Path: csiph.com!au2pb.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!87.79.20.101.MISMATCH!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Frank Slootweg Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android Subject: Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Date: 9 Aug 2015 18:04:54 GMT Organization: NOYB Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <70c8e4985dcc8d29e62095332f5@aioe.org> <70c8e4985f678d29f16a9be5353@aioe.org> X-Trace: individual.net MIEFPXsyZA5mdX3Ew8k3agJrATfV2F2AmsC6RFw7Wm3kkkyG80 X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:xFL0aync3F9ztRvGu3UgvnB2p7s= User-Agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-6.2-WOW64/1.5.22(0.156/4/2) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150809-0, 08/09/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: csiph.com comp.mobile.android:21878 Bob Martin wrote: > in 22044 20150808 175254 Frank Slootweg wrote: > >Bob Martin wrote: > >> in 22023 20150807 200126 Frank Slootweg wrote: > >> >Keith wrote: > >> >> Hello Keith, > >> >> > >> >> > Looking to get a new phone. Current, V4.1, allows apps to be > >> >> > downloaded and installed on SD card, is this true for Lollipop? > >> >> > >> >> Thanks all; I'll save my pennies and go for Lollipop - was Kitkat Googles > >> >> Vista then? > >> > > >> >Nope. You could get *Vista* to work. > >> > > >> >Anyway, it's blasphemy to compare Microsoft's not-very-good software > >> >with Google's crap. > >> > >> Totally disagree. > > > >[I assume you disagree with my last paragraph.] > > > >Of course it's fine to disagree. But you might want to carefully read > >*what* I wrote, which might differ slightly - by very importantly - > >from what you *thought* I wrote. If you spot the difference, but still > >disagree, then that's fine as well. After all, if you settle for > >sub-standard software design, then you've enough problems already, not my > >task to make it even worse! :-) > > I meant that with your last paragraph you have things completely back-to-front. > :-) That's what I assumed you meant. Here's what I did *not* write: "Anyway, it's blasphemy to compare Windows's not-very-good software with Android's crap." See the difference? I consider my original sentence, *not* back-to-front. I indeed consider the sentence-which-I-didn't-write, back-to-front, but not by much.