Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #154741 > unrolled thread
| Started by | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-06 21:29 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-08-11 21:02 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 201 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-06 21:29 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-07 09:15 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-07 16:42 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-07 15:50 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-07 17:30 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-07 17:30 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-07 17:27 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-07 22:09 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-10 02:28 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-10 17:41 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-10 09:24 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-11 10:38 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-11 02:01 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-11 12:32 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-11 08:19 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-14 19:20 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 10:24 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-15 12:08 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 11:51 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 13:40 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-11 13:28 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-11 13:27 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-11 12:39 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-08-15 10:38 -0700
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-11 13:58 +0000
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-11 14:12 +0000
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-12 20:36 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-12 20:40 +0000
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-11 08:19 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-11 08:52 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-12 20:44 +0200
Storage media availability over time (was: Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-16 09:20 +0100
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-16 10:01 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-18 14:00 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:22 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:44 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-18 19:22 +0100
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-18 18:15 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-19 07:58 +0100
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-18 23:15 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-19 15:36 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 08:23 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-19 16:59 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 10:04 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:15 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 10:19 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:29 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 11:57 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 22:13 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 12:50 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-20 00:21 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-20 23:08 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 19:11 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 09:44 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 19:56 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 10:11 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:17 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 10:24 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 20:35 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 12:04 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-19 22:15 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 13:02 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-08-20 17:26 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-20 23:11 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-19 17:33 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 09:51 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-19 18:48 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 12:13 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-19 20:25 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 12:55 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-20 01:16 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 20:32 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-20 00:08 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 20:36 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-20 06:03 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-19 22:19 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-20 12:45 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-20 06:22 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-20 15:22 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-20 08:48 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-20 18:18 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time [Android Newsreader] Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-08-20 19:48 +0100
Re: Storage media availability over time [Android Newsreader] AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-20 21:07 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time [Android Newsreader] AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-20 22:25 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time [Android Newsreader] Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-21 18:55 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time [Android Newsreader] AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-21 19:39 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time [Android Newsreader] Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-22 18:54 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time [Android Newsreader] AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-22 20:59 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time [Android Newsreader] Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-08-22 06:44 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time [Android Newsreader] AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-22 14:08 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time [Android Newsreader] AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-22 20:45 -0700
Re: Storage media availability over time [Android Newsreader] Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 09:41 +0100
Re: Storage media availability over time [Android Newsreader] AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-22 14:42 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-20 23:14 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 09:37 +0100
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-22 14:28 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-20 14:35 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-20 15:36 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-20 08:53 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time Old Macdonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-08-19 17:37 -0700
Re: Storage media availability over time Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-20 14:39 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-19 18:17 -0400
Re: Storage media availability over time AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-19 23:45 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-20 23:06 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-21 08:24 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 15:34 -0700
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-22 09:58 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-22 22:47 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-20 23:04 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Ch1ffr3punk <ch1ffr3punk@gmail.com> - 2026-08-20 21:09 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-21 08:19 +0000
Re: Storage media availability over time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-20 23:01 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-20 23:26 +0100
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-20 23:23 -0800
Re: Storage media availability over time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-18 13:29 +0200
Re: Storage media availability over time Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-18 08:47 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-14 19:28 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 10:22 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-15 08:50 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-10 02:27 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-10 08:34 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 13:02 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-11 06:20 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-11 14:37 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-11 10:21 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-11 08:18 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-12 06:00 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-11 20:47 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-12 17:03 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-12 20:41 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-13 18:59 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-15 07:56 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 11:00 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-15 08:34 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-15 12:10 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-15 19:33 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-16 06:23 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-17 18:18 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-17 17:41 +0000
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-18 05:24 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-18 10:19 +0000
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-14 00:21 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-14 20:23 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-14 00:20 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-14 19:37 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-15 19:34 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-15 20:09 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-10 17:38 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 11:49 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-10 18:04 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-08-11 06:33 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-11 05:54 +0000
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-11 10:10 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-11 10:18 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 10:30 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-15 15:19 +0000
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-11 10:01 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-11 10:11 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-11 10:34 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Siard <saylor259@mailbox.org> - 2026-08-07 16:57 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-10 02:32 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Siard <saylor259@mailbox.org> - 2026-08-10 09:25 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 08:47 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-10 09:40 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-07 19:15 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-07 22:34 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-10 08:28 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-11 10:42 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 17:40 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-10 09:28 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-08 11:43 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-08 20:57 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-09 14:33 +0000
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-09 14:28 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-10 08:32 -0800
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-09 18:34 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 02:20 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 07:31 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-08-10 08:59 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Philippe <p.naudin+nntp@free.fr> - 2026-08-10 11:06 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 10:33 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2026-08-10 10:51 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-08-10 10:25 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 09:43 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 10:34 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-11 10:24 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 09:42 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-09 09:49 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-09 15:21 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-09 14:21 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-09 22:31 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-09 19:33 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-10 02:48 +0200
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 02:25 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-08-09 14:43 +0000
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 13:21 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-10 18:01 +0000
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-10 14:55 -0400
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-08-10 19:19 +0000
[OT] non-Unix fingers (was: Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-11 01:00 +0100
Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-08-11 21:02 +0100
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 14:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <1167ak4.upc.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155097 |
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote: > Frank Slootweg wrote: > >> My suggestion is you take a basic course in logic, Frank. > > > > You clearly have *no* idea who you're talking to. > > > >> Because your argument sd storage is more expensive is ridiculous, Frank. > > > > I never said any such thing. That's *your* kind of 'logic', claiming > > people hold a position which they clearly don't. > > > > [Umpteen more logic and reading-for-comprehension failures deleted.] [Army of straw men and even more reading-for-comprehension failures deleted.] Nothing left.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 18:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <1165a2l$31841$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155074 |
On 08/19/2026 11:36 AM, AJL wrote: > On 8/19/26 12:15 AM, Maria Sophia wrote: > >> Google, for example, just like Apple, does not provide the sd card >> because > > I haven't used my card slot in many years. When my 7 year old phone finally > does go bad my reasons for a choice of a new one won't depend on a card > slot. In fact I'll probably look for one that doesn't have one. Just an > extra hole to get dirt in. I have 100GB available online for the data I > need so I'll likely not use all that much internal storage either. I > suspect most of the buying public is like me and are quite happy with no > slot. And Google and the competition are likely just giving the general > market what it wants. > >> they make far more billions by having you buy back the functionality. > > My online 100GB Google storage costs me less than $2 a month (US) so they > won't be making all that much $$ back from me. YMMV... Did you ever consider the data center where that data is stored?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AJL <noemail@none.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 23:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <1165f6c$32qk5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155108 |
On 8/19/26 3:17 PM, knuttle wrote: >On 08/19/2026 11:36 AM, AJL wrote: >> My online 100GB Google storage costs me less than $2 a month (US) >Did you ever consider the data center where that data is stored? I have no clue physically where my Google Drive data is stored. But if you're referring to safety I suspect it is safer than a lot of databases that I'm required to use, government and financial for 2 examples...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 23:06 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <1167q83$3qpql$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155069 |
Maria Sophia, 2026-08-19 04:15: [...]> Hence, I feel sorry for you Pixel owners. > You'll never be able to add storage without having to replace the phone. Since I don't need to add storage I am quit fine with it. Oh and my computer at home as 8 TB of SSD storage and 128 GB RAM. All servers combined which I use to keep data from my phone is also about 4 TB of storage. No, I don't need any more storage in my phone ;-) -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 08:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <116990p.v2s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155149 |
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote: > Maria Sophia, 2026-08-19 04:15: > > [...]> Hence, I feel sorry for you Pixel owners. > > You'll never be able to add storage without having to replace the phone. > > Since I don't need to add storage I am quit fine with it. And *if* you ever need more storage, you can just tape a SD-card reader [1] to the back of it. 'Problem' solved! :-) [1] Or USB memory-stick, or SSD, or ... ad infinitum. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 15:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <116ajov$ladq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155069 |
On 8/18/26 19:15, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>> My first phones were only 4GB and 8GB (yes, non-volatile Internal
>>> storage, not RAM).
>>
>> Mine was 0.5GB RAM plus 0.5GB FLASH
>>
>>> On those phones, one needed to use a SD-card to be
>>> able to do anything useful.
>>
>> absolutely.
>
> I feel sorry for Pixel owners, even as I envy their "stock" Android
> experience (which, on Samsung, is anything but a stock Android ROM).
>
> Funny story, in the "olden days" of 4GB phones (when the Android OS was
> about 3GB or so) I bought a phone from T-Mobile for one of my college kids.
>
> T-Mobile had "advertised" that you can "extend the storage" with an sdcard.
> Yeah. Right.
>
> The kid complained that the sd card didn't make the 4GB to 16GB (or
> whatever the typical SD card was at that time) so I complained to T-Mobile.
>
> They gave me all my money back (except for the sd card, of course).
>
> That's how I learned that it was BS that the card was useful to turn a 4GB
> phone into a 15GB phone (or whatever the size was of the sd card then).
I did that With a Motorola Gsomethingorother phone. Big mistake. It
was only useful for storing photos etc., and what I wanted was more
storage for apps. It stored PARTs of apps on the card, but not enough
to matter. Bigger mistake was leaving the card in when I bought the
Pixel2 which graciously sucked in my entire Motorola installation,
leaving me with a stupid name for the formerly-card subdirectory.
Canyou alias a subdirectory in Android? That would be useful, but I
haven't pursued it yet. Maybe next week...
> Still, I recently ordered a set of 256GB sd cards as we don't like removing
> the photos/videos of the grandchildren (of which we get tons daily).
>
> Hence, I feel sorry for you Pixel owners.
> You'll never be able to add storage without having to replace the phone.
Bought the P2 with 128GB for roughly $120 in 2020. Replaced the battery
in 2023 for $60. Still running fine and I've used a little more than
half the storage, mostly for apps. No pity needed, but I WOULD like a
tele lens; not enough to spring for a Pixel 9 Pro, though. Sooner or
later the price will drop and I like the guy who replaced the P2 battery.
--
Cheers, Bev
"No matter how cynical I get, it's just never enough to keep up."
--Lily Tomlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-22 09:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <116cnvk$2kg0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155179 |
The Real Bev wrote: > I did that With a Motorola Gsomethingorother phone. Big mistake. It > was only useful for storing photos etc., and what I wanted was more > storage for apps. It stored PARTs of apps on the card, but not enough > to matter. Bigger mistake was leaving the card in when I bought the > Pixel2 which graciously sucked in my entire Motorola installation, > leaving me with a stupid name for the formerly-card subdirectory. Hi The Real Bev, Wow. That's an interesting story that most of us dodged as the "stupid name" of the former sd-card directory is something you have to live through to understand the frustration!. Thanks for letting us know about that. I've dealt with the stupid names of Android folders for years, but I never ran into that issue, and yet, I can sympathize with you instantly on it! I used to be a program manager for software that costs many millions of dollars, where I was amazed at how each engineer just dumped his/her code into a directory named whatever they wanted to name it. There was no overall structure, just like with Android's stupid names. Even when we pop in an sdcard today, the stupid names of the internal storage are literally replicated as stupid names on the external storage, even though the external storage nowadays is mostly used just for media. My "trick" is simply to ignore all the stupid names, and to put all my stuff into a single folder on the internal storage organized the way I like that folder to be organized. That makes backup of my data much easier. On the sdcard, which I only use for extended storage, I do the same. The name of the top-level folder doesn't matter, but I use numbers. The reason I use numbers is that they show up at the top of a listing. On the internal storage (/storage/emulated/0), I add a folder "0000". On the external storage, I call it "0001". That way, it shows up on top of a directory listing, and instantly, I can tell which storage I'm looking at, which many people might think would be obvious - but if people do what I do, it's not. Much of the time I'm using command-line tools to look at the storage. Since the internal and external storage has the same stupid names, it's not easy to tell, at an instant, which storage we're looking at. But when I see 0000 at the top, I know it's the internal storage stupid names, and when I wee 0001 at the top, I know it's the external storage. Under those, I have the same hierarchy tree for my data. > Can you alias a subdirectory in Android? That would be useful, but I > haven't pursued it yet. Maybe next week... I've never done it. And so I'm only casually aware of Android symlinking. There's an old thread on that subject but this seems to be down now. Have you been successful creating symbolic links https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/ I wrote a thread on giving root-like power to Termux on Android yesterday, where, I accidentally ran into the fact that it handles symlinks normally. Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-11 Subject: PSA: How to type ADB commands on your phone instead of on your PC. Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 11:05:49 -0800 Message-ID: <116a7ic$h8b$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> I had to link some of the binaries I had downloaded to make typing easier. ln -s /sdcard/Download ~/storage/my_downloads But linking the external storage card to the internal storage is problematic, as noted in that detailed thread referenced above & below. <https://www.reddit.com/r/termux/comments/b5as15/help_how_do_i_create_a_symbolic_link_from_the_the/> It's a deep topic, but if you have Shizuku-backed file managers (I use FV File Explorer, for example), they have powerful move capabilities, which, way back then, you might have made use of to "fix" those stupid folder names. >> Still, I recently ordered a set of 256GB sd cards as we don't like removing >> the photos/videos of the grandchildren (of which we get tons daily). >> >> Hence, I feel sorry for you Pixel owners. >> You'll never be able to add storage without having to replace the phone. > > Bought the P2 with 128GB for roughly $120 in 2020. Replaced the battery > in 2023 for $60. Still running fine and I've used a little more than > half the storage, mostly for apps. No pity needed, but I WOULD like a > tele lens; not enough to spring for a Pixel 9 Pro, though. Sooner or > later the price will drop and I like the guy who replaced the P2 battery. My phone was born in 2021 and it has a 5AH battery, and the 64GB internal storage holds over 1000 packages, but the 128 external storage is stressed by the grandchildren, so I'm about to double that to 256GB soon as the only thing making me "want" to replace it is that the power port got flaky. We're all long-term owners of phones, where I think there's a good MARKETING reason why iPhones never came with sd slots and why iPhone batteries, even today, are so crappy that they're mired in old technology. What makes phones "problematic" over time to the point we want to replace? 1. Battery gets tired 2. Storage gets stressed 3. The hardware gets damaged That's pretty much it, right? Apple has all three covered by MARKETING to the point that they're one of the richest companies in the world - due to their pure marketing genius. What I love about Android is that we can get a phone with a battery so powerful it could start our car on a cold winter day, and we can double, triple, quadruple the storage whenever we feel like it, and, oh, well, the hardware is cheap so we don't normally need to bother to get insurance. As for Pixels, I love the stock Android experience. I mess with the internals of Android every day, where Samsung Android is a royal mess. I would love a Pixel. But the lack of external storage is a killer for me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-22 22:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <jgeplmxno1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155195 |
On 2026-08-22 19:58, Maria Sophia wrote: > What makes phones "problematic" over time to the point we want to replace? > 1. Battery gets tired > 2. Storage gets stressed > 3. The hardware gets damaged > > That's pretty much it, right? 4. Device has a bug you no longer can stand. 5. You need some new feature. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 23:04 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <1167q4f$3qpql$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155061 |
Frank Slootweg, 2026-08-18 17:44: > Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: [...] >> Saying they are obsolete is as silly as saying they are an absolute >> need. Some people need or like to use them, and some people don't need >> nor like to use them. Millions on both sides. It is ridiculous to >> ridicule any of both groups, and it is ridiculous to argue for any side. >> It is fantastic that there is choice. > > Of course SD-cards are not in anyway obsolete. That they're not often > used in *smartphones* anymore, does not mean that the *medium* is > "obsolete". One just has to look at the abundance of brands, suppliers, > stock, etc. to see how silly such a stance is. But then, we do know > *who* is uttering such sillyness over and over again, don't we!? :-) I never said, that SD-cards in general are obsolete - only for smartphones. > FWIW, our digital cameras *do* have SD-card slots and yes we *do* use > them (the cameras and the slots)! :-) Of course. But in many cases, people also don't use digital cameras any longer as well. The market for DSLRs are more or less "dead", the same applies for compact cameras which are mostly replaced by smartphones. Even for mirrorless system cameras the market is quite small nowadays. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ch1ffr3punk <ch1ffr3punk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 21:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <1167qf6$3ovcm$4@news.tcpreset.net> |
| In reply to | #155148 |
Arno Welzel wrote: > > FWIW, our digital cameras *do* have SD-card slots and yes we *do* use > > them (the cameras and the slots)! :-) > > Of course. But in many cases, people also don't use digital cameras any > longer as well. The market for DSLRs are more or less "dead", the same > applies for compact cameras which are mostly replaced by smartphones. > Even for mirrorless system cameras the market is quite small nowadays. But can we agree on that DSLRs are more secure and private than smartphones, meaning they still make somehow sense to use them? -- https://oc2mx.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 08:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <11698ns.v2s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155148 |
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote: > Frank Slootweg, 2026-08-18 17:44: [...] > I never said, that SD-cards in general are obsolete - only for smartphones. No, of course you didn't say that. You said "Personally I don't use SD cards in phones any longer" and - other than some people - *I* had no problem comprehending the "Personally" bit! :-) > > FWIW, our digital cameras *do* have SD-card slots and yes we *do* use > > them (the cameras and the slots)! :-) > > Of course. But in many cases, people also don't use digital cameras any > longer as well. The market for DSLRs are more or less "dead", the same > applies for compact cameras which are mostly replaced by smartphones. > Even for mirrorless system cameras the market is quite small nowadays. Indeed. A very close family member was a professional photographer and these days she nearly only uses her smartphone. Only silly old me still takes his (entry-level) DSLR on important (holiday) trips.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 23:01 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <1167pvg$3qmej$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155059 |
Carlos E. R., 2026-08-18 15:22: > On 2026-08-18 14:00, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Maria Sophia, 2026-08-16 20:01: >> >> [...] >> >>> If Apple says sd cards are outdated, then they believe it. >>> Just as if ISIS says kill people of other religions, they do it. >> >> This comparison is stupid and tasteless! >> >> Personally I don't use SD cards in phones any longer for more than 5 >> years and did never miss that. For me they are outdated and many other >> people also don't *need* SD cards any longer. > > My phone has the socket, and I think all my previous phones had it. But > I have not used them in well over a decade. > > Saying they are obsolete is as silly as saying they are an absolute > need. Some people need or like to use them, and some people don't need > nor like to use them. Millions on both sides. It is ridiculous to > ridicule any of both groups, and it is ridiculous to argue for any side. > It is fantastic that there is choice. A thing becomes "obsolete" if only a minority of people actually using it. And just because 40-50% of Android devicies still have an SD card slot does not mean, that 40-50% of Android users still need or use that. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 23:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <1167uun$3s58d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155147 |
On 2026-08-20, Arno Welzel wrote: > Carlos E. R., 2026-08-18 15:22: > >> On 2026-08-18 14:00, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Maria Sophia, 2026-08-16 20:01: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> If Apple says sd cards are outdated, then they believe it. >>>> Just as if ISIS says kill people of other religions, they do it. >>> >>> This comparison is stupid and tasteless! >>> >>> Personally I don't use SD cards in phones any longer for more than 5 >>> years and did never miss that. For me they are outdated and many other >>> people also don't *need* SD cards any longer. >> >> My phone has the socket, and I think all my previous phones had it. But >> I have not used them in well over a decade. >> >> Saying they are obsolete is as silly as saying they are an absolute >> need. Some people need or like to use them, and some people don't need >> nor like to use them. Millions on both sides. It is ridiculous to >> ridicule any of both groups, and it is ridiculous to argue for any side. >> It is fantastic that there is choice. > > A thing becomes "obsolete" if only a minority of people actually using > it. And just because 40-50% of Android devicies still have an SD card > slot does not mean, that 40-50% of Android users still need or use that. That doesn't cut it, otherwise stuff like screenreaders and closed captioning and SDH subtitle tracks would be "obsolete", and clearly aren't (and shouldn't be). -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 23:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <1168ud2$ti0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155154 |
Nuno Silva wrote: >>> Saying they are obsolete is as silly as saying they are an absolute >>> need. Some people need or like to use them, and some people don't need >>> nor like to use them. Millions on both sides. It is ridiculous to >>> ridicule any of both groups, and it is ridiculous to argue for any side. >>> It is fantastic that there is choice. >> >> A thing becomes "obsolete" if only a minority of people actually using >> it. And just because 40-50% of Android devicies still have an SD card >> slot does not mean, that 40-50% of Android users still need or use that. > > That doesn't cut it, otherwise stuff like screenreaders and closed > captioning and SDH subtitle tracks would be "obsolete", and clearly > aren't (and shouldn't be). Just to be clear to Arno, it's 60.45% of recent/current Android phones have the slot, so Arno's "40 to 50%" is grossly off the mark, but Nuno's observation is apropos. To respond to Nuno's quite apropos argument, what's interesting to me is there are many arguments AGAINST sd slots, but those who make the blanket absurd statement that it's "obsolete" seem to be to greatly lack logical thought processes, and hence, those kinds of people tend to scare me. I prefer to deal with people who use logical thought processes. Perfectly valid arguments AGAINST sd cards: 1. It's less reliable than internal storage 2. The slot hardware adds about fifty cents to the cost of the phone 3. A new card costs, oh, about thirty bucks (give or take) These arguments against sd, I feel, fail to meet the logical challenges 1. It's "obsolete" 2. Adoptable storage sucks 3. It opens a hole in the device for IPx protection In summary, there are logical reasons to use or not use sd cards, but anyone claiming they're "obsolete" is not using logical thought processes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 13:29 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <1161fnd$1p9pn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155036 |
Nuno Silva, 2026-08-16 10:20: > On 2026-08-12, Arno Welzel wrote: > >> Maria Sophia, 2026-08-11 18:19: > [...] >>> This is dead wrong for two reasons, one of which is 60% of all >>> recent/current Androids have the sd card slot for good reasons. >> >> No, it is not "dead wrong". You remember the late 1990ies? >> >> And some things will just die very slowly, but they will one day, like >> optical disc drives (CD/DVD/BD). > > Is there any similar replacement for data storage and backup? IIRC the > best of them all is tape, but tends to be expensive; optical media being Yes, tape media itself is cheap, but the drives are very expensive as they are professional gear targeted to companies who use these drives 24/7 for many years - and then it is not that important, if the drive is 5000 USD or more. Realiability and availability in case of a failure is more important. > more prevalent and readily available, although for capacity and > price/capacity the most feasible one, at least before the introduction > of friggin' SMR (granted, backup might be one place where it actually is > acceptable) and recent price increases, was to just use a hard disk > drive? Yes, HDD is the medium of choice nowadays. Personally I use a drive bay in my tower computer and hot swappable SATA drives in trays. Each drive has a nominoal capacity and I always have at least 3 copies of everything with daily rotation and a deduplication archive on each disk which keeps all changes from the last 6 months. In addition there is an encrypted file server at a hoster and a NAS as temporary storage for the backup repositories. So in total I have 5 copies of everything at two different locations. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 08:47 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Storage media availability over time |
| Message-ID | <11622bq$2kjr$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155057 |
Arno Welzel wrote: >> If Apple says sd cards are outdated, then they believe it. >> Just as if ISIS says kill people of other religions, they do it. > > This comparison is stupid and tasteless! Hi Arno, I didn't want to have this conversation because it's classic Apple crap. Anyone who says sd cards are "obsolete" simply doesn't understand them. There's a reason more than half of Android phones of today have the slot. But, you're correct that my example of religious belief systems was wrong. I never disagree with a logically sensible viewpoint, so I agree with you on my analogy, where my point was that your comparison was inappropriate. The fact is the Apple religious zealots have been parroting Apple for years whenever Apple removes important functionality so they have to buy it back. Apple tells people they removed functionality because it's "outdated". And people, being idiots, not only believe Apple, but parrot Apple back. It's a religious belief system that the Apple religious zealots parrot. So I was in the mindset of religious analogies. My bad. I apologize. > Personally I don't use SD cards in phones any longer for more than 5 > years and did never miss that. For me they are outdated and many other > people also don't *need* SD cards any longer. There's nothing wrong with saying that in your desperation to replace the lost functionality, you buy your way out of the lack of sd functionality. Because, if you seriously analyze what you've done, that's what you did. There's nothing wrong with you admitting that to yourself. You do NOT have to admit that's what you did, to me. I already know what you did. >> People love to believe a "story" concocted by other people manipulating >> them, where it's a fact that anyone believing SD is outdated is wrong. >> >> There's a reason more than half of all Android sold tody have sd slots. > > On of the reason is also, that the manufacturers then don't have to > offer multiple models with 128, 256, 512 GB etc. but just *one* model > with an SD card slot. The Apple religious zealots parrot all sorts of crap like that also. The fact is the OEMs remove functionality because they make money by you being so desperate to buy that functionality back that you pay for it. >> What sd does, no other replacement can even come close to doing. > > Only when you need replacable memory inside the phone. And this is only > one of many ways to store data. That's just not true. You saying that shows you don't understand sdcards. It doesn't need to be replaceable, for example. It just needs to be there. So that you can use it. What if you wanted storage that grows with your needs over time? I know how *you* would solve that problem, so you don't need to answer. In your sheer desperation, you'd pay more for "the cloud" to get it back. And that's OK. Just be honest with yourself. That's all I ask of you. > Also if you use SD cards to extend the internal memory to install apps > on it, you can't just replace them when needed without moving everything > to the internal memory of the phone first. I've said a thousand times that nobody sensible uses adoptable storage. Not today. We all played with it in the past. It's an abomination. You can't argue away the value of sd cards by complaining about one thing. You'd be better off complaining that sd storage is less reliable anyway. >> Anyone saying otherwise, simply doesn't understand what sd can do. >> It's impossible to replace what sd cards do with privacy & for free. > > It is. External USB based storage solutions exist and you can also use > your *own* server to store data which you don't need on the phone all > the time. This statement above proves you do not understand even the simplest of the most basic of the most obvious features of sd card storage, in my opinion. Let's stop this because it's obvious you don't understand sd card technology, and I'm tired of pointing it out so let's just drop it. OK?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-14 19:28 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <ne91irFp2hsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #154916 |
On 2026-08-11 13:27, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Maria Sophia, 2026-08-10 19:24:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
...
>> They make money because the consumer must desperately replace the lost
>> functionality, usually hugely larger initial storage costs overall.
>
> I never had to "desperately" replace anything. It works fine for me as
> it is. I've been running my own Nextcloud server for nearly 10 years now
> - all backups of my phone go to hat server and all pictures I have taken
> with the phone, right away after I have taken them. Also only the last 6
> months of pictures will stay on the phone. If I want to review older
> pictures I can use the "Memories" app which is available for Nextcloud
> as well as for Android. Since I have an unlimited data plan and 5G
> speeds most of the time I also don't care if "Memories" needs to
> download images when browsing galleries.
>
Is there a Howto for dummies, about Nextcloud? :-)
Quickie: do you need to have a fixed IP for this? Or are the transfer
done only inside the LAN?
> The Nextcloud server is also fully backed up daily with a history of 6
> months - so I can access every single day as a folder to see older
> versions of a file as well.
>
> And even if you would only use Google Drive - they charge around 2 USD
> per month for 1 TB. So one year is around 24 USD. Even in 10 years you
> only pay 240 USD. That is cheaper than some of the 1 TB SD cards
> available and even before the AI crisis, the prices for SD cards were
> not much cheaper.
>> But also by incessant subscriptions to replace the lost functionality.
>
> Well - backup storage is never for free. Even if you only do local
> backups at home you still need some kind of storage - ideally not only
> one single harddisc, but multiple copies in case one fails.
>> In summary, anyone saying sd cards are obsolete, knows nothing about them.
>
> In my opinion *some* people may still want to use them. But for many
> people it is indeed obsolete - otherwise devices without SD card slot
> wouldn't sell and most people would only choose devices which still have
> an SD card slot. But it seems, other aspects are more important for many
> users.
>
> My wife has a Xiaomi phone with 128 GB built in and an SD card slot -
> she did never put an SD card into it.
I had no need for an SD cards in my phone for a long time (over a
decade). However, in my new tablet I did install one, because I wanted
to store many movies. I do not store movies in a phone, the display is
too small.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 10:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115pb4k$37eta$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154878 |
On 2026-08-10, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:27:22 +0200, Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> > wrote: [...] >>E-SIMs are standard for years. A second physical SIM slot is as obsolete >>as a SD-card-slot. > > Why are they "obsolete"? > > Is there a good reason that benefits users, or is it just that the > manufacurers can sell you less functionality for more money? This really doesn't compute, either physical SIMs are obsolete or they aren't. If a first slot is not obsolete, then the second one isn't. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-15 08:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115q5ch$18lu$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #154996 |
Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-08-10, Steve Hayes wrote: > >> On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:27:22 +0200, Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> >> wrote: > [...] >>>E-SIMs are standard for years. A second physical SIM slot is as obsolete >>>as a SD-card-slot. >> >> Why are they "obsolete"? >> >> Is there a good reason that benefits users, or is it just that the >> manufacurers can sell you less functionality for more money? > > This really doesn't compute, either physical SIMs are obsolete or they > aren't. If a first slot is not obsolete, then the second one isn't. You are correct. They are wrong. Dead wrong. You're bringing up absurdities in this thread which abound everywhere. These utter absurdities are coming from Joerg, s|b, Steve Hayes, et al. One of the major problems in this thread causing most of the absurdities is the people "saying" that the hardware is "obsolete" have no idea it's not. Here's a list of 2923 current/recent Android phones with "dual SIM" h/w. <https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2021&chkDualSIM=selected&sAvailabilities=1,2&idOS=2> And here's a list of 363 current/recent Android phones with "ESIM" h/w. <https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2021&chkESIM=selected&sAvailabilities=1,2&idOS=2> FWIW, here's a list of only 340 current/recent phones with both: <https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2021&chkDualSIM=selected&chkESIM=selected&sAvailabilities=1,2&idOS=2> In summary, the people claiming sd hardware is "obsolete" are factually wrong, and, it turns out, only the known trolls are claiming that anyway. These are some of the thousands of current/recent Androids with sd slots. 1. Samsung Galaxy A17 2. Samsung Galaxy F70 Pro 3. Xiaomi Redmi Note 15 4. Xiaomi Redmi Note 17 (India/China) 5. Xiaomi Poco M8 Power 6. Samsung Galaxy A07 4G 7. Samsung Galaxy A27 8. Infinix Hot 70 Pro 9. Xiaomi Redmi 15 10. OnePlus N6x 11. Infinix Hot 60 Pro 12. Motorola Edge 60 Fusion 13. Samsung Galaxy A16 14. Infinix Hot 70 15. Sony Xperia 1 VIII 16. Samsung Galaxy A26 17. Infinix Smart 20 18. Samsung Galaxy A55 19. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 4G 20. Samsung Galaxy M47 21. Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G 22. Samsung Galaxy A07 23. Samsung Galaxy A06 24. Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 25. Samsung Galaxy A54 26. Xiaomi Redmi 17 4G 27. Samsung Galaxy A15 28. Samsung Galaxy A35 29. Samsung Galaxy A16 5G 30. Tecno Spark 50 31. Xiaomi Redmi A7 Pro 4G 32. Xiaomi Redmi 15C 33. Xiaomi Redmi A5 34. Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 5G 35. Motorola Moto G77 36. Oppo A6 Pro 37. OnePlus N6 38. Samsung Galaxy A14 39. Xiaomi Redmi 14C 40. Realme 16 41. Realme C85 42. Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 43. Xiaomi Poco M8 44. Xiaomi Redmi 13C 45. Samsung Galaxy A34 46. Honor X6c 47. Infinix Hot 60i 4G 48. Oppo A6 49. Tecno Pova 8 50. Xiaomi Redmi Note 15 4G 51. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G 52. Nothing CMF Phone 2 Pro 53. Oppo A6x 4G 54. Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro 55. Samsung Galaxy M17 56. Samsung Galaxy A17 4G 57. Samsung Galaxy A05 58. Samsung Galaxy A32 59. Xiaomi Redmi 12 60. Infinix Smart 10 61. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11 62. Samsung Galaxy A25 63. OnePlus Nord CE5 64. Tecno Pova 7 65. Infinix Hot 50 Pro 4G 66. Realme C71 67. vivo Y31 68. Sony Xperia 1 VII 69. Samsung Galaxy A13 70. vivo Y11 <https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2021&sAvailabilities=1,2&idOS=2&idCardslot=1>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-10 02:27 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: SD card vs. Esim? Samsung vs. others? |
| Message-ID | <115b5sp$2o9np$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #154747 |
micky, 2026-08-07 15:15: > In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 06 Aug 2026 21:29:34 -0400, micky > <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote: > >> So, I need a new phone and 1) some that I'm looking at have some model >> that take A) a sim and either a second sim or an SD card. or >> B) a sim and either a second sim or an Esim. >> >> If you had to choose, which is more valuable, an SD slot or an esim >> slot? >> >> Are there those that have all 3? > > Google ASI says that "flagship phones (like Samsung Galaxy S or Google > Pixel series) have largely dropped microSD card slots...." Really? Yes, really. > When I saw my battery failing, I had time to back up most of what was in > my phone, but if I had stored everything possible on an SD card, I > wouldn't have needed warning or last-minute actions. A backup should be done on a regular basis and not only if the battery is about to fail. Treat your smartphone like your laptop or PC: you also shouldn't keep important data only on your laptop or PC without any backup since internal storage can always fail at any time and you can delete or modify data by accident as well. > I'm surprised I didn't see suggestions to keep things in external > storage for this reason, but certainly some people already know, so why > would expensive phones be dropping SD cards? Because internal UFS-based memory is faster and manufacturers can save a bit money. >> 2) Some times when I look for help, webpage instuctions don't match my >> late lamented Xiaomi phone. The standard seems to be Samsung, is that >> right? Are there other less expensive brands that are more like >> Samsung than my Xiaomi has been? Samsung is not "the standard" in any way. It is just one of the manufacturers with the largest market share. But Xiaomi is also very popular nowadays and there is also Google itself with their "Pixel" series. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web