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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #31694 > unrolled thread

removed support for SD cards

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

Contents

  removed support for SD cards Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 21:19 -0400
    Re: removed support for SD cards Bob <Bob@the.builder> - 2016-07-15 03:11 -0500
      Re: removed support for SD cards Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 04:30 -0400
        Re: removed support for SD cards David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-15 11:02 +0100
          Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-15 08:50 -0400
            Re: removed support for SD cards PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-15 10:09 -0400
              Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-15 10:38 -0400
                Re: removed support for SD cards PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-15 11:22 -0400
                  Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-15 12:41 -0400
                    Re: removed support for SD cards PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-15 14:15 -0400
                      Re: removed support for SD cards Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:50 -0400
                Re: removed support for SD cards Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:35 -0400
                  Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-15 15:16 -0400
                    Re: removed support for SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-16 01:55 -0400
                      Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-16 08:11 -0400
                        Re: removed support for SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-16 19:25 -0400
                          Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-16 20:04 -0400
              Re: removed support for SD cards Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:14 -0400
                Re: removed support for SD cards PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-18 08:45 -0400
                  Re: removed support for SD cards Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 23:26 -0400
                    Re: removed support for SD cards PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-19 09:16 -0400
            Re: removed support for SD cards Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 09:33 +0200
              Re: removed support for SD cards David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-18 10:02 +0100
                Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-18 09:38 -0400
                  Re: removed support for SD cards Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 18:07 +0200
                    Re: removed support for SD cards David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-18 17:23 +0100
                    Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-18 12:50 -0400
                      Re: removed support for SD cards Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 19:17 +0200
            Re: removed support for SD cards Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 09:45 +0200
              Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-18 09:38 -0400
                Re: removed support for SD cards Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 18:17 +0200
                  Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-18 12:50 -0400
                    Re: removed support for SD cards Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 19:23 +0200
                    Re: removed support for SD cards Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 00:14 -0400
                      Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-19 00:45 -0400
        Re: removed support for SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 09:05 -0700
          Re: removed support for SD cards Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:45 -0400
            Re: removed support for SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 12:44 -0700
              Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-15 15:49 -0400
                Re: removed support for SD cards lew <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> - 2016-07-15 20:17 +0000
                  Re: removed support for SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:54 -0700
                    Re: removed support for SD cards Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 18:43 -0400
            Re: removed support for SD cards PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-18 08:48 -0400
      Re: removed support for SD cards crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-16 12:25 -0600
    Re: removed support for SD cards crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-16 12:23 -0600
      Re: removed support for SD cards Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 19:34 -0400
        Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-16 20:04 -0400
          Re: removed support for SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-17 23:45 -0400
            Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-18 00:38 -0400
              Re: removed support for SD cards Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 01:29 -0400
                Re: removed support for SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-18 01:32 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#31694 — removed support for SD cards

"While Google has removed support for SD cards since the release of
ICS,

Is this version 4?   Why would they get rid of SD cards?  Did internal
memory go up by 64gB? 

" some OEMs (namely Samsung) have gone against that and continue to
include an SD slot for expandable storage. This is a good thing for
many reasons; users can store pictures, movies, music, contacts and/or
documents on here and not have to worry about their internal storage
being taken up. "

So is getting rid of SD  as stupid as it sounds? 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#31752

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 21:19:31 -0400, Micky wrote:

> "While Google has removed support for SD cards since the release of ICS,
> 
> Is this version 4?   Why would they get rid of SD cards?  Did internal
> memory go up by 64gB?
> 
> " some OEMs (namely Samsung) have gone against that and continue to
> include an SD slot for expandable storage. This is a good thing for many
> reasons; users can store pictures, movies, music, contacts and/or
> documents on here and not have to worry about their internal storage
> being taken up. "
> 
> So is getting rid of SD  as stupid as it sounds?

Yes! Until such time as all phones offer large storage capacities at a 
reasonable cost and also permit a much better/easier backing up to cloud/
pc/laptop than currently exists especially for those who live in the 
sticks with *very* slow BB speeds and limited signal on data for mobiles.

Samsung is one of the few manufacturers who currently recognise this (but 
are not alone)

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

#31753

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 03:11:59 -0500, Bob <Bob@the.builder> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 21:19:31 -0400, Micky wrote:
>
>> "While Google has removed support for SD cards since the release of ICS,
>> 
>> Is this version 4?   Why would they get rid of SD cards?  Did internal
>> memory go up by 64gB?
>> 
>> " some OEMs (namely Samsung) have gone against that and continue to
>> include an SD slot for expandable storage. This is a good thing for many
>> reasons; users can store pictures, movies, music, contacts and/or
>> documents on here and not have to worry about their internal storage
>> being taken up. "
>> 
>> So is getting rid of SD  as stupid as it sounds?
>
>Yes! Until such time as all phones offer large storage capacities at a 

Amazing. 

>reasonable cost and also permit a much better/easier backing up to cloud/
>pc/laptop than currently exists especially for those who live in the 
>sticks with *very* slow BB speeds and limited signal on data for mobiles.
>
>Samsung is one of the few manufacturers who currently recognise this (but 
>are not alone)

The Blu phone I just bought, which may be being closed out, takes an
SD card, up to 64 gig.  

I need the storage for off-line maps**, not a full 64G but more than
the internal storage is.   And it's good that I can install 3
different map programs plus google maps and maps for each without
worrying about space.    **And easy backup to cloud, laptop won't make
that need be less.   $18 to 22 now for 64Gig.  $8-12 for 32gig. 


But I learned a couple days ago it doesn't take OTG connections.  On
the Go, would have let me connect a keyboard directly, or a harddrive
etc.   But I stil may be able to mirror the  thing on the PC. 

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

#31765

On 15/07/2016 09:30, Micky wrote:
[]
> The Blu phone I just bought, which may be being closed out, takes an
> SD card, up to 64 gig.
>
> I need the storage for off-line maps**, not a full 64G but more than
> the internal storage is.   And it's good that I can install 3
> different map programs plus google maps and maps for each without
> worrying about space.    **And easy backup to cloud, laptop won't make
> that need be less.   $18 to 22 now for 64Gig.  $8-12 for 32gig.
>
>
> But I learned a couple days ago it doesn't take OTG connections.  On
> the Go, would have let me connect a keyboard directly, or a harddrive
> etc.   But I stil may be able to mirror the  thing on the PC.

For offline maps I use Maps.Me:

   http://maps.me/en/home

and I put the maps on an external SD card.  Still works with the latest 
Android.

I note that this would not be possible with the iPhone.  A 32 or 64 GB 
SD card costs a lot less (GBP 14) than the incremental cost of buying 
iPhone capacity (GBP 80).

-- 
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

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

#31774

In article <nmacbu$bf1$1@dont-email.me>, David Taylor
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> and I put the maps on an external SD card.  Still works with the latest 
> Android.

map data isn't all that big (under 2 gig for the *entire* usa), which
will fit in even the lowest capacity phone (any brand). there's no need
to fuss with a card.

> I note that this would not be possible with the iPhone. 

or many android phones, including the nexus 5, 5x and 6p, the samsung
galaxy s6, the oneplus one, 2 and the oneplus 3 that you even
suggested.

it's not just iphones that don't have sd card slots.

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

#31789

On 7/15/2016 8:50 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <nmacbu$bf1$1@dont-email.me>, David Taylor
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> and I put the maps on an external SD card.  Still works with the latest
>> Android.
> map data isn't all that big (under 2 gig for the *entire* usa), which
> will fit in even the lowest capacity phone (any brand). there's no need
> to fuss with a card.
>
>> I note that this would not be possible with the iPhone.
> or many android phones, including the nexus 5, 5x and 6p, the samsung
> galaxy s6, the oneplus one, 2 and the oneplus 3 that you even
> suggested.
>
> it's not just iphones that don't have sd card slots.

At least Samsung heard the complaints of their users and now support an 
SD card in the S7s.  One thing I always liked about LG was that they 
supported SD cards in the G line.  I briefly used the new G5 before it 
broke.  The phone was supposed to support adoptable storage but did not, 
it only supported expandable storage.  But I was able to format the SD 
card using some developer tools to make it adoptable storage.  The BLU 
Pure XL I use now only supports expandable storage up to 64GB cards but 
people report using larger cards.  With the phone's 64GB of internal 
memory, I don't see a need for me to have adoptable storage on this phone.

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

#31791

In article <nmaqrf$s2f$2@dont-email.me>, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote:

> >> and I put the maps on an external SD card.  Still works with the latest
> >> Android.
> > map data isn't all that big (under 2 gig for the *entire* usa), which
> > will fit in even the lowest capacity phone (any brand). there's no need
> > to fuss with a card.
> >
> >> I note that this would not be possible with the iPhone.
> > or many android phones, including the nexus 5, 5x and 6p, the samsung
> > galaxy s6, the oneplus one, 2 and the oneplus 3 that you even
> > suggested.
> >
> > it's not just iphones that don't have sd card slots.
> 
> At least Samsung heard the complaints of their users and now support an 
> SD card in the S7s.  

for now.

> One thing I always liked about LG was that they 
> supported SD cards in the G line.  I briefly used the new G5 before it 
> broke.  The phone was supposed to support adoptable storage but did not, 
> it only supported expandable storage.  But I was able to format the SD 
> card using some developer tools to make it adoptable storage.  The BLU 
> Pure XL I use now only supports expandable storage up to 64GB cards but 
> people report using larger cards.  With the phone's 64GB of internal 
> memory, I don't see a need for me to have adoptable storage on this phone.

most people don't care about cards. at most, they get one card (if they
do at all) and leave it in the phone.

might as well just get 64-128g from the factory and not worry about
whether apps can run off cards or where user data gets stored.

plus, with so much stuff in the cloud, the need for higher capacity
devices is minimal anyway. what takes up the most space is music and
video, which can easily be streamed.

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

#31795

On 7/15/2016 10:38 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <nmaqrf$s2f$2@dont-email.me>, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote:
>
>>>> and I put the maps on an external SD card.  Still works with the latest
>>>> Android.
>>> map data isn't all that big (under 2 gig for the *entire* usa), which
>>> will fit in even the lowest capacity phone (any brand). there's no need
>>> to fuss with a card.
>>>
>>>> I note that this would not be possible with the iPhone.
>>> or many android phones, including the nexus 5, 5x and 6p, the samsung
>>> galaxy s6, the oneplus one, 2 and the oneplus 3 that you even
>>> suggested.
>>>
>>> it's not just iphones that don't have sd card slots.
>> At least Samsung heard the complaints of their users and now support an
>> SD card in the S7s.
> for now.
>
>> One thing I always liked about LG was that they
>> supported SD cards in the G line.  I briefly used the new G5 before it
>> broke.  The phone was supposed to support adoptable storage but did not,
>> it only supported expandable storage.  But I was able to format the SD
>> card using some developer tools to make it adoptable storage.  The BLU
>> Pure XL I use now only supports expandable storage up to 64GB cards but
>> people report using larger cards.  With the phone's 64GB of internal
>> memory, I don't see a need for me to have adoptable storage on this phone.
> most people don't care about cards. at most, they get one card (if they
> do at all) and leave it in the phone.
>
> might as well just get 64-128g from the factory and not worry about
> whether apps can run off cards or where user data gets stored.

It's more cost-effective in some cases to buy a phone with less internal 
memory and add a card for expandable storage.  My wife doesn't install 
many apps but she takes lots of photos and videos. Having a phone with 
16GB of internal memory and then adding a 32GB or 64GB card for photos 
and videos is a more cost-effective option for someone like her.  That 
can be mitigated by backing up the photos and videos to a PC and then 
re-using the memory but we both know that there are a lot of people who 
don't do that at all - they keep everything on the phone.  It's bad 
practice but that's their choice.

> plus, with so much stuff in the cloud, the need for higher capacity
> devices is minimal anyway. what takes up the most space is music and
> video, which can easily be streamed.

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

#31803

In article <nmav37$cdb$2@dont-email.me>, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote:


> >
> >> One thing I always liked about LG was that they
> >> supported SD cards in the G line.  I briefly used the new G5 before it
> >> broke.  The phone was supposed to support adoptable storage but did not,
> >> it only supported expandable storage.  But I was able to format the SD
> >> card using some developer tools to make it adoptable storage.  The BLU
> >> Pure XL I use now only supports expandable storage up to 64GB cards but
> >> people report using larger cards.  With the phone's 64GB of internal
> >> memory, I don't see a need for me to have adoptable storage on this phone.
> > most people don't care about cards. at most, they get one card (if they
> > do at all) and leave it in the phone.
> >
> > might as well just get 64-128g from the factory and not worry about
> > whether apps can run off cards or where user data gets stored.
> 
> It's more cost-effective in some cases to buy a phone with less internal 
> memory and add a card for expandable storage.  

cheaper maybe, but not necessarily cost effective when you include the
hassles dealing with cards. 

> My wife doesn't install 
> many apps but she takes lots of photos and videos. Having a phone with 
> 16GB of internal memory and then adding a 32GB or 64GB card for photos 
> and videos is a more cost-effective option for someone like her.  That 
> can be mitigated by backing up the photos and videos to a PC and then 
> re-using the memory but we both know that there are a lot of people who 
> don't do that at all - they keep everything on the phone.  It's bad 
> practice but that's their choice.

that can be mitigated by pushing photos/videos to the cloud, something
that happens automatically on ios (if the user wants). 

let the computer do the work *for* you.

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

#31809

On 7/15/2016 12:41 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <nmav37$cdb$2@dont-email.me>, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>> One thing I always liked about LG was that they
>>>> supported SD cards in the G line.  I briefly used the new G5 before it
>>>> broke.  The phone was supposed to support adoptable storage but did not,
>>>> it only supported expandable storage.  But I was able to format the SD
>>>> card using some developer tools to make it adoptable storage.  The BLU
>>>> Pure XL I use now only supports expandable storage up to 64GB cards but
>>>> people report using larger cards.  With the phone's 64GB of internal
>>>> memory, I don't see a need for me to have adoptable storage on this phone.
>>> most people don't care about cards. at most, they get one card (if they
>>> do at all) and leave it in the phone.
>>>
>>> might as well just get 64-128g from the factory and not worry about
>>> whether apps can run off cards or where user data gets stored.
>> It's more cost-effective in some cases to buy a phone with less internal
>> memory and add a card for expandable storage.
> cheaper maybe, but not necessarily cost effective when you include the
> hassles dealing with cards.
>
>> My wife doesn't install
>> many apps but she takes lots of photos and videos. Having a phone with
>> 16GB of internal memory and then adding a 32GB or 64GB card for photos
>> and videos is a more cost-effective option for someone like her.  That
>> can be mitigated by backing up the photos and videos to a PC and then
>> re-using the memory but we both know that there are a lot of people who
>> don't do that at all - they keep everything on the phone.  It's bad
>> practice but that's their choice.
> that can be mitigated by pushing photos/videos to the cloud, something
> that happens automatically on ios (if the user wants).
>
> let the computer do the work *for* you.

It's automatic too with Google.  But we both know that a lot of people 
won't use it and aren't diligent with backing up - if they ever backed 
up at all.

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

#31817

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:15:14 -0400, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote:

>On 7/15/2016 12:41 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <nmav37$cdb$2@dont-email.me>, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> One thing I always liked about LG was that they
>>>>> supported SD cards in the G line.  I briefly used the new G5 before it
>>>>> broke.  The phone was supposed to support adoptable storage but did not,
>>>>> it only supported expandable storage.  But I was able to format the SD
>>>>> card using some developer tools to make it adoptable storage.  The BLU
>>>>> Pure XL I use now only supports expandable storage up to 64GB cards but
>>>>> people report using larger cards.  With the phone's 64GB of internal
>>>>> memory, I don't see a need for me to have adoptable storage on this phone.
>>>> most people don't care about cards. at most, they get one card (if they
>>>> do at all) and leave it in the phone.
>>>>
>>>> might as well just get 64-128g from the factory and not worry about
>>>> whether apps can run off cards or where user data gets stored.
>>> It's more cost-effective in some cases to buy a phone with less internal
>>> memory and add a card for expandable storage.
>> cheaper maybe, but not necessarily cost effective when you include the
>> hassles dealing with cards.
>>
>>> My wife doesn't install
>>> many apps but she takes lots of photos and videos. Having a phone with
>>> 16GB of internal memory and then adding a 32GB or 64GB card for photos
>>> and videos is a more cost-effective option for someone like her.  That
>>> can be mitigated by backing up the photos and videos to a PC and then
>>> re-using the memory but we both know that there are a lot of people who
>>> don't do that at all - they keep everything on the phone.  It's bad
>>> practice but that's their choice.
>> that can be mitigated by pushing photos/videos to the cloud, something
>> that happens automatically on ios (if the user wants).
>>
>> let the computer do the work *for* you.
>
>It's automatic too with Google.  But we both know that a lot of people 
>won't use it and aren't diligent with backing up - if they ever backed 
>up at all.

I back up but I also keep the original copy on the camera, and I will
especially now that it's 64G.   That's one of those multiple copies
that everyone praises.   I forget how much storage I had in the camera
that broke when I dropped it, that I bought 8 years ago, but I'm sure
it was less than 64. 

That Fuji camera and another camera whose make I can't remember each
came with software that would keep track of what had been uploaded,
and not upload the same thing twice.  The software did other things
too.   I have the CDs but havent' installed them in this PC or the
laptop yet.  But I will. 

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

#31811

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:38:02 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <nmaqrf$s2f$2@dont-email.me>, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote:
>
>> >> and I put the maps on an external SD card.  Still works with the latest
>> >> Android.
>> > map data isn't all that big (under 2 gig for the *entire* usa), which
>> > will fit in even the lowest capacity phone (any brand). there's no need
>> > to fuss with a card.
>> >
>> >> I note that this would not be possible with the iPhone.
>> > or many android phones, including the nexus 5, 5x and 6p, the samsung
>> > galaxy s6, the oneplus one, 2 and the oneplus 3 that you even
>> > suggested.
>> >
>> > it's not just iphones that don't have sd card slots.
>> 
>> At least Samsung heard the complaints of their users and now support an 
>> SD card in the S7s.  
>
>for now.
>
>> One thing I always liked about LG was that they 
>> supported SD cards in the G line.  I briefly used the new G5 before it 
>> broke.  The phone was supposed to support adoptable storage but did not, 
>> it only supported expandable storage.  But I was able to format the SD 
>> card using some developer tools to make it adoptable storage.  The BLU 
>> Pure XL I use now only supports expandable storage up to 64GB cards but 
>> people report using larger cards.  With the phone's 64GB of internal 
>> memory, I don't see a need for me to have adoptable storage on this phone.
>
>most people don't care about cards. at most, they get one card (if they
>do at all) and leave it in the phone.
>
>might as well just get 64-128g from the factory and not worry about
>whether apps can run off cards or where user data gets stored.

Only if money is not an issue.  I guess it's not an issue for you, but
it costs a heck of a lot more to get a phone with 64 to 128g internal
memory instead of 8 or 16 than it costs to buy a card of the same
size.   So for most people, "might as well" does not apply. 

Nospam, from elsewhere: 
>>cheaper maybe, but not necessarily cost effective when you include the
>>hassles dealing with cards. 

You're both confusing hassles with spending money, and you're greatly
exaggerating the "hassle" of having a card.  You buy it once and put
it in, you set the setting to use the SD card for storage, and that's
all you have to do.  You can even do it when you're putting in the SIM
card.  Even if it took time, I have plenty of time, and it doesn't
cost me money because I'm not working.  And I can do these things
while listening to the radio or watching TV. 

Plus cards have a big advantage that they can be removed if needed or
wanted, which more than makes up for any imagined hassle. 

Nospam, from still elsewhere: 
>>map data isn't all that big (under 2 gig for the *entire* usa), which
>>will fit in even the lowest capacity phone (any brand). there's no need
>>to fuss with a card.

Really?  The lowest capacity phone has about 2gigs of storage, many
have only 8, of which only 5 is available.  And you're going to use
what you claim is 2g for maps.  And where do you get the idea it's
under 2G.   HERE maps uses 350M for Maryland alone, and Maryland is
small.  There are 50 states and it's smaller than all but 4, so it
must be more than 40 gigs for the whole country.   And what if you
want other countries too?   And what if you want more than one map
program?   

>plus, with so much stuff in the cloud, the need for higher capacity
>devices is minimal anyway. what takes up the most space is music and
>video, which can easily be streamed.

The cloud has its own big problems.  Copyright for one.   Check it
out.   Even though one doesn't need privacy for tourist photographs,
he doesn't want someone else using his photos, as apparently Dropbox
says it has the right to do. 


Do you really not foresee any of this stuff when you post?  Issues of
money, space, copyright?   Do you really imagine that everyone else
holds the views they do for no good reason?   Or do you just like to
argue and are happy to make fallacious arguments because they get more
response?

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

#31826

In article <m1aiobh5hujqvajnbgd1iq50un9kvv3p3c@4ax.com>, Micky
<NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nospam, from elsewhere: 
> >>cheaper maybe, but not necessarily cost effective when you include the
> >>hassles dealing with cards. 
> 
> You're both confusing hassles with spending money, and you're greatly
> exaggerating the "hassle" of having a card.  You buy it once and put
> it in, you set the setting to use the SD card for storage, and that's
> all you have to do.  You can even do it when you're putting in the SIM
> card.  Even if it took time, I have plenty of time, and it doesn't
> cost me money because I'm not working.  And I can do these things
> while listening to the radio or watching TV. 

if you're not ever going to change it then there's no advantage with
having a card.

> Plus cards have a big advantage that they can be removed if needed or
> wanted, which more than makes up for any imagined hassle. 

except that's rarely, if ever done, *particularly* when the card slot
is in the battery or worse, *under* the battery, as it is on one of my
android phones. 

> Nospam, from still elsewhere: 
> >>map data isn't all that big (under 2 gig for the *entire* usa), which
> >>will fit in even the lowest capacity phone (any brand). there's no need
> >>to fuss with a card.
> 
> Really?  The lowest capacity phone has about 2gigs of storage, many
> have only 8, of which only 5 is available. 

maybe bottom tier crap, but normal phones these days *start* with 8-16
as a minimum and most people consider that to be too small.

> And you're going to use
> what you claim is 2g for maps.  And where do you get the idea it's
> under 2G.  

because i have numerous map apps.

> HERE maps uses 350M for Maryland alone, and Maryland is
> small.  

maryland has a lot more streets and pois than rural states like wyoming
or colorado. 

> There are 50 states and it's smaller than all but 4, so it
> must be more than 40 gigs for the whole country. 

definitely not.

1.6 gig for the *entire* usa:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.navigon.navigator_che
ckout_us&hl=en>
  This version of NAVIGON can require up to 1.6GB of free memory
  (depending on the number of maps you download). Due to the high data
  volume, we recommend using WiFi (WLAN). On first startup a short data
  connection (ca. 25kB) is mandatory to register your product.

2.8 gig for all of north america (usa *and* canada):
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.navigon.navigator_che
ckout_na&hl=en>
  This version of NAVIGON can require up to 2.8GB of free memory
  (depending on the number of maps you download). Due to the high data
  volume, we recommend using WiFi (WLAN). On first startup a short data
  connection (ca. 25kB) is mandatory to register your product.

other map apps (e.g., tomtom) are similar in size.

also note that you don't need to download everything. you only need
maps for where you are and expect to be in the next couple of days. if
you're going to go on a trip, download that area prior to departure and
delete it when you get home.

> And what if you
> want other countries too?   And what if you want more than one map
> program?   

do you really need maps for the entire *planet* always installed?

download the maps you need for wherever you are.

if you're going to china, download maps for china and delete the usa
maps. when you get home, delete the china maps and reinstall the usa
maps.

you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

> >plus, with so much stuff in the cloud, the need for higher capacity
> >devices is minimal anyway. what takes up the most space is music and
> >video, which can easily be streamed.
> 
> The cloud has its own big problems.  Copyright for one.   Check it
> out.  

you retain copyright on anything you create.

> Even though one doesn't need privacy for tourist photographs,

some people might want that. 

> he doesn't want someone else using his photos, as apparently Dropbox
> says it has the right to do. 

you're misunderstanding what it says.

dropbox does not use anyone's photos. period.

it has that clause because in order to access your own files or provide
links to others, dropbox has to have access to them so it can display
them in a browser (or other methods). 

> Do you really not foresee any of this stuff when you post?  Issues of
> money, space, copyright?   Do you really imagine that everyone else
> holds the views they do for no good reason?   Or do you just like to
> argue and are happy to make fallacious arguments because they get more
> response?

i'm not arguing. 

you're rambling about stuff you know little to nothing. try not to
argue and maybe learn something, for a change.

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

#31889

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:16:49 -0400, nospam, rebutting Micky:

>> Plus cards have a big advantage that they can be removed if needed or
>> wanted, which more than makes up for any imagined hassle. 
> 
> except that's rarely, if ever done, *particularly* when the card slot
> is in the battery or worse, *under* the battery, as it is on one of my
> android phones.

You've encountered a card slot that was "in the battery" :-) ? Really?

Anyway, what you may do "rarely, if ever" is not necessarily something
Micky or I never do. So don't go about thinking it is :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

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

#31903

In article <h0b4i6au3fd7$.186ffuci3oq8c.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

> 
> >> Plus cards have a big advantage that they can be removed if needed or
> >> wanted, which more than makes up for any imagined hassle. 
> > 
> > except that's rarely, if ever done, *particularly* when the card slot
> > is in the battery or worse, *under* the battery, as it is on one of my
> > android phones.
> 
> You've encountered a card slot that was "in the battery" :-) ? Really?

in the battery bay.

> Anyway, what you may do "rarely, if ever" is not necessarily something
> Micky or I never do. So don't go about thinking it is :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

get over yourself. i'm not talking about what i do, i'm talking what
the majority of users do, and the fact is that they rarely, if ever,
swap cards (or batteries).

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

#31944

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:11:51 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <h0b4i6au3fd7$.186ffuci3oq8c.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
> <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>>> Plus cards have a big advantage that they can be removed if needed or
>>>> wanted, which more than makes up for any imagined hassle. 
>>> 
>>> except that's rarely, if ever done, *particularly* when the card slot
>>> is in the battery or worse, *under* the battery, as it is on one of my
>>> android phones.
>> 
>> You've encountered a card slot that was "in the battery" :-) ? Really?
> 
> in the battery bay.

Ah, that makes better sense :-) .
 
>> Anyway, what you may do "rarely, if ever" is not necessarily something
>> Micky or I never do. So don't go about thinking it is :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
> 
> get over yourself. i'm not talking about what i do, i'm talking what
> the majority of users do, and the fact is that they rarely, if ever,
> swap cards (or batteries).

Whatever other users may do is irrelevant to what you, or I, or Micky, do.

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

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

#31948

In article <1pr5g8a2kpg1r.vlkg5owkkq9b$.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

>  
> >> Anyway, what you may do "rarely, if ever" is not necessarily something
> >> Micky or I never do. So don't go about thinking it is :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
> > 
> > get over yourself. i'm not talking about what i do, i'm talking what
> > the majority of users do, and the fact is that they rarely, if ever,
> > swap cards (or batteries).
> 
> Whatever other users may do is irrelevant to what you, or I, or Micky, do.

it's relevant to what products the various companies make. 

if the majority of users don't use a certain feature, then it's going
to be difficult to find a product that offers it.

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

#31807

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:09:51 -0400, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote:

>On 7/15/2016 8:50 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <nmacbu$bf1$1@dont-email.me>, David Taylor
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> and I put the maps on an external SD card.  Still works with the latest
>>> Android.
>> map data isn't all that big (under 2 gig for the *entire* usa), which
>> will fit in even the lowest capacity phone (any brand). there's no need
>> to fuss with a card.
>>
>>> I note that this would not be possible with the iPhone.
>> or many android phones, including the nexus 5, 5x and 6p, the samsung
>> galaxy s6, the oneplus one, 2 and the oneplus 3 that you even
>> suggested.
>>
>> it's not just iphones that don't have sd card slots.
>
>At least Samsung heard the complaints of their users and now support an 
>SD card in the S7s.  One thing I always liked about LG was that they 
>supported SD cards in the G line.  I briefly used the new G5 before it 
>broke.  The phone was supposed to support adoptable storage but did not, 
>it only supported expandable storage.  But I was able to format the SD 
>card using some developer tools to make it adoptable storage.  The BLU 
>Pure XL I use now only supports expandable storage up to 64GB cards but 

Whats' the difference between adoptable and expandable storage? 

My Blu has only 8GB of internal memory and a slot where I put 64G.
Above 64GB, the price climbs more steeply. 

>people report using larger cards.  With the phone's 64GB of internal 
>memory, I don't see a need for me to have adoptable storage on this phone.

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

#32055

On 7/15/2016 2:14 PM, Micky wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:09:51 -0400, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/15/2016 8:50 AM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <nmacbu$bf1$1@dont-email.me>, David Taylor
>>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> and I put the maps on an external SD card.  Still works with the latest
>>>> Android.
>>> map data isn't all that big (under 2 gig for the *entire* usa), which
>>> will fit in even the lowest capacity phone (any brand). there's no need
>>> to fuss with a card.
>>>
>>>> I note that this would not be possible with the iPhone.
>>> or many android phones, including the nexus 5, 5x and 6p, the samsung
>>> galaxy s6, the oneplus one, 2 and the oneplus 3 that you even
>>> suggested.
>>>
>>> it's not just iphones that don't have sd card slots.
>> At least Samsung heard the complaints of their users and now support an
>> SD card in the S7s.  One thing I always liked about LG was that they
>> supported SD cards in the G line.  I briefly used the new G5 before it
>> broke.  The phone was supposed to support adoptable storage but did not,
>> it only supported expandable storage.  But I was able to format the SD
>> card using some developer tools to make it adoptable storage.  The BLU
>> Pure XL I use now only supports expandable storage up to 64GB cards but
> Whats' the difference between adoptable and expandable storage?

Simply put, "expandable" storage is giving you more space to store 
photos and videos.  Rather than the files writing to the phones internal 
memory, the photos and videos you take will be written to the SD card as 
long as you choose that option in your camera app. With "adoptable" 
storage, the SD card acts as an extended part of the phones internal 
memory - apps can be installed, etc.
>
> My Blu has only 8GB of internal memory and a slot where I put 64G.
> Above 64GB, the price climbs more steeply.
>   
>
>> people report using larger cards.  With the phone's 64GB of internal
>> memory, I don't see a need for me to have adoptable storage on this phone.

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

#32170

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:45:49 -0400, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote:

>> Whats' the difference between adoptable and expandable storage?
>
>Simply put, "expandable" storage is giving you more space to store 
>photos and videos.  Rather than the files writing to the phones internal 
>memory, the photos and videos you take will be written to the SD card as 
>long as you choose that option in your camera app. With "adoptable" 
>storage, the SD card acts as an extended part of the phones internal 
>memory - apps can be installed, etc.

I get it.  Great.  Thanks.   I don't think my Blu phone specified
which it had, though I guess it's implied by where it installs things,
since I've set my preference as the SD card.    And by whether there
is a Move (to SD card) button when I look at an app's storage.  

Unless some apps have different standards for that than others. 

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web