Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21734 > unrolled thread

Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Keith <noddy@noddyland.com> - 2015-08-06 12:22 +0000
    Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2015-08-06 14:58 +0100
      Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-08-06 21:13 +0200
        Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 16:58 -0700
    Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 18:49 +0100
      Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:49 -0700
    Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Keith <noddy@noddyland.com> - 2015-08-07 09:55 +0000
      Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Bob Henson <rh547477@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 13:09 +0100
        Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-08-08 07:57 +0100
          Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 13:07 -0700
            Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card lew <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> - 2015-08-08 20:13 +0000
      Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-07 19:01 +0000
        Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-08-08 07:58 +0100
          Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-08 16:52 +0000
            Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-08 21:40 -0400
              Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 21:29 -0700
              Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-09 18:15 +0000
            Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-08-09 07:20 +0100
              Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-09 18:04 +0000
        Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Keith <noddy@noddyland.com> - 2015-08-08 16:58 +0000
    Re: Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2015-08-09 20:46 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#21734 — Android Lollipop V5.0 ans SD card

Looking to get a new phone. Current, V4.1, allows apps to be downloaded and 
installed on SD card, is this true for Lollipop? 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#21743

In article <70c8e4985dcc8d29e62095332f5@aioe.org>, Keith wrote:
> Looking to get a new phone. Current, V4.1, allows apps to be
> downloaded and installed on SD card, is this true for Lollipop?

Yes, for many apps. Not all.

Lollipop has undone much of the idiocy of KitKat.

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21775

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:58:18 +0100, Daniel James wrote:

> Lollipop has undone much of the idiocy of KitKat.

Allowing 3rd party software to store data on an external microSD card
for one. I hate it that this isn't possible under KitKat...

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21786

On 08/06/2015 12:13 PM, s|b wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:58:18 +0100, Daniel James wrote:
>
>> Lollipop has undone much of the idiocy of KitKat.
>
> Allowing 3rd party software to store data on an external microSD card
> for one. I hate it that this isn't possible under KitKat...

There are detailed instructions available on line for enabling CoPilot 
to store its maps and a lot of its data (HUUUUUUUGE!) on the external 
card.  I can dig out the file if anybody is interested.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
'Politics' comes from an ancient Greek word meaning
'many blood-sucking leeches.'       -- Mark Russell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21759

On 06/08/2015 13:22, Keith wrote:
>
> Looking to get a new phone. Current, V4.1, allows apps to be downloaded
> and installed on SD card, is this true for Lollipop?
>
Not quite. On my Moto G phone which is now on Lollipop, I've not found a 
way of installing apps on the SD card. I always have to install them in 
the phone's memory - but some apps can then be moved to the SD card.

It seems to me to have more to do with whether an app allows itself to 
be moved than with Lillipop per se.
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom 
checked.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21769

On 08/06/2015 10:49 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
> On 06/08/2015 13:22, Keith wrote:
>>
>> Looking to get a new phone. Current, V4.1, allows apps to be downloaded
>> and installed on SD card, is this true for Lollipop?
>>
> Not quite. On my Moto G phone which is now on Lollipop, I've not found a
> way of installing apps on the SD card. I always have to install them in
> the phone's memory - but some apps can then be moved to the SD card.

And make sure that 'sdcard' actually means the external sd card.  My 
MotoG#2 uses 'sdcard' both ways :-(

> It seems to me to have more to do with whether an app allows itself to
> be moved than with Lillipop per se.

At least 5.0 allows you to easily copy/move files from your computer to 
the external card in a single process.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
===============================================================
The people who don't know what they're doing and the people who
don't realize it are generally the same people."       -- DAbel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21805

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21807

On 07/08/2015 10:55 am, 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?
> 
> 

It certainly is. You could at ;east upgrade Vista, but since the
manufacturers control the upgrades to Android and Lenovo haven't updated
my tablet, it is now pretty useless - certainly as far as WiFi is
concerned. I wish I'd never run the upgrade - but once on, there's no
way back.

-- 
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

He is not drunk who, from the floor,
Can raise his glass and ask for more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21832

in 22010 20150807 130951 Bob Henson <rh547477@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 07/08/2015 10:55 am, 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?
>>
>>
>
>It certainly is. You could at ;east upgrade Vista, but since the
>manufacturers control the upgrades to Android and Lenovo haven't updated
>my tablet, it is now pretty useless - certainly as far as WiFi is
>concerned. I wish I'd never run the upgrade - but once on, there's no
>way back.

Come on, what's wrong with a custom ROM?
All my Androids have run CyanogenMod from day 2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21845

On 08/07/2015 11:57 PM, Bob Martin wrote:
> in 22010 20150807 130951 Bob Henson <rh547477@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 07/08/2015 10:55 am, 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?
>>
>>It certainly is. You could at ;east upgrade Vista, but since the
>>manufacturers control the upgrades to Android and Lenovo haven't updated
>>my tablet, it is now pretty useless - certainly as far as WiFi is
>>concerned. I wish I'd never run the upgrade - but once on, there's no
>>way back.
>
> Come on, what's wrong with a custom ROM?
> All my Androids have run CyanogenMod from day 2

Tried doing that to our Nook Color.  No joy.  Not about to try it with 
something I actually want to use now.

-- 
Cheers, Bev (Registered Linux User 85683)
=====================================================================
Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin really
embodies the grace of Linux, which just tells me they have never seen
an angry penguin charging at them in excess of 100mph.  They'd be a
lot more careful about what they say if they had.   -- Linus Torvalds

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21847

On 2015-08-08, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/07/2015 11:57 PM, Bob Martin wrote:
>> in 22010 20150807 130951 Bob Henson <rh547477@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 07/08/2015 10:55 am, 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?
>>>
>>>It certainly is. You could at ;east upgrade Vista, but since the
>>>manufacturers control the upgrades to Android and Lenovo haven't updated
>>>my tablet, it is now pretty useless - certainly as far as WiFi is
>>>concerned. I wish I'd never run the upgrade - but once on, there's no
>>>way back.
>>
>> Come on, what's wrong with a custom ROM?
>> All my Androids have run CyanogenMod from day 2
>
> Tried doing that to our Nook Color.  No joy.  Not about to try it with 
> something I actually want to use now.
>
Works with Nook HD+; haven't tried the alpha unofficial lollipop which
probably will never become "official" because "official" needs a bunch
of people to support it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21820

Keith <noddy@noddyland.com> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21833

in 22023 20150807 200126 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>Keith <noddy@noddyland.com> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21841

Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
> in 22023 20150807 200126 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >Keith <noddy@noddyland.com> 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! :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21856

On 8 Aug 2015 16:52:54 GMT, Frank Slootweg, quoting Bob Martin, wrote:

>> Totally disagree.
> 
> [I assume you disagree with my last paragraph.]

You assume the original verb "disagree" there was declarative? The absence
of any pronoun led me to think it must have been imperative. But, really,
there's not nearly enough in that post to go on, and life's too short to
waste time on idle speculation about pointless utterances. Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21858

On 08/08/2015 06:40 PM, tlvp wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2015 16:52:54 GMT, Frank Slootweg, quoting Bob Martin,
> wrote:
>
>>> Totally disagree.
>>
>> [I assume you disagree with my last paragraph.]
>
> You assume the original verb "disagree" there was declarative? The
> absence of any pronoun led me to think it must have been imperative.
>
You'd think, but probably not.

> But, really, there's not nearly enough in that post to go on, and
> life's too short to waste time on idle speculation about pointless
> utterances. Cheers, -- tlvp

It's interesting that even though we write properly we have learned to
drop the first person personal pronoun in our internet communication.  I
suspect that it's because we don't want to use too many I's in a post
even if the entire content is about WHAT I THINK.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
====================================================
"Everything sucks;  reverse the wires and everything will blow."
                                                   -- Desert Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21879

tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2015 16:52:54 GMT, Frank Slootweg, quoting Bob Martin, wrote:
> 
> >> Totally disagree.
> > 
> > [I assume you disagree with my last paragraph.]
> 
> You assume the original verb "disagree" there was declarative? The absence
> of any pronoun led me to think it must have been imperative.

  What I - implicitly- meant is that I assume that Bob did *not*
disagree with my *first* paragraph, because such disagreement would be
rather silly.

>							       But, really,
> there's not nearly enough in that post to go on, and life's too short to
> waste time on idle speculation about pointless utterances. Cheers, -- tlvp

  True, but - for me - there is a world of difference between Bob's
'pointless utterance' - i.e. "Totally disagree." - and the usual -
utterly stupid - 'pointless utterances' from the loons in this and other
groups, such as "You're wrong!" - without any explanation as to *why*
their correspondent is 'wrong'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21859

in 22044 20150808 175254 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>> in 22023 20150807 200126 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> >Keith <noddy@noddyland.com> 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.
 :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21878

Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
> in 22044 20150808 175254 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
> >> in 22023 20150807 200126 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >> >Keith <noddy@noddyland.com> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21842

Hello Frank,

> Keith <noddy@noddyland.com> 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.
> 

Actually what prompted my comparing Kitkat and Vista was IBM's technique: 
selling a base system then the "upgrade-to-viabiltiy" package.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web