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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #145550 > unrolled thread

Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering?

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

Contents

  Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-23 15:42 +0100
    Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 04:09 +0000
      Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-26 14:05 +0100
        Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:56 +0000
          Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-28 01:50 +0100
            Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-28 21:28 +0000
              Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-28 23:36 +0100
                Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-29 00:18 +0000
                  Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-29 02:02 +0100
                  Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-29 02:01 +0100
              Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-29 00:21 +0000
          Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-28 19:19 +0100
            Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-29 00:18 +0000
              Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-01-02 14:10 +0100
        Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 19:01 +0000
    Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-12-27 21:01 +0100
      Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-28 19:11 +0100
        Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-28 18:47 +0000
          Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-29 00:26 +0000
          Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-30 17:38 +0100
            Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2024-12-31 07:06 +0000
              Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 01:51 +0000
                Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-01 22:58 +0100
                Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:06 +0100
                  Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-01-02 14:12 +0100
                    Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-02 15:05 +0000
                      Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-02 21:43 +0100
                        Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 13:35 +0000
                          Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-03 22:20 +0100
                            Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 14:53 +0000
                              Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-05 10:22 +0000
                          Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-03 22:45 +0100
                            Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 14:59 +0000
                              Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-01-04 09:40 -0700
                                Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 18:45 +0000
                                  Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-01-04 19:21 +0000
                                    Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-01-04 12:49 -0700
                                    Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 20:43 +0000
                                      Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-01-04 14:25 -0700
                                      Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 23:22 +0100
                                        Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 10:36 +0000
                                          Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 15:32 +0100
                          Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-05 11:31 +0000
                            Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 13:10 +0000
                        Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-03 22:17 +0100
                          Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 15:10 +0000
                            Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 23:25 +0100
                              Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 09:50 +0000
                                Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 15:38 +0100
                      Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-03 22:14 +0100
                        Re: Shortcut to Bluetooth Tethering? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 15:48 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#146244

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
[...]

> I have two identical tablets. One fell from the bed, the screen cracked, 
> doesn't read the finger, so I bought another tablet. Then I tried to 
> have the first one repaired; the shop said they could not, but that I 
> would be able to use the tablet with a mouse (over BT). So I did. I use 
> that old tablet in the sitting room to cast Amazon Prime videos to the 
> Google dongle on my TV set (which is not smart).

  I had the same problem with my very first (Samsung 10.1") tablet. I
used a wired mouse with a USB On-The-Go adapter to connect it to the
MicroUSB port of the tablet. Later a 'computer' shop 'fixed' it. They
could not find anything wrong with it, but apparently taking it apart,
reseating all the connections and reassembling it, fixed it. Cost 25
Euro. Not bad IMO. Ten years later, the tablet still works, but with
Android 5 and little storage and RAM, it's not very useful.

  Fun tidbit: Recently I used it as a 'media center', mainly for
streaming audio (Spotify, etc.) to my soundbar/subwoofer, but because it
was mostly working badly, I turned off Wi-Fi and Bluetooth when not in
use (instead of powering it off). In this mode, the tablet used less
than 1% battery capacity *per day* (including waking up the screen to
check the percentage). Impressive! I don't think my current phone will
manage that (with all its radios off).

[...]

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

#146259

On 2025-01-05 11:36, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
> 
>> I have two identical tablets. One fell from the bed, the screen cracked,
>> doesn't read the finger, so I bought another tablet. Then I tried to
>> have the first one repaired; the shop said they could not, but that I
>> would be able to use the tablet with a mouse (over BT). So I did. I use
>> that old tablet in the sitting room to cast Amazon Prime videos to the
>> Google dongle on my TV set (which is not smart).
> 
>    I had the same problem with my very first (Samsung 10.1") tablet. I
> used a wired mouse with a USB On-The-Go adapter to connect it to the
> MicroUSB port of the tablet. Later a 'computer' shop 'fixed' it. They
> could not find anything wrong with it, but apparently taking it apart,
> reseating all the connections and reassembling it, fixed it. Cost 25
> Euro. Not bad IMO. Ten years later, the tablet still works, but with
> Android 5 and little storage and RAM, it's not very useful.

I use a BT mouse so that I can connect the single micro usb port to the 
charger. However, if the battery discharges and the thing powers down, I 
have to do a convoluted procedure.

First charge the tablet completely.
On boot up, the BT mouse doesn't pair and doesn't work.
Thus connect a mouse with cable, and use it to toggle the tablet to pair 
again with the BT mouse. When I get both mice working, disconnect the 
cable, and connect the charger again.

I have the charger connected to a mains timer, so that it is not powered 
24 hours, but only some hours. The tablet is on a metal stand from Ikea 
(HAVREHOJ) on the table. The thing is tall enough that the tablet is 
above the clutter on the table :-D

https://www.ikea.com/es/es/p/havrehoj-soporte-tableta-40534576/

Thus I can use it to control Amazon Prime Video app and cast movies to 
the sitting room TV set with a Google dongle :-)


>    Fun tidbit: Recently I used it as a 'media center', mainly for
> streaming audio (Spotify, etc.) to my soundbar/subwoofer, but because it
> was mostly working badly, I turned off Wi-Fi and Bluetooth when not in
> use (instead of powering it off). In this mode, the tablet used less
> than 1% battery capacity *per day* (including waking up the screen to
> check the percentage). Impressive! I don't think my current phone will
> manage that (with all its radios off).

Indeed.

Me, I have to be careful not to power off the BT, or I lose the mouse.

> 
> [...]


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#146246

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Samsung phones use to have older Android versions, and sometimes they
>> don't update the phone to the next version after being sold. And that
>> update comes several months later, because they have to add again their
>> customization layer. And in the case of Samsung, it is big.
> 
>    As you said, that *used* to be the case, but is no longer the case for
> many years, at least 4+ years, but probably longer. My 4+ year old
> Samsung Galaxy A51 lower-range phone came with Android 10 and was
> updated to 11, 12 and finally 13.

Isn't the reason for that improving due to introduction of Project 
Treble which allows the manufacturers to "slide in" newer versions of 
the lower layers of Android?

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

#146253

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
> > Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >
> >> Samsung phones use to have older Android versions, and sometimes they
> >> don't update the phone to the next version after being sold. And that
> >> update comes several months later, because they have to add again their
> >> customization layer. And in the case of Samsung, it is big.
> > 
> >    As you said, that *used* to be the case, but is no longer the case for
> > many years, at least 4+ years, but probably longer. My 4+ year old
> > Samsung Galaxy A51 lower-range phone came with Android 10 and was
> > updated to 11, 12 and finally 13.
> 
> Isn't the reason for that improving due to introduction of Project 
> Treble which allows the manufacturers to "slide in" newer versions of 
> the lower layers of Android?

  Yes, while I do no longer get Android version updates (i.e. not 14 and
15) from Samsung, I still get 'Google Play system update's from Google,
which are what came/comes out of Project Treble and - as you mention -
slides in newer versions of the lower layers of Android.

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

#146128

Carlos E.R., 2025-01-02 21:43:

> On 2025-01-02 16:05, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[...]
>>    Now do the same exercise for Windows and Chrome!
> 
> Yes, some companies sell their laptops with a lot of customization. Say 
> HP. This is not bad per se. The recovery feature is good. But the layer 
> can include apps that slow the laptop while promoting their business 
> interests.

Windows itself is still not customized by HP. Recovery is a built-in
feature of Windows, just used by HP to provide their own tool for it.
But you can always create your own recovery setup in Windows without any
tools by HP.

And all pre-installed apps can be removed in Windows or you just install
a "clean" version of Windows instead of the one provided by HP.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#146196

Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> Carlos E.R., 2025-01-02 21:43:
> 
> > On 2025-01-02 16:05, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [...]
> >>    Now do the same exercise for Windows and Chrome!
> > 
> > Yes, some companies sell their laptops with a lot of customization. Say 
> > HP. This is not bad per se. The recovery feature is good. But the layer 
> > can include apps that slow the laptop while promoting their business 
> > interests.
> 
> Windows itself is still not customized by HP. Recovery is a built-in
> feature of Windows, just used by HP to provide their own tool for it.
> But you can always create your own recovery setup in Windows without any
> tools by HP.

  As I indicated in my earlier response, I think Carlos was referring to
HP's 'Recovery Manager'. That is indeed not a customization of Windows
*itself*, but is *not* using any "built-in [recovery] feature on
Windows". HP's Recovery Manager can - amongst other functions - restore
the system to from-factory condition, *including* all third party
software, from a special reserved 'HP RECOVERY' partition.

  HP's Recovery Manager was on Windows 8.1 laptops (and desktops?), but,
as I mentioned, no longer on Windows 11 laptops (well at least not on
mine).

> And all pre-installed apps can be removed in Windows or you just install
> a "clean" version of Windows instead of the one provided by HP.

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

#146228

On 2025-01-04 16:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>> Carlos E.R., 2025-01-02 21:43:
>>> On 2025-01-02 16:05, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>     Now do the same exercise for Windows and Chrome!
>>>
>>> Yes, some companies sell their laptops with a lot of customization. Say
>>> HP. This is not bad per se. The recovery feature is good. But the layer
>>> can include apps that slow the laptop while promoting their business
>>> interests.
>>
>> Windows itself is still not customized by HP. Recovery is a built-in
>> feature of Windows, just used by HP to provide their own tool for it.
>> But you can always create your own recovery setup in Windows without any
>> tools by HP.
> 
>    As I indicated in my earlier response, I think Carlos was referring to
> HP's 'Recovery Manager'. That is indeed not a customization of Windows
> *itself*, but is *not* using any "built-in [recovery] feature on
> Windows". HP's Recovery Manager can - amongst other functions - restore
> the system to from-factory condition, *including* all third party
> software, from a special reserved 'HP RECOVERY' partition.

Exactly. Actually, my laptop is a Compaq, which at the time was a second 
name of HP. The thing came with W7.

It also had an HP tool to update the machine drivers and things, IIRC.

> 
>    HP's Recovery Manager was on Windows 8.1 laptops (and desktops?), but,
> as I mentioned, no longer on Windows 11 laptops (well at least not on
> mine).
> 
>> And all pre-installed apps can be removed in Windows or you just install
>> a "clean" version of Windows instead of the one provided by HP.

Yes, but then some of the hardware might not work properly.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#146241

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2025-01-04 16:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[...]

> >    As I indicated in my earlier response, I think Carlos was referring to
> > HP's 'Recovery Manager'. That is indeed not a customization of Windows
> > *itself*, but is *not* using any "built-in [recovery] feature on
> > Windows". HP's Recovery Manager can - amongst other functions - restore
> > the system to from-factory condition, *including* all third party
> > software, from a special reserved 'HP RECOVERY' partition.
> 
> Exactly. Actually, my laptop is a Compaq, which at the time was a second 
> name of HP. The thing came with W7.
> 
> It also had an HP tool to update the machine drivers and things, IIRC.

  The tool was probably 'HP Support Assistant'. It still exists (i.e.
also on my Windows 11 HP laptop). It also contains all kinds of testing
and diagnostic tools. I someone use the 'HP Battery Check' part of it,
because that really tests the battery, instead of just reporting the
values from the battery's electronics.

[...]

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

#146260

On 2025-01-05 10:50, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-04 16:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>>     As I indicated in my earlier response, I think Carlos was referring to
>>> HP's 'Recovery Manager'. That is indeed not a customization of Windows
>>> *itself*, but is *not* using any "built-in [recovery] feature on
>>> Windows". HP's Recovery Manager can - amongst other functions - restore
>>> the system to from-factory condition, *including* all third party
>>> software, from a special reserved 'HP RECOVERY' partition.
>>
>> Exactly. Actually, my laptop is a Compaq, which at the time was a second
>> name of HP. The thing came with W7.
>>
>> It also had an HP tool to update the machine drivers and things, IIRC.
> 
>    The tool was probably 'HP Support Assistant'. It still exists (i.e.
> also on my Windows 11 HP laptop). It also contains all kinds of testing
> and diagnostic tools. I someone use the 'HP Battery Check' part of it,
> because that really tests the battery, instead of just reporting the
> values from the battery's electronics.
> 
> [...]

This laptop has double boot; I have not booted its Windows for years, it 
is permanently on an old version of openSUSE Linux because it is 32 bits 
and can not be updated. It sits permanently in front of a static 
elliptical exercise bike, and I use it to watch part of an episode from 
Montalbano serial as I exercise. No rebooot, just hibernation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvo_Montalbano

This Compaq laptop has very good internal speakers. The battery is dead, 
of the type that can be removed with a click.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#146127

Frank Slootweg, 2025-01-02 16:05:

> s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 23:06:47 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>
>>> It provides vanilla Android and not Android mixed with a manufacturer UI
>>> and modified functions.
>>
>> AKA It's not filled with crap from Samsung.
> 
>   *Every* manufacturer fills their devices with "crap", not just
> Samsung.
> 
>   Only for Google phones, 'we' do not call it "crap", but "vanilla",
> "standard", "stock", etc..

Because Android on Pixel devices *is* as Google developed it and not
modified by Samsung or any other manufacturer. Of course Google installs
their own apps on it. But most of these apps can be removed or at least
disabled.

The point is, that any feature provided by Android itself is not modifed
as it is usually the case on devices by Samsung, Motorla, Xiaomi etc. -
because those manufacturers want to provide a "unique" user experience
by adding their own UI and their own *system* modifications to Android.

>   Now do the same exercise for Windows and Chrome!

What execercise? There is no Windows 10 or 11 which is modified by the
manufacturer in the same way as Android on Smartphones. You only get a
bunch of apps pre-installed in Windows - but things like Windows
Explorer, Windows settings etc. will always look the same, the no matter
what device you purchase with Windows. Also with Windows comes Edge as
default browser, which is not the case for Android devices where you
either get Chrome or Samsung Internet or Xiaomi Browser or whatever the
manufacturer decided to provide.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#146198

Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg, 2025-01-02 16:05:
> 
> > s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 23:06:47 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
> >>
> >>> It provides vanilla Android and not Android mixed with a manufacturer UI
> >>> and modified functions.
> >>
> >> AKA It's not filled with crap from Samsung.
> > 
> >   *Every* manufacturer fills their devices with "crap", not just
> > Samsung.
> > 
> >   Only for Google phones, 'we' do not call it "crap", but "vanilla",
> > "standard", "stock", etc..
> 
> Because Android on Pixel devices *is* as Google developed it and not
> modified by Samsung or any other manufacturer.

  AFAIC, for Samsung phones, Android is not modified, but that depends
on what you do (not) consider to be "Android". More on this later.

>						 Of course Google installs
> their own apps on it. But most of these apps can be removed or at least
> disabled.

  Same for Samsung (Google, Samsung and some third-party apps).

> The point is, that any feature provided by Android itself is not modifed
> as it is usually the case on devices by Samsung, Motorla, Xiaomi etc. -
> because those manufacturers want to provide a "unique" user experience
> by adding their own UI and their own *system* modifications to Android.

  Well, AFAICT/AFAIAC, for Samsung, the only 'modifications' are: Their
own 'launcher' ('One UI'), which is not all that special/great and
replacements/alternatives for some basic apps like Phone, Messages, My
Files, of course Camera (like for Pixels) and probably simple stuff like
Calendar, Calculator, Notes, etc..

  But, except for the launcher, I don't consider those modifications to
*Android* (the 'OS'), but just different *apps*.

  That's what I meant: Samsung's et al Android versions are not all that
special and neither are the Pixel versions.

  But they are *different* and therefor, as I mentioned, - when talking
about their problems/questions - people should mention brand, model and
Android version.

> >   Now do the same exercise for Windows and Chrome!
> 
> What execercise? There is no Windows 10 or 11 which is modified by the
> manufacturer in the same way as Android on Smartphones. You only get a
> bunch of apps pre-installed in Windows - but things like Windows
> Explorer, Windows settings etc. will always look the same, the no matter
> what device you purchase with Windows. Also with Windows comes Edge as
> default browser, which is not the case for Android devices where you
> either get Chrome or Samsung Internet or Xiaomi Browser or whatever the
> manufacturer decided to provide.

  Well, that mainly *confirms* my point, because, at least for Samsung,
it's exactly the same, with the exceptions of File Explorer (N.B. not
"Windows Explorer", that's only the legacy process name) and Settings.
Samsung indeed has a different 'file manager' than Google's [1], but it
supplies Samsung Internet *and* (Google) Chrome.

  But indeed the differences in (Android) Settings are an annoying
aspect, because in this group, it's often about detailed Settings
settings. However, because the often huge differences in features,
functionality, etc, etc., it probably is not practical to come up with a
single Settings UI. And look at the settings mess in Windows, do we
really such a 'standard' on Android!? :-)

[1] At least on my 4+ year old phone. At the time, Google's wasn't all
that red hot. No idea what's on new(er) Samsung phones.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web