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

#32224

On 7/18/2016 11:26 PM, Micky wrote:
> 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.

I mentioned in other posts that I had a new LG G5 before I got the BLU 
(the G5 died withing three weeks).  I preferred LG phones to Samsungs 
over the years so I stuck with them.  I read a quote from an LG 
marketing person indicating that the G5 had adoptable storage.  I wanted 
that feature.  Others reported that the G5 does not have adoptable 
storage and they were right, it does not. However, it was pretty easy to 
format the SD card to get it to work as adoptable storage in the G%.  I 
had to use a couple of developer tools.  It worked fine.  Since the BLU 
Pure XL I have no has 64GB of internal storage, having adoptable storage 
isn't important to me any longer.

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

#32045

Dne 15/07/2016 v 14:50 nospam napsal(a):
> 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.
> 
It does not apply on 4GB devices
that have e.g. 1.7 GB free out of the box.

I have even heard about unhappy owner of the new LG phone with 4GB,
bloated with LG and provider bloatware with only 800 MB free left.

Even the map for Czech Republic can take up to 800 MB.

I have about 8 GB of vector and raster maps on my SD card.

I would not bought a phone without SD card slot
with less than 32GB of internal storage,
preferably 64GB - but that would not be cheap.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#32050

On 18/07/2016 08:33, Poutnik wrote:
[]
> I would not bought a phone without SD card slot
> with less than 32GB of internal storage,
> preferably 64GB - but that would not be cheap.

Agreed.  Even 16 GB is marginal for internal storage alone, at least for 
those of us who use many maps.  Mine are ~ 5 GB (and there are no USA 
maps in that).

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

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

#32059

In article <nmi5ve$ppl$1@dont-email.me>, David Taylor
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> > I would not bought a phone without SD card slot
> > with less than 32GB of internal storage,
> > preferably 64GB - but that would not be cheap.
> 
> Agreed.  Even 16 GB is marginal for internal storage alone, at least for 
> those of us who use many maps.  Mine are ~ 5 GB (and there are no USA 
> maps in that).

why would anyone need 5 gig of map data always installed??

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

#32074

On 07/18/2016 03:38 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <nmi5ve$ppl$1@dont-email.me>, David Taylor
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I would not bought a phone without SD card slot
>>> with less than 32GB of internal storage,
>>> preferably 64GB - but that would not be cheap.
>>
>> Agreed.  Even 16 GB is marginal for internal storage alone, at least for
>> those of us who use many maps.  Mine are ~ 5 GB (and there are no USA
>> maps in that).
>
> why would anyone need 5 gig of map data always installed??
>

Heavy map users would understand - 5 GB is not really much
even for small regions, if one uses various outdoor
or topographic raster maps.

Why would anyone need to shuffle them in and out ?

OTOH, if a user uses just relatively compact road only map
for car navigation, he does not need much space.

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

#32083

On 18/07/2016 17:07, Poutnik wrote:
[]
> Heavy map users would understand - 5 GB is not really much
> even for small regions, if one uses various outdoor
> or topographic raster maps.
>
> Why would anyone need to shuffle them in and out ?
>
> OTOH, if a user uses just relatively compact road only map
> for car navigation, he does not need much space.

You're wasting your time trying to have a reasoned discussion.

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

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

#32087

In article <nmiurp$evd$1@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
<poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> I would not bought a phone without SD card slot
> >>> with less than 32GB of internal storage,
> >>> preferably 64GB - but that would not be cheap.
> >>
> >> Agreed.  Even 16 GB is marginal for internal storage alone, at least for
> >> those of us who use many maps.  Mine are ~ 5 GB (and there are no USA
> >> maps in that).
> >
> > why would anyone need 5 gig of map data always installed??
> 
> Heavy map users would understand - 5 GB is not really much
> even for small regions, if one uses various outdoor
> or topographic raster maps.
>
> Why would anyone need to shuffle them in and out ?

because you can't be in more than one place at one time.

> OTOH, if a user uses just relatively compact road only map
> for car navigation, he does not need much space.

true but not the point.

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

#32093

On 07/18/2016 06:50 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <nmiurp$evd$1@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
> <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Heavy map users would understand - 5 GB is not really much
>> even for small regions, if one uses various outdoor
>> or topographic raster maps.
>>
>> Why would anyone need to shuffle them in and out ?
>
> because you can't be in more than one place at one time.

That is not the reason for the need.

>
>> OTOH, if a user uses just relatively compact road only map
>> for car navigation, he does not need much space.
>
> true but not the point.
>

The point is, there is no sense in making excuses
why there is no reason to have big enough storage.

Omitting SDs will make sense,
if such a phone provides the SD-like internal storage
with acceptable price.

What is acceptable is region and person dependent.

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

#32046

Dne 15/07/2016 v 14:50 nospam napsal(a):

> 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.

There is big difference in map sizes and details,
e.g the road only maps for car navigation versus
full detail Openstreetmaps like of OSMAnd or LocusMap,
or various raster maps of outdoor regions.

Not speaking about other big stuff like music, podcasts,
photos and videos.

16GB internal storage without SD would be unusable for me,
and for 32 I would be indecisive.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#32060

In article <nmi1f1$cid$1@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
<poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> > 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.
> 
> There is big difference in map sizes and details,
> e.g the road only maps for car navigation versus
> full detail Openstreetmaps like of OSMAnd or LocusMap,
> or various raster maps of outdoor regions.

even with additional detail, it's still not that much.

> Not speaking about other big stuff like music, podcasts,
> photos and videos.

that's a separate issue and those can be streamed.

> 16GB internal storage without SD would be unusable for me,
> and for 32 I would be indecisive.

that's fine, but for many, 16 gig is sufficient.

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

#32075

On 07/18/2016 03:38 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <nmi1f1$cid$1@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
> <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> There is big difference in map sizes and details,
>> e.g the road only maps for car navigation versus
>> full detail Openstreetmaps like of OSMAnd or LocusMap,
>> or various raster maps of outdoor regions.
>
> even with additional detail, it's still not that much.

You do not use maps much, dont you ?

Just a single outdoor raster map covering the small Czech Republic
with area about 80 000 sq kilometres can takes 2-6 GB, depending or zoom 
level and details.
>
>> Not speaking about other big stuff like music, podcasts,
>> photos and videos.
>
> that's a separate issue and those can be streamed.

But fortunately it need not to be streamed,
if streaming would cost fortune.

E.g. just now, I have 4-5 GB of podcasts to listen, downloaded via wifi,
that I would never ever consider to stream via the provider,
with data plan limit 1.5 GB/month.

>
>> 16GB internal storage without SD would be unusable for me,
>> and for 32 I would be indecisive.
>
> that's fine, but for many, 16 gig is sufficient.

For many is, for many is not.
there is no sense for some to persuade the others.

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

#32088

In article <nmive9$h8o$1@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
<poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Not speaking about other big stuff like music, podcasts,
> >> photos and videos.
> >
> > that's a separate issue and those can be streamed.
> 
> But fortunately it need not to be streamed,

it can be

> if streaming would cost fortune.

it doesn't.

> E.g. just now, I have 4-5 GB of podcasts to listen, downloaded via wifi,
> that I would never ever consider to stream via the provider,
> with data plan limit 1.5 GB/month.

you don't need to listen to *all* of those streamed.

nevertheless, typical streaming rates are about 30 mb/hr, which means
that 1.5 gb/mo would be ~65 hours of listening.

that's over 2 hours every single day. 

or just load up a day's worth and listen to that, then update it in the
evening (which can even update automatically without needing to
manually do anything).

> >> 16GB internal storage without SD would be unusable for me,
> >> and for 32 I would be indecisive.
> >
> > that's fine, but for many, 16 gig is sufficient.
> 
> For many is, for many is not.

that's why phone makers offer 16, 32, 64 and 128 gig devices.

> there is no sense for some to persuade the others.

then don't.

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

#32094

On 07/18/2016 06:50 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <nmive9$h8o$1@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
> <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> But fortunately it need not to be streamed,
>
> it can be

Can and need not do not exclude themselves.

>
>> if streaming would cost fortune.
>
> it doesn't.

It is region and person dependent.

>
>> E.g. just now, I have 4-5 GB of podcasts to listen, downloaded via wifi,
>> that I would never ever consider to stream via the provider,
>> with data plan limit 1.5 GB/month.
>
> you don't need to listen to *all* of those streamed.

What matters is what a user wants, not what he needs.
>
> that's why phone makers offer 16, 32, 64 and 128 gig devices.

Sure, but with SD, it is much cheaper,
what matters for some, but does not for others.

>> there is no sense for some to persuade the others.
>
> then don't.

While you do not...

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

#32180

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:50:33 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <nmive9$h8o$1@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
><poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Not speaking about other big stuff like music, podcasts,
>> >> photos and videos.
>> >
>> > that's a separate issue and those can be streamed.
>> 
>> But fortunately it need not to be streamed,
>
>it can be
>
>> if streaming would cost fortune.
>
>it doesn't.
>
>> E.g. just now, I have 4-5 GB of podcasts to listen, downloaded via wifi,
>> that I would never ever consider to stream via the provider,
>> with data plan limit 1.5 GB/month.
>
>you don't need to listen to *all* of those streamed.
>
>nevertheless, typical streaming rates are about 30 mb/hr, which means
>that 1.5 gb/mo would be ~65 hours of listening.
>
>that's over 2 hours every single day. 
>
>or just load up a day's worth and listen to that, then update it in the
>evening (which can even update automatically without needing to
>manually do anything).
>
>> >> 16GB internal storage without SD would be unusable for me,
>> >> and for 32 I would be indecisive.
>> >
>> > that's fine, but for many, 16 gig is sufficient.
>> 
>> For many is, for many is not.
>
>that's why phone makers offer 16, 32, 64 and 128 gig devices.
>
>> there is no sense for some to persuade the others.
>
>then don't.

Then YOU don't.  You are the one here always telling people how they
should live.  They, including me, just say what they do and then you
tell them they are wrong and they should do things in ways you like
but they find inconvenient or too expensive or too time consuming, in
this case, just so they can get along without an SD card, when all
they have to do is buy a phone WITH an SD card.  Now don't get started
on a theory that some day they won't sell them.   That's speculative
and unimportant since now they do.   

(and because of the many people who feel like those you are arguing
with, I'm sure they will continue to do so, at least until internal
storage is just as cheap, but I think it could be just as cheap now,
so what that means is they let people decide how much storage they
need and buy the SD card that fulfills that need.   They would not be
able to do that if they didn't have an SD slot. ) 

When you engage in these ridiculous arguments, you lower your
credibility even for cases where you're right.  

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

#32184

In article <dt9robpkf1cs3n6jpjgiod58glhs4a0ig9@4ax.com>, Micky
<NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> 16GB internal storage without SD would be unusable for me,
> >> >> and for 32 I would be indecisive.
> >> >
> >> > that's fine, but for many, 16 gig is sufficient.
> >> 
> >> For many is, for many is not.
> >
> >that's why phone makers offer 16, 32, 64 and 128 gig devices.
> >
> >> there is no sense for some to persuade the others.
> >
> >then don't.
> 
> Then YOU don't.

i don't.

> You are the one here always telling people how they
> should live. 

nope. i *never* tell anyone how they should live.

> They, including me, just say what they do and then you
> tell them they are wrong and they should do things in ways you like
> but they find inconvenient or too expensive or too time consuming, in
> this case, just so they can get along without an SD card, when all
> they have to do is buy a phone WITH an SD card.  Now don't get started
> on a theory that some day they won't sell them.   That's speculative
> and unimportant since now they do.   

i never said any such thing. stop lying.

i said that most people get one card and leave ti in the phone so
there's no advantage to having a card slot, which is why several phone
makers are not bothering with a card slot. google also changed how card
work in android too.

like it or not, their days are numbered.

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

#31798

On 07/15/2016 01:30 AM, Micky wrote:
> 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.

Are you sure?  I need a special OTG adapter for my tablet and phone.  It 
looks like a short USB extension cable, but it's not.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Some people are like Slinkies... Not really good for
anything, but they still bring a smile to your face
when you push them down a flight of stairs.

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

#31816

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:05:18 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>>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.
>
>Are you sure?  I need a special OTG adapter for my tablet and phone.  It 
>looks like a short USB extension cable, but it's not.

So it works for you.  On your old Blu?  What model again? 

I was only speaking for my model, Studio X Plus, but I'm pessimistic
about any Blu phone doing this.  I know about mine because 
a) I bought 5 connectors for $2.30, including shipping, with no wire
at all, just the  two pieces of  metal,
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B015GZOHKW/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
and tried a usb keyboard and couldn't make it work.
b) then I dl'd an app** which will check if it will work, and it said
iirc that I had the api, but was missing something else to make it
work. 
c) later in the mail  came an OTG cable, but I haven't had time to
check  that yet.  Of course I woudl have had time if I thought it
might work, but I rate the odds as not impossible but lower than 1%. 
d) I had read 2 weeks earlier that not all phones will do this.  **But
the app only works if you can connnect with an OTG connector.   But I
thought it was worth risking under $4.  I may give 4 of the connectors
to friends, if I can find even one who would use one. 

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

#31841

On 07/15/2016 11:45 AM, Micky wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:05:18 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Are you sure?  I need a special OTG adapter for my tablet and phone.  It
>>looks like a short USB extension cable, but it's not.
>
> So it works for you.  On your old Blu?  What model again?

I'm sorry, I can't remember.  I assumed that they ALL worked with OTG, 
but I guess I could be wrong (unlikely though it might be).

-- 
Cheers, Bev
"To prove my love for you, I had these flowers killed. Put them
  in water and it will prolong their slow, agonizing death."
           (If John Malkovitch didn't say this, he should have.)

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

#31842

In article <nmbeej$5bs$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> 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.
> >>
> >>Are you sure?  I need a special OTG adapter for my tablet and phone.  It
> >>looks like a short USB extension cable, but it's not.
> >
> > So it works for you.  On your old Blu?  What model again?
> 
> I'm sorry, I can't remember.  I assumed that they ALL worked with OTG, 
> but I guess I could be wrong (unlikely though it might be).

you assumed wrong. not all phones support otg, although there's no need
for that for a keyboard.

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

#31851

On 2016-07-15, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <nmbeej$5bs$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
><bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> 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.
>> >>
>> >>Are you sure?  I need a special OTG adapter for my tablet and phone.  It
>> >>looks like a short USB extension cable, but it's not.
>> >
>> > So it works for you.  On your old Blu?  What model again?
>> 
>> I'm sorry, I can't remember.  I assumed that they ALL worked with OTG, 
>> but I guess I could be wrong (unlikely though it might be).
>
> you assumed wrong. not all phones support otg, although there's no need
> for that for a keyboard.

Then the user also need to get a free otg driver for android from 
Play store; had to do that on an android tablet. 

[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