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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#145920

On 30 Dec 2024 at 16:38:02, "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2024 18:47:22 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>>   Do you have a Samsung phone?
>
> Once. Never again. I almost threw that thing against the wall... twice.
> I've been using Pixel since Nexus 5X.

Same here.

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

#145966

Bob Martin wrote on 31 Dec 2024 07:06:56 GMT :

>>>   Do you have a Samsung phone?
>>
>> Once. Never again. I almost threw that thing against the wall... twice.
>> I've been using Pixel since Nexus 5X.
> 
> Same here.

What does a Google Pixel do that is useful that a Samsung Galaxy can't do?
-- 
Other than A/B booting (which, admittedly, is a nice feature).

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

#146018

On 2025-01-01 02:51, Andrew wrote:
> Bob Martin wrote on 31 Dec 2024 07:06:56 GMT :
> 
>>>>   Do you have a Samsung phone?
>>>
>>> Once. Never again. I almost threw that thing against the wall... twice.
>>> I've been using Pixel since Nexus 5X.
>>
>> Same here.
> 
> What does a Google Pixel do that is useful that a Samsung Galaxy can't do?

AFAIK, it can talk to spammers on the phone, then decides whether to 
tell you or not, so that then you can continue the conversation.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#146019

Andrew, 2025-01-01 02:51:

> Bob Martin wrote on 31 Dec 2024 07:06:56 GMT :
> 
>>>>   Do you have a Samsung phone?
>>>
>>> Once. Never again. I almost threw that thing against the wall... twice.
>>> I've been using Pixel since Nexus 5X.
>>
>> Same here.
> 
> What does a Google Pixel do that is useful that a Samsung Galaxy can't do?

It provides vanilla Android and not Android mixed with a manufacturer UI
and modified functions.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#146054

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.

-- 
s|b

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

#146057

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..

  Now do the same exercise for Windows and Chrome!

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

#146070

On 2025-01-02 16:05, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 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.

Hum. No, some manufacturers don't "fill". They add less customization, 
like Motorola (Lenovo group). This way updates come faster.

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.

This is not absolutely bad, some people do like those additions. I do 
like them, just not the delay they mean.

> 
>    Only for Google phones, 'we' do not call it "crap", but "vanilla",
> "standard", "stock", etc..

No, google phones come directly without a customization layer.

> 
>    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.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#146097

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2025-01-02 16:05, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Hum. No, some manufacturers don't "fill". They add less customization, 
> like Motorola (Lenovo group). This way updates come faster.

  I said "fill", because it's the term 's|b' used. I don't consider my
phones "filled with crap" or having too much customization.

> 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.

> This is not absolutely bad, some people do like those additions. I do 
> like them, just not the delay they mean.

  It's a don't care for me. Security updates come in between the major
versions, not only via the manufacturer, but also through 'Google Play
system updates' (note case of the spelling, they are *system* updates,
not updates to the Google Play app or its other components).

> >    Only for Google phones, 'we' do not call it "crap", but "vanilla",
> > "standard", "stock", etc..
> 
> No, google phones come directly without a customization layer.

  Of course, but they are still customized and I doubt that they don't
come with any Pixel-only or/and third-party software. And over time the
meaning/content of "vanilla"/"standard"/"stock" Android has changed, so
let's not use those meaningless terms and just - as for any Android
phone - mention brand, model and Android version.

  And, one man's "crap" is another man's functionality.

> >    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.

  On my HP laptops there's no "promoting" going on. On the current one,
there's about 100MB of HP-related processes, taking no other resources
(CPU, Disk and Network all at 0%).

  FYI, my current laptop no longer has "the recovery feature". There's
no 'Recovery Manager' anymore (which allowed you to re-install a factory
version from the (HP) recovery partition). I assume the Windows 10 and
11 check/repair functions were considered good enough that HP's Recovery
Manager was no longer needed.

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

#146130

Frank Slootweg, 2025-01-03 14:35:

> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
[...]
>> No, google phones come directly without a customization layer.
> 
>   Of course, but they are still customized and I doubt that they don't

What kind of customizations do you refer to? I don't see any difference
between AOSP and Android with Google Services except that AOSP does not
provide the Google Services of course. But the UI itself including the
UI and features the system apps is the same.

> come with any Pixel-only or/and third-party software. And over time the

Except the Google camera app I don't know any "Pixel only" app. And on
my Pixel 6a I did not find any third-party software at all.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#146194

Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg, 2025-01-03 14:35:
> 
> > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
> >> No, google phones come directly without a customization layer.
> > 
> >   Of course, but they are still customized and I doubt that they don't
> 
> What kind of customizations do you refer to? I don't see any difference
> between AOSP and Android with Google Services except that AOSP does not
> provide the Google Services of course. But the UI itself including the
> UI and features the system apps is the same.

  Mainly customizations for device-specific hardware and - consequently
- customized settings in the submenus of Settings.

> > come with any Pixel-only or/and third-party software. And over time the
> 
> Except the Google camera app I don't know any "Pixel only" app. And on
> my Pixel 6a I did not find any third-party software at all.

  Thanks. Strange, but if you say so, I accept it of course.

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

#146243

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Arno Welzel wrote:
> 
>> Except the Google camera app I don't know any "Pixel only" app. And on
>> my Pixel 6a I did not find any third-party software at all.
> 
> Thanks. Strange, but if you say so, I accept it of course.

The Pixel 8a/9/9pro phones all got android 15 at same time, but my 8a 
didn't get all the shiny new apps at the same time, play store either 
fails to find them, or claims they're not compatible.

I was able to use APKmirror to install one of them which I wanted, the 
others are just AI bloat that I don't want, but I suspect in time 
they'll filter down to lesser devices, in the same way that 
circle-to-search did.

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

#146136

On 2025-01-03 14:35, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-02 16:05, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Hum. No, some manufacturers don't "fill". They add less customization,
>> like Motorola (Lenovo group). This way updates come faster.
> 
>    I said "fill", because it's the term 's|b' used. I don't consider my
> phones "filled with crap" or having too much customization.
> 
>> 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.

Probably because your phone is high end. AFAIK Samsung does this with 
only some models.

...

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#146195

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2025-01-03 14:35, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2025-01-02 16:05, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Hum. No, some manufacturers don't "fill". They add less customization,
> >> like Motorola (Lenovo group). This way updates come faster.
> > 
> >    I said "fill", because it's the term 's|b' used. I don't consider my
> > phones "filled with crap" or having too much customization.
> > 
> >> 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.
> 
> Probably because your phone is high end. AFAIK Samsung does this with 
> only some models.

  As I said, see your quote of my text, mine (A51) is a lower-range
(perhaps lower-end would be a better term) phone. It cost 230 Euros. The
A-series is the low(er)-end. The S-series is the higher- to extreme-end.
AFAIK, the update policy (i.e. number of years/versions) is now more or
less equal over the whole product line.

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

#146204

On 1/4/2025 7:59 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> 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.

My 5+ year old Samsung Galaxy S10+ is now at Android version 12. I don't
remember what the version was when I bought it. It says it was last
updated June 1, 2024. It gives me a big green check-mark in a circle
that says "You're all set! Your phone has been updated to the latest
software version." when I check for updates so guess it's still in the
running...

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

#146211

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 1/4/2025 7:59 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> 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.
> 
> My 5+ year old Samsung Galaxy S10+ is now at Android version 12. I don't
> remember what the version was when I bought it. It says it was last
> updated June 1, 2024. It gives me a big green check-mark in a circle
> that says "You're all set! Your phone has been updated to the latest
> software version." when I check for updates so guess it's still in the
> running...

  So it still gets updates, probably mostly security updates, but no
Android version updates, otherwise it would be at Android 15 or at least
14.

  So *when* are you going to toss that stone age phone of yours!? :-)

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

#146212

On 1/4/25 11:45 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> My 5+ year old Samsung Galaxy S10+ is now at Android version 12. I don't
>> remember what the version was when I bought it. It says it was last
>> updated June 1, 2024. It gives me a big green check-mark in a circle
>> that says "You're all set! Your phone has been updated to the latest
>> software version." when I check for updates so guess it's still in the
>> running...
>
>  So it still gets updates, probably mostly security updates, but no
>Android version updates, otherwise it would be at Android 15 or at least
>14.
>
>  So *when* are you going to toss that stone age phone of yours!? :-)

Probably when the battery fails. So far for my light use I haven't noticed
 any problems (knocks on wood).

The Android version isn't a problem for me. I'm posting with an Amazon
 tablet that runs an Android fork at about version 9 and for my use it does
 just fine. I put the Google Play Store on it so run most of the same apps
 as my phone and other toys. It's actually one of my favorite tablets as
 it's light, comfortable to hold, has great resolution, and at the sale
 price of $75US was cheap...

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

#146214

On 1/4/2025 12:21 PM, AJL wrote:
> On 1/4/25 11:45 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> My 5+ year old Samsung Galaxy S10+ is now at Android version 12.
>>> I don't remember what the version was when I bought it. It says
>>> it was last updated June 1, 2024. It gives me a big green
>>> check-mark in a circle that says "You're all set! Your phone has
>>> been updated to the latest software version." when I check for
>>> updates so guess it's still in the running...
>>
>> So it still gets updates, probably mostly security updates, but no
>>  Android version updates, otherwise it would be at Android 15 or
>> at least 14.
>>
>> So *when* are you going to toss that stone age phone of yours!?
>> :-)
>
> Probably when the battery fails. So far for my light use I haven't
> noticed any problems (knocks on wood).
>
> The Android version isn't a problem for me. I'm posting with an
> Amazon tablet that runs an Android fork at about version 9


I just checked my last post's source and it appears I posted it with an
Amazon Fire OS forked Android 11, not 9 as I said. Amazon was apparently
sneaky in one of my recent Amazon tablet updates...


> and for my use it does just fine. I put the Google Play Store on it
> so run most of the same apps as my phone and other toys. It's
> actually one of my favorite tablets as it's light, comfortable to
> hold, has great resolution, and at the sale price of $75US was
> cheap...

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

#146220

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 1/4/25 11:45 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[...]

> >  So *when* are you going to toss that stone age phone of yours!? :-)
> 
> Probably when the battery fails. So far for my light use I haven't noticed
>  any problems (knocks on wood).
> 
> The Android version isn't a problem for me. I'm posting with an Amazon
>  tablet that runs an Android fork at about version 9 and for my use it does
>  just fine. I put the Google Play Store on it so run most of the same apps
>  as my phone and other toys. It's actually one of my favorite tablets as
>  it's light, comfortable to hold, has great resolution, and at the sale
>  price of $75US was cheap...

  Bummer! So you don't have a real excuse to buy new toys, because the
'old' ones still work and refuse to die. What did you do to deserve such
hardship!?

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

#146223

On 1/4/2025 1:43 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> The Android version isn't a problem for me. I'm posting with an
>> Amazon tablet that runs an Android fork at about version 9 and for
>> my use it does just fine. I put the Google Play Store on it so run
>> most of the same apps as my phone and other toys. It's actually one
>> of my favorite tablets as it's light, comfortable to hold, has
>> great resolution, and at the sale price of $75US was cheap...

> Bummer! So you don't have a real excuse to buy new toys, because the
> 'old' ones still work and refuse to die. What did you do to deserve
> such hardship!?

Course I do. The old boring ones are gifted to the grand/greatgrandkids 
and I still get to get my new toys. Win-win...

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

#146227

On 2025-01-04 21:43, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> On 1/4/25 11:45 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>>   So *when* are you going to toss that stone age phone of yours!? :-)
>>
>> Probably when the battery fails. So far for my light use I haven't noticed
>>   any problems (knocks on wood).
>>
>> The Android version isn't a problem for me. I'm posting with an Amazon
>>   tablet that runs an Android fork at about version 9 and for my use it does
>>   just fine. I put the Google Play Store on it so run most of the same apps
>>   as my phone and other toys. It's actually one of my favorite tablets as
>>   it's light, comfortable to hold, has great resolution, and at the sale
>>   price of $75US was cheap...
> 
>    Bummer! So you don't have a real excuse to buy new toys, because the
> 'old' ones still work and refuse to die. What did you do to deserve such
> hardship!?

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).

If I forget to activate the casting, the tablet tries to play the video 
in its screen, but it doesn't have enough power and it stutters badly.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web