takes because they're both
sending/receiving the file in the background. Even so, a normal
Android-sized photo (oh, about 3 or 4 Mbytes) is done transferring
before the passenger has had time to select the next photo to send.

Tell me.

How would you transfer a file when no cellular/wifi is available,
from your vaunted iOS to the laptop of someone who isn't you (so
iTunes can't work and neither can the cloud nor WiFi or cellular
networks).

Oh? What's that?
You can't do it?

Why not?

[nospam]

In article <nk9p6o$gbl$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, AArdvarks

<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

>
> > Your so-called "advantage" of slow, cumbersome, insecure Bluetooth file
> > transfers is nowhere near as fast, easy, or secure as transfer options
> > available in iOS.
>
> Clearly you have never used bluetooth file transfer on Android.

clearly you've never used the methods available on ios.

> 1. You view the file (e.g., a photo) & you press the blueetooth icon.
> 2. Up pops a list of bluetooth servers & you choose one.
>
> That's it. You move on to your next photo while the file is transferring
> in the background. I repeat, the file transfers in the background, so,
> you don't "wait" for it to transfer.

you absolutely must wait for it to transfer because until it does, it's
not available on the other system. it's also using system resources to
run in the background that could be used for other purposes.

on ios, the file transfer is *complete* within a fraction of a second
after tapping. it technically is done in the background, but it's so
fast that it's for all intents, instant.

>
> How would you transfer a file when no cellular/wifi is available,
> from your vaunted iOS to the laptop of someone who isn't you (so
> iTunes can't work and neither can the cloud nor WiFi or cellular
> networks).

easily.

and no itunes required.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-06-20, AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> nospam wrote:
>
>> there is no advantage in transferring files over bluetooth. none
>> whatsoever. it's absurdly slow and a pain in the ass to initiate.
>
> You say that every time there is something in Android that you just
> can't do on iOS.

No, it's always *you* who is yet again blabbing on about your beloved
ancient, cumbersome, and slow Bluetooth file transfers in an Apple news
group (you do this under a different nym each time, as if that somehow
hides who you are - it doesn't). And while you are still fucking around
with manual Bluetooth file transfers, the rest of us have already walked
out the door. You are hopelessly stuck in the past, old man. Troll on if
it helps you feel better about your life.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-06-20, AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Android is no more mature than iOS.
>
> You've got to be kidding.

Not at all. In fact I'm willing to bet I have a better understanding of
both architectures than you.

[irrelevant trollish ramblings omitted]

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-06-20, AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Your so-called "advantage" of slow, cumbersome, insecure Bluetooth file
>> transfers is nowhere near as fast, easy, or secure as transfer options
>> available in iOS.
>
> Clearly you have never used bluetooth file transfer on Android.

Wrong. I've used Bluetooth file transfer on many different operating
systems; there's nothing special about Android's implementation. And
none of them are as automatic, fast, or secure as with iOS.

> 1. You view the file (e.g., a photo) & you press the blueetooth icon.
> 2. Up pops a list of bluetooth servers & you choose one.

And that's both slower and more cumbersome than what is available on
iOS. Yep.

> That's it. You move on to your next photo while the file is transferring
> in the background. I repeat, the file transfers in the background, so,
> you don't "wait" for it to transfer.

They take way longer to complete than with iOS, yes. Slower. Also more
cumbersome.

> The beauty is that it's so simple. Click, click. You're done.
> And you move on to whatever you want to do while the file transfers.

Still more cumbersome than with iOS - and less secure, and way slower as
well.

> You could do this on an airplane, and it would work, as long as the
> one passenger with the bluetooth-enabled laptop accepts your photo.

iOS can do it better on a plane. : )

> If that is so "cumbersome", tell me how *you* would do that using
> your vaunted iOS methods.

So you admit you don't know how to do it with iOS, yet here you are
trolling iOS. Irony. : )

[dorayme]

In article <nk94f4$u5d$1...@dont-email.me>,

Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:

...

> >>> Not everyone is happy about things on the iPad. There are many very
> >>> poor things, it would be true that some of us realising this are
> >>> resigned to it and still like the iPad for its greater pluses. Your
> >>> remarks about inserting a cursor point accurately are one of the
> >>> annoying things, I agree.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I can usually insert a cursor with my finger. What's the problem?
> >
> > I can *always* insert a cursor in the middle of a word where there are
> > no spaces with a mouse on a Macbook, find it harder to do so with a
> > finger on an iPad. If I could see you doing it easily on my iPad
> > (usually, nearly all the time...?) maybe I could tell you what the
> > problem is! When I do it, the cursor falls to the right or left of the
> > word I'm trying to get into. Perhaps it is impossible to do and one
> > needs to live with that on an iPad, using alternatives like deleting
> > letters and retyping from the ends, using spellchecks where this is
> > appropriate etc.
> >
>
> Many things are easier with a mouse. The iPad, however, is much lighter and

> smaller than my laptop, ...

Of course, but pity you have not followed up with details on the point
at hand about how you insert cursors, whether you find it easy to do
it in the middle of words... in the middle of URLs in address bars
that jump around changing text etc...

--
dorayme

[AArdvarks]

nospam wrote:

> nobody but you wants to transfer files over bluetooth because it's slow
> and clumsy and there are *much* better methods available that android
> *can't* do.

Like what?
iTunes?

Surely you jest.

[AArdvarks]

nospam wrote:

> numbers don't mean anything and there are plenty of apps that are
> ios-only.

Says the same guy who lauded how many more apps there were in
the Apple app store than on Google Play in the early days of Google Play.

[AArdvarks]

nospam wrote:

> while android has alternate launchers, the vast majority of android
> users never change it.

I'm not so sure of that, given that in 2015, the Nova payware launcher
was #23 on Google Play's list of most-purchased apps:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2973060/android/how-i-use-android-kevin-barry.html

The Nova payware currently has two hundred thousand reviews and is
currently #55 on Google's current list:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/topselling_paid

But I'm using the freeware, which is probably vastly used more so than
the payware - so while I don't know the number of users of Nova freeware
launcher, it has to be a significant number of people.

But any "power user" would certainly want to change their launcher
to fit their needs (instead of the other way around).

The problem here is that anyone who has both Android and iOS will
instantly see how "primitive" the iOS launcher is, compared to the
various choices in Android launchers.

The problem here is that the iOS user is forced to adapt to Apple's
highly restrictive choices, whereas, with over 50 launchers available
on Android, the device is forced adapts to the users' preferences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_launchers

Big difference.

However, I have both iOS and Android devices, and I switch between
the various launchers are will, even on the same device (the launcher
is simply a user choice that occurs during bootup).

Given that I've used a few launchers (I like Google Now and Nova the
best, but I have others), I can easily see that the good free Android
launchers are tremendously more flexible and functional (aka mature)
than the one grossly outdated and far less functional iOS launcher.

That's why I say iOS is incredibly primitive from that standpoint.

On iOS...
1. You have to show almost all the apps on the current iOS version
and even in iOS 10, you still can't hide most rarely-used non-OS
apps without actually deleting them (AFAIK).
2. You can't put a multi-purpose app in multiple logical folders
3. You can't create any grid you like (e.g., a central icon with a
circle of app icons around it, for just one example - although
I use a triangle of app folders with the most important at the
pinnacle of the triangle)
4. You can't change the max number of icons on the screen or
in the dock or in a folder
5. You can't create placeholder folders for things you know you
will need in the future (perhaps when you're in a rush)
6. There is no concept of an "app drawer" (everything is on the
desktop, whether you like it or not) although you can "approximate"
the "app drawer" in iOS 10 (but only for a small set of system apps)
7. You can't "lock" down your icon setup so that you never accidentally
move them from their preassigned position.
8. You can totally change the shape of the icon holos (I use circles
but some people prefer rectangles or other shapes and highlights)
9. LOTS MORE (e.g., http://novalauncher.com/ lists the following
- Custom Grid (configure any grid you want)
- Infinite Scroll (loops through desktops infinitely)
- Gestures (such as pinching, swiping, two-finger swiping, etc.)
- Drawer Groups (organize the app drawer in custom tabs and folders)
- Scrollable Dock (put as many icons or folders on the dock as you want)
- Folder Icons (any folder icon or halo that you want)
- Hide Apps (hide any app you want to hide)
- Scroll Effects (eye candy)
- Backup/Restore (save your settings before a wipe)
- Icon Swipes (set custom swipe actions)

All of the above is available to all Android users, and it's a choice
that they can make either at boot time, or as a boot default.

What choice of launcher does the iOS user have?
Answer = none

Overall, the ability to organize your iOS desktop is incredibly
primitive on iOS when you compare iOS with Android.

iOS certainly has some advantages over Android, but not in the
user interface customization arena.

[AArdvarks]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Not at all. In fact I'm willing to bet I have a better understanding of
> both architectures than you.

Really?

Then tell me why on iOS the architecture is so primitive that it
limits the user to zero choice of launcher, while the more modern
open architecture of Android allows any launcher the user wants.

Why is the primitive architecture on iOS so limited that it only has
one way of launching apps, whereas the more mature architecture of
Android allows 50 different launchers?

Android choices:
1. OEM launcher
2. Google Now launcher
3. Nova launcher
4. Apex Launcher
5. Action Launcher 3
etc.

iOS choices:
1. OEM launcher

Why is it that on the more primitive iOS architecture, the user is forced
to adapt to Apple's choices, whereas on the more modern open Android
architecture, the device easily adapts to the user's preferences.

[AArdvarks]

nospam wrote:

>> How would you transfer a file when no cellular/wifi is available,
>> from your vaunted iOS to the laptop of someone who isn't you (so
>> iTunes can't work and neither can the cloud nor WiFi or cellular
>> networks).
>
> easily.
>
> and no itunes required.

You're funny how you react when you're shown a very simple
task on Android which is impossible to do on iOS.

What you say is it can be done "easily", but even you know
it's impossible to do on iOS (while it's trivial to transfer
files between any android phone and any laptop on that plane).

Yet you still lie and say you can do it "easily".

Why do you lie?

[AArdvarks]

nospam wrote:

> you absolutely must wait for it to transfer because until it does, it's
> not available on the other system.

This tells me that you've never actually done it, because I do it
all the time, and I move on to the next task on both the mobile
device and the laptop.

So, again you lie.

But why?

[AArdvarks]

nospam wrote:

> on ios, the file transfer is *complete* within a fraction of a second
> after tapping. it technically is done in the background, but it's so
> fast that it's for all intents, instant.

Why do you lie?

Even you know that Android transfers any file to any computer with NO
SUPPORT SYSTEMS NEEDED whatsoever!

Therefore, you could be camping in the middle of Yosemite or flying
in an airplane or sailing in a boat in a foreign country, and Android
would still transfer any given file to any given computer with two clicks.

iOS is so linmited that it can't even do a simple thing like that.

Why do you lie?

[AArdvarks]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Wrong. I've used Bluetooth file transfer on many different operating
> systems; there's nothing special about Android's implementation. And
> none of them are as automatic, fast, or secure as with iOS.

Two things:

1. I never said Android was special. It's iOS that's limited, not
Android. All other common operating systems have no problems
using bluetooth file transfer. Only iOS is limited. So it's
iOS that is special; not Android.

2. Tell me how your vaunted iOS is going to transfer ANY given file
(say a GPX track of your last few hours of breadcrumbs)
from any iOS device to any laptop while you're camping?

Or on a boat?
Or while flying?
Or while driving down the California central valley?
Or while sightseeing on the volcanoes of Greece?

What's that?
You can't do it?

Say it louder please?
Yup. It's impossible to do such simple things with iOS.

Why is it impossible do to on iOS?
Because Apple didn't give you that choice, that's why.

So why do you lie?

[Jolly Roger]

AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> nobody but you wants to transfer files over bluetooth because it's slow
>> and clumsy and there are *much* better methods available that android
>> *can't* do.
>
> Like what?

AirDrop, Handoff, Automated synchronization, and so on.

> iTunes?
>
> Surely you jest.

You are using Bluetooth to transfer music?! Are *you* joking? Sine you ask,
when I add music to my library on any of my devices, it immediately and
automatically shows up on all of my other devices. No slow and cumbersome
Bluetooth file transfers are involved. I don't even think about it. It just
happens. While you duck around copying files, I'm already out the door and
listening to my new album on my car stereo, old man. You're hopelessly
stuck in the past.

[Jolly Roger]

AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Not at all. In fact I'm willing to bet I have a better understanding of
>> both architectures than you.
>
> Really?

Yep.

[trollish bullshit ramblings omitted]

[AArdvarks]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> iOS can do it better on a plane. : )

Why do you lie?

Let's say you and I have a chance encounter in Yellowstone
while camping deep in the Bechler River Valley.

Let's say we both have laptops and you have iOS and I have
Android as our "camera".

You snapped a picture of a bear in a tree and I took a picture
of a bunch of naked people in the hot springs (in the Bechler
River Valley, backcountry campers are allowed to swim in them).

With two taps, I have transferred my picture to your laptop
(notice I don't even ask you what your operating system is).

Now, how are you gonna get your picture onto my laptop?

What's that?

Oh, you can't.
Why not?

Why did you lie?

[AArdvarks]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> While you duck around copying files, I'm already out the door and
> listening to my new album on my car stereo, old man. You're hopelessly
> stuck in the past.

You and I are on a sailboat in some foreign country and I want to
give you a picture and you want to give me a picture.

You can't do it.
I can.

Why is that?

Oh, it's because I have the "option" of using Bluetooth.
And you don't?

Oh. I'm sorry for you.

I can transfer any file I want to any computer I want, whether or
not an "Internet" is available.

You can't.

You know this.
And the reason you can't do this is because you don't have bluetooth
file transfer.

It's for the times when you need it.

What do you do when you need it and it's not there.
Oh, you just give up?

You can't do it?

Hmmmmm.... figures.

[AArdvarks]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> [trollish bullshit ramblings omitted]

Heh heh ... that's how you react to facts.

If you can't lie your way out of facts, you resort to calling it a troll
for saying the facts.

[Jolly Roger]

AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Wrong. I've used Bluetooth file transfer on many different operating
>> systems; there's nothing special about Android's implementation. And
>> none of them are as automatic, fast, or secure as with iOS.
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. I never said Android was special.

You said I haven't used it which is a lie.

> So it's iOS that is special; not Android.

Yep. In this case it uses superior methods for transfers. And it is telling
that the only one here bitching about lack of Bluetooth file transfer is
the resident Linux troll. Meanwhile the rest of us here aren't having your
self-inflicted "problems" because we aren't hopelessly stuck in the past
like you. ; )

> 2. Tell me how your vaunted iOS is going to transfer ANY given file
> (say a GPX track of your last few hours of breadcrumbs)
> from any iOS device to any laptop while you're camping?
>
> Or on a boat?
> Or while flying?
> Or while driving down the California central valley?
> Or while sightseeing on the volcanoes of Greece?

AirDrop. Easy, and way faster, more flexible, and way more secure than your
vaunted ancient cumbersome slow Bluetooth file transfers.

> What's that?
> You can't do it?

In your feeble dreams, old man. We run circles around you.

> Say it louder please?
> Yup. It's impossible to do such simple things with iOS.

Not only is it possible, but it's also easier, faster, and more secure. The
fact that you think such simple things are impossible says it all - you
know next to nothing about iOS but you are here trolling people in an Apple
news group. You suck.

[AArdvarks]

dorayme wrote:

> Of course, but pity you have not followed up with details on the point
> at hand about how you insert cursors, whether you find it easy to do
> it in the middle of words... in the middle of URLs in address bars
> that jump around changing text etc...

I realize you were responding to someone else, but IMHO, both the iOS
and Android OS suck at positioning the cursor.

However, iOS sucks far less than Android does.

At least iOS has that magnifier thingey, which works far better than
does the Android selection bar (IMHO).

I've been hoping for an Android widget to copy the more polished
iOS-style magnifying glass for some time now...

[AArdvarks]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Yep. In this case it uses superior methods for transfers. And it is telling
> that the only one here bitching about lack of Bluetooth file transfer is
> the resident Linux troll. Meanwhile the rest of us here aren't having your
> self-inflicted "problems" because we aren't hopelessly stuck in the past
> like you. ; )

Not only do you lie, but you don't even understand that it doesn't
matter WHAT operating system is on the laptop.

It doesn't even matter what software is on that computer.

The Android user has the choice to use BT file transfer from any
Android device to any computer, no matter what the OS is on the
computer (and no matter what software is on that computer).

In any situation where there is no Internet (which happens all the
time to travellers and campers and sailors and hikers, etc.), you
will fail to transfer your file.

You will fail unless all the stars are perfectly lined up, both
hardware and software and Internet connection.

While the Android user has transferred the file in two clicks,
you, as the iOS user, are still stuck fumbling for an Internet
connection.

Why do you lie?

You simply can't do it on iOS.
On Android, you have the choice.

On iOS, you don't have the choice.
That's because Apple didn't give you the choice.

No amount of your lies will change that fact that Apple simply didn't
give you the choice of using BT file transfer when there is no Internet.

You simply fail and you're just fine with failing.
You give up.

It's the Apple way, or you give up.
Why do you lie by saying otherwise?

[crankypuss]

AArdvarks wrote:

> Erilar wrote:
>
>> Many things are easier with a mouse. The iPad, however, is much

>> lighter and smaller than my laptop, has apps that do things my laptop
>> doesn't, fits inside my travel purse, and has a longer battery life
>> by far than my unplugged laptop. You pays your money and you takes
>> your choice 8-)
>
> While Android's more mature operating system has advantages in
> bluetooth over iOS (as in thApple corporate execs are not stupid.e
ability to transfer files via bluetooth,
> which iOS completely lacks), even the more mature Android lacks
> bluetooth mouse capabilities.

Sorry, but that's incorrect.

I have two Android devices, one BlackBerry device, and two laptops
running linux. They *all* support bluetooth mouse, bluetooth keyboard,
and bluetooth file-transfer.

It is the iPad which differs from the industry average regarding
bluetooth capabilities.

I'm finding iPad gesture-recognition to be more ambiguous than Android
bluetooth mouse operation, or even Android touch operation. It may be a
matter of not having fully learned how to work the iPad yet, or it may
be more real than my individual perception.

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
[Sat Mar 26: "Documentation and Portability"]

[crankypuss]

nospam wrote:

> In article <nk99l7$1lth$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, AArdvarks

> <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Many things are easier with a mouse. The iPad, however, is much
>> > lighter and smaller than my laptop, has apps that do things my
>> > laptop doesn't, fits inside my travel purse, and has a longer
>> > battery life by far than my unplugged laptop. You pays your money
>> > and you takes your choice 8-)
>>
>> While Android's more mature operating system has advantages in

>> bluetooth over iOS (as in the ability to transfer files via

>> bluetooth, which iOS completely lacks), even the more mature Android
>> lacks bluetooth mouse capabilities.
>

> there is no advantage in transferring files over bluetooth. none
> whatsoever.

Since Apple does not support bluetooth file transfer along with the rest
of the industry, you are correct that there is no advantage to
transferring files over bluetooth. If Apple did support it, the obvious
advantage would be moving files between Apple and non-Apple systems.

> it's absurdly slow and a pain in the ass to initiate.
>

> it's like using a dial-up modem when you have gigabit ethernet.

Yes but when you don't have gigabit ethernet, bluetooth is better than
carrying the bits back and forth by hand.

>> So, in that sense, the obviously less functional iOS bluetooth
>> capabilities are not considered a competitive disadvantage by most
>> Apple aficionados.
>
> it's actually *significantly* more functional.
>
> a couple of taps and just about anything can be transferred.

Only if all your devices are made by Apple. They're so addicted to
customer lock-in that I'm surprised they haven't announced that they're
switching over to 9-bit bytes. They're nearly as bad as MSFT but not in
the same way. At least Apple uses the hardware tricks that speed things
up and make iOS more secure than Android, or linux for that matter.

[crankypuss]

AArdvarks wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> While Android's more mature operating system
>>

>> Android is no more mature than iOS.
>
> You've got to be kidding.
>

> 1. Compare the number of apps on Android, versus the number of apps
> on iOS. Both are huge, but Android far exceeds iOS, especially
> when you count free useful apps, where many useful apps that are
> on Android just don't exist on iOS (e.g., sniffers).
>

> 2. Compare the number of Android devices out there, compared to the
> number of iOS devices out there. Both are astoundingly high, but,
> Android far exceeds iOS in both number of manufacturers (there are
> only two manufacturers of iOS devices, one of which is in China and
> which made the news recently).
>

> 3. Overall functionality on Android is far more mature than that on
> iOS.
> Compare the number of free launchers on Android, for example, where
> the choice is phenomenal. What does iOS have by way of launchers?
> Answer = 1. Welcome to the walled garden.
>

> 4. With respect to file transfer, which this thread was about, compare
> the many ways that Android can transfer files (each of which has
> pros and cons), and then compare the number of ways that iOS can
> transfer files. Both have plenty of ways to transfer files, but
> Android is far more mature in that you can transfer almost ANY FILE
> whether or not the phone is rooted, and you can access your data
> any way you like (e.g., ES File Explorer), and you can PUT your
> files anywhere you want (especially with the freeware redirectors
> available), and you can connect the Android device to any computer
> in the world and you can transfer all your files to that computer,
> whether or not you've "registered" your "library" with some major
> corporation.
>

> There are only two places where iOS is "more mature" than Android,
> and that is in overall security and overall privacy.
>

> But, whage means en it comes to overall functionality, there's

absolutely no
> way that iOS stands a chance if we were to list the 100 most important
> things that people *want* to do.
>

> One of them, clearly, is the simplicity of transferring files over

> bluetooth without connecting to a WiFi network. You and nospam will

> constantly give reasons why you can't do what everyone else can do,

> and there's nothing wrong with your reasons (e.g., speed), but,

> the fact is that Android can do that stuff too.
>

> It just so happens that Android (and every other computer platform
> not from Apple) also can do this.
>

> That's why it's more mature. It can do far more stuff that people
> want to do than iOS can.
>

> Android is far more mature than iOS, except in two key areas.

You're an idiot. Maturity relates to qualities acquired with age and
"having survived". The word you want is "capable". You want to say
that Android is more *capable* than iOS.

iOS is essentially more mature than Android because iOS is based on Unix
while Android is based on a younger freeware clone of Unix called linux.
That iOS is older does not make it more capable.

There are so many differences between iOS, which runs on specific
hardware, and Android which runs on generic hardware, that you are
comparing apples to oranges and looking the fool.

It would be nice if the iPad supported what the rest of the industry
seems to consider standard behavior so that files could be transferred
between Android and iOS devices. Then when we poor serfs manage to
ennoble ourselves with sufficient cash, we could readily transfer our
files to Apple machines then forever forget the problems of those too
stupid to eat cake.

[nospam]

In article <nkapon$1lfg$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, AArdvarks

<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

>
> > While you duck around copying files, I'm already out the door and
> > listening to my new album on my car stereo, old man. You're hopelessly
> > stuck in the past.
>
> You and I are on a sailboat in some foreign country and I want to
> give you a picture and you want to give me a picture.
>
> You can't do it.
> I can.

wrong.

[nospam]

In article <nkanso$1j23$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, AArdvarks

<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

>
> >> How would you transfer a file when no cellular/wifi is available,
> >> from your vaunted iOS to the laptop of someone who isn't you (so
> >> iTunes can't work and neither can the cloud nor WiFi or cellular
> >> networks).
> >
> > easily.
> >
> > and no itunes required.
>
> You're funny how you react when you're shown a very simple
> task on Android which is impossible to do on iOS.

it's very possible. i do it all the time, and without itunes.

> What you say is it can be done "easily", but even you know
> it's impossible to do on iOS (while it's trivial to transfer
> files between any android phone and any laptop on that plane).

that's a lie.

> Yet you still lie and say you can do it "easily".

that's true. i can do it easily. *you* can't.

> Why do you lie?

it ain't me who is lying.

[nospam]

In article <nkanu3$1j23$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, AArdvarks

it ain't me who is lying.

you can't use the transferred files until the transfer is *done*.

while you can do something else while you wait for the transfer to
complete, that's only because you *have* to, as the transfer is so
slow.

on ios, the transfer is literally done almost instantly, so while your
bluetooth transfer is going on in the background, ios users are already
*using* the transferred files.

and you *still* don't grasp that.

[nospam]

In article <nkaogh$1jr2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, AArdvarks

<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

>
> > on ios, the file transfer is *complete* within a fraction of a second
> > after tapping. it technically is done in the background, but it's so
> > fast that it's for all intents, instant.
>
> Why do you lie?

it ain't me who is lying.

> Even you know that Android transfers any file to any computer with NO
> SUPPORT SYSTEMS NEEDED whatsoever!

same with ios and much faster too.

> Therefore, you could be camping in the middle of Yosemite or flying
> in an airplane or sailing in a boat in a foreign country, and Android
> would still transfer any given file to any given computer with two clicks.

same with ios and much faster too.

plus that's a ridiculously obscure use case.

> iOS is so linmited that it can't even do a simple thing like that.

it can, and a shitload faster.

> Why do you lie?

why do you troll?

[nospam]

In article <nkapi2$1lfg$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, AArdvarks

<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

>
> Now, how are you gonna get your picture onto my laptop?

trivially.

[nospam]

In article <nkap21$1kl4$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, AArdvarks

<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

>
> > Wrong. I've used Bluetooth file transfer on many different operating
> > systems; there's nothing special about Android's implementation. And
> > none of them are as automatic, fast, or secure as with iOS.
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. I never said Android was special. It's iOS that's limited, not
> Android. All other common operating systems have no problems
> using bluetooth file transfer. Only iOS is limited. So it's
> iOS that is special; not Android.

everything has limitations, including android.

the reason why ios doesn't support bluetooth file transfer is because
it's obsolete and slow and because all modern devices support *much*
better methods.

there is no point in it. it's a waste of time, literally.

only if you're transferring stuff to 1990s era cellphones, will ios be
a limitation.

this may come to you as a big surprise, but there aren't very many
people using 1990s era cellphones anymore, so the lack of bluetooth
file transfer makes absolutely no difference to anyone.

> 2. Tell me how your vaunted iOS is going to transfer ANY given file
> (say a GPX track of your last few hours of breadcrumbs)
> from any iOS device to any laptop while you're camping?

you've been told countless times. you refuse to accept it.

[nospam]

In article <nkbc9i$jju$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, crankypuss

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> >> > Many things are easier with a mouse. The iPad, however, is much
> >> > lighter and smaller than my laptop, has apps that do things my
> >> > laptop doesn't, fits inside my travel purse, and has a longer
> >> > battery life by far than my unplugged laptop. You pays your money
> >> > and you takes your choice 8-)
> >>
> >> While Android's more mature operating system has advantages in
> >> bluetooth over iOS (as in the ability to transfer files via
> >> bluetooth, which iOS completely lacks), even the more mature Android
> >> lacks bluetooth mouse capabilities.
> >
> > there is no advantage in transferring files over bluetooth. none
> > whatsoever.
>
> Since Apple does not support bluetooth file transfer along with the rest
> of the industry, you are correct that there is no advantage to
> transferring files over bluetooth. If Apple did support it, the obvious
> advantage would be moving files between Apple and non-Apple systems.

nope.

bluetooth file transfer is absurdly slow. it's like using a dial-up
modem in the era of gigabit.

ipads don't have pop-out rj11 jacks either.

> > it's absurdly slow and a pain in the ass to initiate.
> >
> > it's like using a dial-up modem when you have gigabit ethernet.
>
> Yes but when you don't have gigabit ethernet, bluetooth is better than
> carrying the bits back and forth by hand.

except that you do have gigabit ethernet.

ipads support 802.11ac, which can reach gigabit speeds.

there's also an ethernet adapter for some ipads (i think just the ipad
pro).

it makes bluetooth look like a dial-up modem in comparison.

> >> So, in that sense, the obviously less functional iOS bluetooth
> >> capabilities are not considered a competitive disadvantage by most
> >> Apple aficionados.
> >
> > it's actually *significantly* more functional.
> >
> > a couple of taps and just about anything can be transferred.
>
> Only if all your devices are made by Apple. They're so addicted to
> customer lock-in that I'm surprised they haven't announced that they're
> switching over to 9-bit bytes. They're nearly as bad as MSFT but not in
> the same way. At least Apple uses the hardware tricks that speed things
> up and make iOS more secure than Android, or linux for that matter.

there is no lock-in. apple products can interoperate with just about
anything out there because apple supports industry standards (unlike
microsoft).

apple can optimize the user experience between apple devices, something
which users like. for non-apple devices, just use the normal way.

sometimes third parties adopt apple technology (e.g., airprint) to
optimize the user experience. and it's not just apple either. printer
makers support both airprint and google's cloudprint,

[nospam]

In article <nkbeab$ms0$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, crankypuss

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > It just so happens that Android (and every other computer platform
> > not from Apple) also can do this.
> >
> > That's why it's more mature. It can do far more stuff that people
> > want to do than iOS can.
> >
> > Android is far more mature than iOS, except in two key areas.
>
> You're an idiot. Maturity relates to qualities acquired with age and
> "having survived". The word you want is "capable". You want to say
> that Android is more *capable* than iOS.

that's also wrong.

ios does some things android can't and android does some things ios
can't.

pick the best tool for the job.

> iOS is essentially more mature than Android because iOS is based on Unix
> while Android is based on a younger freeware clone of Unix called linux.
> That iOS is older does not make it more capable.

there's more to it than that.

android has linux at the core but the bulk of it has nothing to do with
linux. android is its own architecture with its own java vm. apps are
written to the android apis, not linux apis.

you can't run a linux app on an android device.

> There are so many differences between iOS, which runs on specific
> hardware, and Android which runs on generic hardware, that you are
> comparing apples to oranges and looking the fool.

actually that's not entirely true.

only the base android, which doesn't do much, can run on generic
hardware.

for the full android, google must approve the hardware and there's
licensing fees involved.

> It would be nice if the iPad supported what the rest of the industry
> seems to consider standard behavior so that files could be transferred
> between Android and iOS devices. Then when we poor serfs manage to
> ennoble ourselves with sufficient cash, we could readily transfer our
> files to Apple machines then forever forget the problems of those too
> stupid to eat cake.

it does.

[Jolly Roger]

AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Yep. In this case it uses superior methods for transfers. And it is telling
>> that the only one here bitching about lack of Bluetooth file transfer is
>> the resident Linux troll. Meanwhile the rest of us here aren't having your
>> self-inflicted "problems" because we aren't hopelessly stuck in the past
>> like you. ; )
>
> Not only do you lie,

The only one lying here is you, troll. Bluetooth file transfers are slow,
cumbersome, and insecure compared with AirDrop and other iOS transfer
methods.

> In any situation where there is no Internet (which happens all the
> time to travellers and campers and sailors and hikers, etc.), you
> will fail to transfer your file.

Liar. AirDrop doesn't require an Internet connection at all.

> While the Android user has transferred the file in two clicks,

While you futz with manual transfers I've already transferred over a much
speedier connection and am already out the door, old man.

> you, as the iOS user, are still stuck fumbling for an Internet
> connection.

Liar. No internet connection is required.

> Why do you lie?

You are the one lying here.

> You simply can't do it on iOS.

I can do it better with iOS. I run circle around you, old man.

> On Android, you have the choice.

The choice of ancient, outdated, slow, cumbersome, insecure Bluetooth file
transfers! Oh, JOY!!!

> On iOS, you don't have the choice.

iOS offers something way better.

> That's because Apple didn't give you the choice.

You are the only one here complaining, troll.

> No amount of your lies will change that fact that Apple simply didn't
> give you the choice of using BT file transfer when there is no Internet.

The rest of us aren't missing your ancient kludge Bluetooth file transfers
because we are using better things.

> You simply fail and you're just fine with failing.
> You give up.

Nope, we embrace newer and better things while YOU give up if Bluetooth
file transfers aren't available because you only know lame, slow,
cumbersome, outdated technologies.

[Jolly Roger]

The rest of the industry allows much more malware as a standard behavior
too. No thanks. Bluetooth file transfers are cumbersome, horribly slow, and
insecure compared with AirDrop. The only people here complaining about lack
of Bluetooth file transfer support in iOS is you Linux dweebs - telling.

Apple has no obligation to support Android or Linux operating systems - in
fact Linux and Android are not included in the system requirements on the
box. So if you purchased an Apple device with the intention of using it
with those operating systems you made a bad purchasing decision.

> Then when we poor serfs manage to
> ennoble ourselves with sufficient cash, we could readily transfer our
> files to Apple machines then forever forget the problems of those too
> stupid to eat cake.

Your fallacy is assuming that smart people don't use Apple products. Hard
Fail.

[nospam]

In article <dst7t7...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger

<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>
> > you, as the iOS user, are still stuck fumbling for an Internet
> > connection.
>
> Liar. No internet connection is required.

i hope the next ipad has an integrated 56k modem with one of those
pop-out xjack rj11 connectors.

then i will be able to use zmodem to transfer files to a bbs.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-06-21, AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> [trollish bullshit ramblings omitted]
>
> Heh heh ... that's how you react to facts.

Your lies aren't facts.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-06-21, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <nkanso$1j23$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, AArdvarks
><aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>
>>>> How would you transfer a file when no cellular/wifi is available,
>>>> from your vaunted iOS to the laptop of someone who isn't you (so
>>>> iTunes can't work and neither can the cloud nor WiFi or cellular
>>>> networks).
>>>
>>> easily.
>>>
>>> and no itunes required.
>>
>> You're funny how you react when you're shown a very simple
>> task on Android which is impossible to do on iOS.
>
> it's very possible. i do it all the time, and without itunes.

He knows next to nothing about iOS but he's here trolling it. Just lame.

[David Empson]

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

> In article <nkbc9i$jju$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, crankypuss
> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Yes but when you don't have gigabit ethernet, bluetooth is better than
> > carrying the bits back and forth by hand.
>
> except that you do have gigabit ethernet.
>
> ipads support 802.11ac, which can reach gigabit speeds.
>
> there's also an ethernet adapter for some ipads (i think just the ipad
> pro).

I tried the Apple USB Ethernet adapter on my iPhone 6. It worked (so
should work on any iOS device with a lightning port), but wasn't just
one adapter: you also need a Lightning to USB 3 adapter, plus a power
supply plugged into the USB 3 adapter. A rather complex setup just to
get Ethernet.

I'd rather stick with Wi-Fi, even if I need to temporarily plug in an
access point to connect to an Ethernet-only network.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[nospam]

In article <1mp8n0t.1jktt4c14ga9meN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>, David

Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> > > Yes but when you don't have gigabit ethernet, bluetooth is better than
> > > carrying the bits back and forth by hand.
> >
> > except that you do have gigabit ethernet.
> >
> > ipads support 802.11ac, which can reach gigabit speeds.
> >
> > there's also an ethernet adapter for some ipads (i think just the ipad
> > pro).
>
> I tried the Apple USB Ethernet adapter on my iPhone 6. It worked (so
> should work on any iOS device with a lightning port), but wasn't just
> one adapter: you also need a Lightning to USB 3 adapter, plus a power
> supply plugged into the USB 3 adapter. A rather complex setup just to
> get Ethernet.

do you have an iphone 5 to try?

> I'd rather stick with Wi-Fi, even if I need to temporarily plug in an
> access point to connect to an Ethernet-only network.

of course. ethernet on a mobile device is silly, even if it used a
simple connection without adapters/power.

[David Empson]

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

> In article <1mp8n0t.1jktt4c14ga9meN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>, David
> Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes but when you don't have gigabit ethernet, bluetooth is better than
> > > > carrying the bits back and forth by hand.
> > >
> > > except that you do have gigabit ethernet.
> > >
> > > ipads support 802.11ac, which can reach gigabit speeds.
> > >
> > > there's also an ethernet adapter for some ipads (i think just the ipad
> > > pro).
> >
> > I tried the Apple USB Ethernet adapter on my iPhone 6. It worked (so
> > should work on any iOS device with a lightning port), but wasn't just
> > one adapter: you also need a Lightning to USB 3 adapter, plus a power
> > supply plugged into the USB 3 adapter. A rather complex setup just to
> > get Ethernet.
>
> do you have an iphone 5 to try?

No, but I have a 5th gen iPod Touch (A5 processor, similar to iPhone 4S
but with a lightning port), and my partner has an iPhone 5C. I'll try
them when I have all the bits in the same place and have time.

The Touch is still running iOS 8 (deliberately), and I don't have any
devices with lightning ports running iOS 6 or 7 so won't be able to test
those versions.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[nospam]

In article <1mp8w9l.1v5gs6ii40qcpN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson

<dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> > > >
> > > > there's also an ethernet adapter for some ipads (i think just the ipad
> > > > pro).
> > >
> > > I tried the Apple USB Ethernet adapter on my iPhone 6. It worked (so
> > > should work on any iOS device with a lightning port), but wasn't just
> > > one adapter: you also need a Lightning to USB 3 adapter, plus a power
> > > supply plugged into the USB 3 adapter. A rather complex setup just to
> > > get Ethernet.
> >
> > do you have an iphone 5 to try?
>
> No, but I have a 5th gen iPod Touch (A5 processor, similar to iPhone 4S
> but with a lightning port), and my partner has an iPhone 5C. I'll try
> them when I have all the bits in the same place and have time.

the difference between a 5 and 5c wouldn't affect ethernet support.

i'd be surprised if it worked on a 5th gen ipod.

> The Touch is still running iOS 8 (deliberately), and I don't have any
> devices with lightning ports running iOS 6 or 7 so won't be able to test
> those versions.

ios 9 is probably required, likely whatever version coincided with the
adapter (9.3?) for the necessary drivers.

[David Empson]

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

> In article <1mp8w9l.1v5gs6ii40qcpN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > there's also an ethernet adapter for some ipads (i think just the ipad
> > > > > pro).
> > > >
> > > > I tried the Apple USB Ethernet adapter on my iPhone 6. It worked (so
> > > > should work on any iOS device with a lightning port), but wasn't just
> > > > one adapter: you also need a Lightning to USB 3 adapter, plus a power
> > > > supply plugged into the USB 3 adapter. A rather complex setup just to
> > > > get Ethernet.
> > >
> > > do you have an iphone 5 to try?
> >
> > No, but I have a 5th gen iPod Touch (A5 processor, similar to iPhone 4S
> > but with a lightning port), and my partner has an iPhone 5C. I'll try
> > them when I have all the bits in the same place and have time.
>
> the difference between a 5 and 5c wouldn't affect ethernet support.

Agreed.

> i'd be surprised if it worked on a 5th gen ipod.
>
> > The Touch is still running iOS 8 (deliberately), and I don't have any
> > devices with lightning ports running iOS 6 or 7 so won't be able to test
> > those versions.
>
> ios 9 is probably required, likely whatever version coincided with the
> adapter (9.3?) for the necessary drivers.

The Lightning to USB 3 adapter was introduced for use with the 12.9-inch
iPad Pro, in the iOS 9 era, so it might only work in iOS 9.

If the adapter is used on any other model it is limited to USB 2.0 "high
speed" because only the 12.9-inch iPad Pro has USB 3.0 superspeed
support.

The adapter doesn't officially support any iPhone or iPod Touch models
(despite this, it worked as expected on my iPhone 6 Plus, when powered
externally), but it does support all earlier iPad models with lightning
ports.

Apple's USB to Ethernet adapter is many years older but might need a new
enough iOS version for driver support, as it wasn't possible to use it
prior to the introduction of the lightning to USB 3 adapter.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[crankypuss]

OTOH you don't yet seem to grasp the idea that non-Apple devices exist
and that people need to move files hither and yon under all
circumstances. Bluetooth was developed for specific use-cases, the fact
that file-transfer stretches its use-case envelope does not prevent it
from working lamely, which is better than not at all, which is exactly
the case when non-Apple systems are involved.

You've repeatedly pointed out "better way" scenarios that will work just
fine if all your equipment is made by Apple.

Even if Apple is determined to become the black hole to which users are
attracted and from which they can never escape, it might be beneficial
to stop disallowing the entry of information from other platforms. IOW
maybe Apple would benefit from permitting other OS's to send files into
the black hole over bluetooth if airdrop is unavailable.

[nospam]

In article <nkdqnu$5pf$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, crankypuss

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
> OTOH you don't yet seem to grasp the idea that non-Apple devices exist
> and that people need to move files hither and yon under all
> circumstances.

of course i do.

> Bluetooth was developed for specific use-cases, the fact
> that file-transfer stretches its use-case envelope does not prevent it
> from working lamely, which is better than not at all, which is exactly
> the case when non-Apple systems are involved.

bluetooth file transfer was developed a long, long time ago. it's very
slow and long obsolete.

there are much better ways now.

> You've repeatedly pointed out "better way" scenarios that will work just
> fine if all your equipment is made by Apple.

nope.

i said that apple optimizes the user experience between apple products
(no surprise there), however, there is no restriction whatsoever on
sending or receiving to non-apple devices.

> Even if Apple is determined to become the black hole to which users are
> attracted and from which they can never escape, it might be beneficial
> to stop disallowing the entry of information from other platforms. IOW
> maybe Apple would benefit from permitting other OS's to send files into
> the black hole over bluetooth if airdrop is unavailable.

apple doesn't stop anything. in fact, they make it easy.

however, they don't support obsolete methods because there's no point.
for one, too few people care and two, much better methods exist.

[Lewis]

In message <nk99l7$1lth$2...@gioia.aioe.org>
AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> Erilar wrote:

>> Many things are easier with a mouse. The iPad, however, is much lighter and
>> smaller than my laptop, has apps that do things my laptop doesn't, fits
>> inside my travel purse, and has a longer battery life by far than my
>> unplugged laptop. You pays your money and you takes your choice 8-)

> While Android's more mature operating system has advantages in bluetooth
> over iOS

No it doesn't.

> (as in the ability to transfer files via bluetooth,

That is in NO WAY an advantage.

--
'But you ain't part of it, are you?' said Granny conversationally. 'You
try, but you always find yourself watchin' yourself watchin' people, eh?
Never quite believin' anything? Thinkin' the wrong thoughts?'

[Lewis]

In message <nkamio$1hb4$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote:

>> while android has alternate launchers, the vast majority of android
>> users never change it.

> I'm not so sure of that, given that in 2015, the Nova payware launcher
> was #23 on Google Play's list of most-purchased apps:

So? Most Android devices can't even run it, and most Android users
*never* install apps.

> The Nova payware currently has two hundred thousand reviews and is
> currently #55 on Google's current list:

Oooo, 200,000 sure sounds like a lot, doesn't it? How many minutes does
it take Apple to sell 200,000 iPhones?

> The problem here is that anyone who has both Android and iOS will
> instantly see how "primitive" the iOS launcher is, compared to the
> various choices in Android launchers.

Having used both there are a couple of things that I prefer about the
Android launchers. Overall, they are shit.

Yes, it is nice to have larger 'tiles' and adding various widgets like
weather or search into your home screen is good, as is being able to
space out apps.

But overall using them, they are terrible.

The ONE feature that Android has that is better than iOS are the
keyboards. Yes, Apple supports third=party keyboards now as well, but
they are still better on

> The problem here is that the iOS user is forced to adapt to Apple's
> highly restrictive choices, whereas, with over 50 launchers available
> on Android, the device is forced adapts to the users' preferences.

And the iOS launcher is secure, and the Android launchers? Who knows.
they can literally do anything, anything at all, and you would never
know.

> 1. You have to show almost all the apps on the current iOS version
> and even in iOS 10, you still can't hide most rarely-used non-OS
> apps without actually deleting them (AFAIK).

So what? Your deice isn't burdened with carrier bloatware. The S6 I used
had at least a dozen shitty Samsung apps on it that could not be
deleted without rooting the device.

> 6. There is no concept of an "app drawer" (everything is on the
> desktop, whether you like it or not) although you can "approximate"
> the "app drawer" in iOS 10 (but only for a small set of system apps)

How the fuck is the app drawer anything but a shitty kludge? You hail
this a FEATURE of Android? I call it a fundamental failure of Android.

> 7. You can't "lock" down your icon setup so that you never accidentally
> move them from their preassigned position.

I have *never* accidentally moved an icon on iOS. Happens on android all
the time, however.

> - Custom Grid (configure any grid you want)

You already said that.

> - Infinite Scroll (loops through desktops infinitely)

Again, NOT a feature, a flaw.

> - Gestures (such as pinching, swiping, two-finger swiping, etc.)

Really? Where do you think Android got those from? Oh, there are MORE on
Android, but they vary from device to device and vendor to vendor, so
most of them are useless or never used.

> - Drawer Groups (organize the app drawer in custom tabs and folders)

A way to make the shitty app drawer slightly less shitty doesn't make
the app drawer not shitty.

> - Scrollable Dock (put as many icons or folders on the dock as you want)

That seems like it entirely misses the point of the dock.

> - Hide Apps (hide any app you want to hide)

Oh wow! that's such an awesome feature!

Or wait, a very minor nearly useless feature.

> - Backup/Restore (save your settings before a wipe)

Uh... and you claim to have used iOS?

> All of the above is available to all Android users,

Nope. That is a complete lie. Most Android users have extremely limited
options since most Android devices are shitty (as in too shitty to run a
recent version of Android).

--
I DID NOT SEE ELVIS Bart chalkboard Ep. 7G07

[Lewis]

In message <nk9p6o$gbl$1...@gioia.aioe.org>

AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Your so-called "advantage" of slow, cumbersome, insecure Bluetooth file
>> transfers is nowhere near as fast, easy, or secure as transfer options
>> available in iOS.

> Clearly you have never used bluetooth file transfer on Android.

We have all used Bluetooth file transfer. It is SLOW. It is INSECURE.
"On android" doesn't change either of those.

> 1. You view the file (e.g., a photo) & you press the blueetooth icon.
> 2. Up pops a list of bluetooth servers & you choose one.

> That's it. You move on to your next photo while the file is transferring
> in the background. I repeat, the file transfers in the background, so,
> you don't "wait" for it to transfer.

Of course you do, you can't leave. I can transfer files via airdrop at
LEAST 100 times faster than Bluetooth. At least. BEST case speed for BT3
is 25Mb/s and real world is a quarter that. Yes, barely faster than a
56K modem with compression. And that is not actually using BT to
transfer the file, it works much like Airdrop where it uses BT only to
negotiate the connection, then sends the file over wifi.

BT4 works the same way.

> The beauty is that it's so simple. Click, click. You're done.

As has been explained to you many times, this is how Airdrop works, only
Airdrop is very fast and very efficient.

> You could do this on an airplane, and it would work, as long as the
> one passenger with the bluetooth-enabled laptop accepts your photo.

Yes. And?

> C'mon now. Tell me.

You've been told dozens of times.

> Here's a simple situation which I, myself have done:
> a. Passenger 1 is has a laptop on the airplane at cruising altitude.
> b. Passenger 2 has an Android device and is viewing pictures.
> c. Passenger 1 wants to send a photo to passenger 2.

> In that scenario, which I have done, passenger 1 just clicks on the
> photo and selects the bluetooth enabled laptop's ID, and that's it.

And? Exactly the same, only slower, than Airdrop. Also, the laptop user
is unlikely to have Bluetooth anyway unless it is a Mac laptop.

> Tell me.

You've been told dozens of times.

> How would you transfer a file when no cellular/wifi is available,

You've been told dozens of times.

--
In Genua, stories came to life. In Genua, someone set out to make dreams
come true. Remember some of your dreams?

[Lewis]

In message <nkap21$1kl4$1...@gioia.aioe.org>

AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Wrong. I've used Bluetooth file transfer on many different operating
>> systems; there's nothing special about Android's implementation. And
>> none of them are as automatic, fast, or secure as with iOS.

> Two things:

> 1. I never said Android was special. It's iOS that's limited, not
> Android. All other common operating systems have no problems
> using bluetooth file transfer. Only iOS is limited. So it's
> iOS that is special; not Android.

> 2. Tell me how your vaunted iOS is going to transfer ANY given file
> (say a GPX track of your last few hours of breadcrumbs)
> from any iOS device to any laptop while you're camping?

You have been told how dozens of times. And you are lying about "any
laptop" anyway.

> You can't do it?

Of course we can. For years now.

> Yup. It's impossible to do such simple things with iOS.

The fact that you are so stupid as to not be able to understand how to
do this better, faster, and easier on iOS does not make it impossible,
just impossible *FOR YOU*.


--
'You know me,' said Rincewind. 'Just when I'm getting a grip on
something Fate comes along and jumps on my fingers.' --Interesting Times

[Lewis]

In message <nkaqvs$1nqu$1...@gioia.aioe.org>

AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Yep. In this case it uses superior methods for transfers. And it is telling
>> that the only one here bitching about lack of Bluetooth file transfer is
>> the resident Linux troll. Meanwhile the rest of us here aren't having your
>> self-inflicted "problems" because we aren't hopelessly stuck in the past
>> like you. ; )

> Not only do you lie, but you don't even understand that it doesn't
> matter WHAT operating system is on the laptop.

Of course it does. And it also matters that the laptop have bluetooth,
which most non-Mac laptops do not.

> The Android user has the choice to use BT file transfer from any
> Android device to any computer,

That is a lie.

> In any situation where there is no Internet (which happens all the
> time to travellers and campers and sailors and hikers, etc.), you
> will fail to transfer your file.

No, you moron. As you have been told dozens of times, Airdrop does not
require Internet.

> You will fail unless all the stars are perfectly lined up, both
> hardware and software and Internet connection.

Nope.

> While the Android user has transferred the file in two clicks,

> you, as the iOS user, are still stuck fumbling for an Internet
> connection.

Nope. While the Android user has transferred his file the iOS user has
transferred dozens, if not a hundred, files.

> No amount of your lies will change that fact that Apple simply didn't
> give you the choice of using BT file transfer when there is no Internet.

BT file transfer is shit. iOS does it much better, faster, and simpler.


--
I WON'T NOT USE NO DOUBLE NEGATIVES Bart chalkboard Ep. BABF02

[Lewis]

In message <210620161234478982%nos...@nospam.invalid>

Still faster than BT file transfer.

--
Supposing there was justice for all, after all? For every unheeded
beggar, every harsh word, every neglected duty, every slight... every
choice... Because that was the point, wasn't it? You had to choose. You
might be right, you might be wrong, but you had to choose, knowing that
the rightness or wrongness might never be clear or even that you were
deciding between two sorts of wrong, that there was no right anywhere.
And always, always, you did it by yourself. You were the one there, on
the edge, watching and listening. Never any tears, never any apology,
never any regrets... You saved all that up in a way that could be used
when needed. --Carpe Jugulum

[Lewis]

In message <nkapi2$1lfg$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
AArdvarks <aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> With two taps, I have transferred my picture to your laptop

The fuck you have.



--
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

[AArdvarks]

>> > While you duck around copying files, I'm already out the door and
>> > listening to my new album on my car stereo, old man. You're hopelessly
>> > stuck in the past.
>>
>> You and I are on a sailboat in some foreign country and I want to
>> give you a picture and you want to give me a picture.
>>
>> You can't do it.
>> I can.
>
> wrong.

Betcha you can't tell us how!
Why is that?

Oh, it's because you lied.
Again.

[AArdvarks]

>> there is no advantage in transferring files over bluetooth. none
>> whatsoever.
>
> Since Apple does not support bluetooth file transfer along with the rest
> of the industry, you are correct that there is no advantage to
> transferring files over bluetooth. If Apple did support it, the obvious
> advantage would be moving files between Apple and non-Apple systems.

You are correct.

Then ask Jolly Roger how he transfers those files between Apple
and non-Apple systems when there is no Internet available.

I do it all the time.
They can't do it once.

All they can do is lie.

[AArdvarks]

> except that you do have gigabit ethernet.

Except when you don't.

[AArdvarks]

> there is no lock-in. apple products can interoperate with just about
> anything out there because apple supports industry standards (unlike
> microsoft).

Except Linux.