On 04/12/2014 06:04 AM, Chris Uppal wrote:

Danny D. wrote:

That "may" be the case, but, if so, why did the reviewers accept the
clearly incorrect answer the phone reported for the "available space"?

They'll be reporting the available space in a "as sold by manufacturer"
configuration; the carriers routinely require a custom configuration with --
just for instance -- their own branding.

I suppose it is concevable that some carrier might require a configuration that
left /more/ space spare than the direct-from-manufacturer spec (if so it'd
probably be a Samsung device with Samsung Super Bloat somewhat mitigated), but
I don't know whether that ever happens in the real world.

It'd be interesting to see a review comparing /carriers/ on this issue.

The BLU comes with what I assume to be plain vanilla Android 4.2.1. It
says BLU when it turn on, but otherwise seemed to have only normal
useful stuff. I wish I'd paid attention to the storage space before I
started adding what I regard as essential stuff that i had on my Samsung
Galaxy Tab 10.1 -- ES File explorer being the first.

'Android Assistant' says RAM = 468.7 MB, ROM = 1008.29 MB and SDcard =
1.79 MB. The specs say internal memory = 4 GB with 512M RAM

A different BLU with 16 GB internal memory was said by an Amazon
reviewer to show only 9 GB empty.

For $300 I could get a better BLU -- 32 GB and a better camera, but
possibly with no USA warranty. If I'd been more informed I might have
chosen that one. I certainly would now, with what I know, except for
the warranty thing.

So many decisions...

--
Cheers, Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
Non illegitimi carborundum.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 02:54:55 +0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:28:33 -0400, tlvp wrote:

How do we get FLICKR to report the link to the photo full size?

I hope I'm wrong, but my impression is FLICKR will never let you have a
true copy of what you uploaded back -- only an assortment of variously
reduced quasi-thumbnails. I'd be overjoyed to be proved wrong

... here is what I'm "supposed" to show you (I guess):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98287134@N02/13754583623/

But, what I "want" to show you is just this pictu
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2825/1...849b4ff3_h.jpg

Hey, great! Thanks! You proved me wrong :-) . I guess the latter jpg is
essentially just your 1600px x 1154px original.

I get that URL, painstakingly, from the source code of Flickr
that I can get by doing a certain few (unstated) things to my
about:config in my browser - and then when I view the photo,
I can see the source code.

Great. Care to state those "few (unstated) things" you do to about:config?

If you have a BETTER way for me to point to a photo ..

I haven't. Like you, I'd welcome seeing more ways ... :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:32:04 -0400, TJ wrote
in

On 04/11/2014 08:04 PM, Danny D. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:31:53 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

It can't make 4GB into 600MB.
But loading the OS and pre-installed apps sure can.

I think T-Mobile knows that they lied because, otherwise,
why would they have given me full face value (the entire $240)
that I had paid, months ago, for the LG Optimus F3?

They are attempting to buy you off.

TJ

Plus, what is really important to T-Mobile is that you stick with
their service. That's where the big profit is. The phones are just
something to suck you in, and as we can see, it worked well with Danny
D.
--
I kill-file all messages posted through Google Groups.

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:22:55 PM UTC-4, Danny DiAmico wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 06:25:32 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:



The valid point they are making is that the vast majority of

people aren't going to figure out to ask how much free storage

the phone has. I didn't when I bought my 4GB Android.



What I've learned from reading this thread is that it's

really easy to choose an expensive (say, $500) smartphone,

but it seems rather tricky to select an inexpensive one

(say, around $200).



I bought my ZTE Awe in December for $100 at BestBuy. That included 4 months
of free service: 300min voice, 300MB data, 500 texts. No contract and
after the 4 months are up, it should be costing me less than $25, the
way I use the phone. The carrier is Zact, which buys time on the
Sprint network.

I didn't pay attention to the memory issue at all, because this is my
first smart phone. I didn't have any idea what extra apps I might put
on it, how much memory they would need, etc. I was just looking for
a good deal on an entry level smartphone and to get away from Verizon,
who expected me to pay $80 a month for any kind of smartphone.

So, it wasn't tricky for me at all. And even if I had wound up with
a phone that only had 600MB, which appears to be the worst case,
I still would be happy. This one has 1.13GB free, after putting about
a dozen apps on it.





For $200, you can get what I would characterize as an

almost unusable smartphone (LG Optimus L9 or F3, for

example), or a pretty usable smartphone (16GB Moto G).



I'd say your characterization is based on unreasonable expectations
for an entry level phone. You can't put 10 lbs of crap into a
5 lb bag. If those phones were really unusable, how could Tmobile
be doing it? They'd have a store full of angry customers, wasting
the company's time, giving them a bad image, losing customers, etc.
Makes no sense to me. What purpose would it serve? As someone else
pointed out, Tmobile wants to keep you as a *service* customer. It
makes no sense to scam you with a phone you can't use. If anything,
the more apps, the more you can use it, the more $$$ they make.
The more logical conclusion is that for most entry level smartphone
buyers, that Tmobile phone is acceptable, not unusable.



I was misled. I was stupid. I believed the sd card would

help. I didn't realize the bloat took all the space and

couldn't be removed.



It all boiled down to how much flash was left for the

user, as the sd card turned out to be a useless gimmick,

suitable only for user content and not for app storage.

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 3:29:25 PM UTC-4, The Real Bev wrote:
On 04/12/2014 04:03 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:



On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:21:32 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

On 04/09/2014 01:56 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:



I am 81 and even I realise than when firms advertise the size of the

capacity of mobile phones etc. it is the total capacity of which the

operating system and other pre-installed items have taken a share. When

just a little common sense is needed why do people find problems?



So you'd be OK with it if the 4GB of internal memory were completely

consumed by the OS and permanent apps such that you couldn't download

ANY additional apps or store any additional photos/email/whatever?

Wouldn't you expect some sort of warning? At what point does the

warning become not-misleading?



Why would anyone buy a phone so limited? I do have a modicum of common

sense.



Why indeed? But surely we should be informed as to exactly how much

space WE can use to add stuff that WE want before we hand over the

credit card.


You probably would be informed, if you asked the question. The real
problem I see is that the number is going to change every day. And
if Tmobile tells someone like Danny that the phone has 700MB of free
storage, the software gets updated tomorrow and he looks at it then
and it says 600MB, then they're going to be complaining that they
were "lied to" and this time they will be right.

To keep it updated and totally accurate, they would have to have a
list of every phone they sell and keep it updated real-time.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 02:52:31 -0400, tlvp wrote:

Great. Care to state those "few (unstated) things"
you do to about:config?

Turn off JS ...

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 14:44:51 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

If I'd been more informed I might have
chosen that one. I certainly would now, with what I know

I am in the same boat.

I have bought at least a half dozen Android phones as gifts
after I had already owned a Samsung Galaxy SIII.

Each time, I learned that the specifications and reviews
missed the important things.

I conclude that it's easy to buy a $500 smartphone, but,
you have to know what we've been discussing to buy a
good $200 phone (e.g., the Moto G, for example).

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 05:53:49 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

To keep it updated and totally accurate, they would have to have a
list of every phone they sell and keep it updated real-time.

Every time someone says that, I have to disagree, but, I'm
kind of tired of disagreeing since my argument is so simple
and obvious.

If they are incapable of keeping track of a trivially simple
spec for how much usable flash memory it contains out of the box
on the score of phones they own, then they have absolutely
no business selling something as complex as a smartphone in
the first place.

It's just a single number, for each phone, sold, out of the
box.

Given the number of phone variations that they sell, it's
likely a sum total of no more than 100 single datapoints
for each carrier. If you think they can't handle that,
then our carrier's problems are far more severe than the
simpler fact that they lie to us about the specs.

On 04/13/2014 10:40 AM, Danny D. wrote:

Given the number of phone variations that they sell, it's
likely a sum total of no more than 100 single datapoints
for each carrier. If you think they can't handle that,
then our carrier's problems are far more severe than the
simpler fact that they lie to us about the specs.


A few years ago, I bought an HTC Inspire 4G from Amazon's phone store for $480 and activated it on AT&T.

While the phone never ran out of memory, I was totally annoyed by the approximately 30 useless apps clogging up my screen.

I finally paid $30 to have the phone "rooted" and the bloatware apps removed.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 05:48:50 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

The more logical conclusion is that for most entry level
smartphone buyers, that Tmobile phone is acceptable,
not unusable.

I don't disagree with your argument.

Bearing in mind that these $200 phones were gifts, I have
had two users give them back to me, asking me to fix
the problems.

Meanwhile, the $200 Moto G is happily being used by a
third gift recipient.

Out of just those three phones, two came back as unusable.
That's all I know.

If these phones are actually "usable", as you intimate,
then we'd have to say for what purpose. Certainly they're
not usable if the owner needs/wants/loads more than 600MB
of app storage.

For me? That limitation would make them unusable.
For my two gift recipients? They were definitely unusable.
For others, the 600MB might make the phones be usable.

I don't disagree.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 06:37:51 -0500, VinnyB wrote:

Plus, what is really important to T-Mobile is that you stick with
their service. That's where the big profit is. The phones are just
something to suck you in, and as we can see, it worked well with Danny
D.

Indeed! They even suckered me into paying for yet another phone,
just to obtain a usable phone on their network!
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/1...e10a2362_b.jpg

I had already paid them $240 (plus about $24 tax) for the LG
Optimus F3. Then they suckered me into trading that F3 in for
the $400 (plus about $40 tax) 16GB Nexus 5, which, in the end,
added about $160 to my bill.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2825/1...849b4ff3_h.jpg

We all know I could have bought that same 16GB Nexus 5 for
about $50 cheaper, unlocked, on the open market; but, I had
wanted so badly to get rid of that nearly useless F3 that
I opted to trade it back to T-Mobile for full face value.

I think T-Mobile *knows* the specs for the LG Optimus F3 &
LG Optimus L9; but they don't want YOU to know the specs
(otherwise, they would have told us the specs).

It's not like THEY don't know the specs.
They just don't want YOU to know them.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 08:15:02 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Do you disagree that to keep it accurate, the free storage space
would have to be updated real-time?

Hi Trader,

Sigh.

I'm getting repetitive, so, maybe we'll just need to agree to
disagree so everyone doesn't have the read the same arguments.

Somehow, every other company on the planet manages to understand
its product "contents" "out of the box" well enough to report to
the consumer how much it "contains" (out of the box) when those
contents can vary across items.

Why can't phone companies tell us how much memory it has available,
out of the shrink-wrapped box?

As I already stated multiple times, Kelloggs manages to state at
least how much cereal is guaranteed to be in a box ("some settling
of contents may occur"); Coca Cola manages to state how much liquid
is going to be in a bottle; Airsoft manages to guarantee 1,000
BBs in a bag; toilet paper manufacturers seem to be able to figure
out how many sheets are on a rool; tire manufacturers seem to get
the load-carrying capacity under control; Toyota can tell you how
many miles per gallon the various Camrys will get within reason;
etc.

Heck, even Safeway can tell me, for every single slab of meat
in the refrigerated section, how much each one weighs, within
reason.

If a phone carrier can't tell me, within reason, how much memory
is available to the user at the time the box is opened, then
they have absolutely no business selling phones.

It's that simple.

If someone thinks that's too much to ask of the phone carrier,
then we will just need to agree to disagree, & leave it at that.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 08:15:02 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

No it's not. That phone has an OS and pre-loaded apps. When
you first turn it on and connect to service, it's going to download
updates for much of that software. And tomorrow the update for
any one of them can result in less free memory.

Hi Trader,
Again, I'm repeating myself, so, for the sake of others reading
this thread, let's just agree that you and I have totally
different ideas of what 'out of the box' means.

For me, all they have to state is how much available memory
for apps is available on the day that the box is opened.

To me, that's what "out of the box" means, before I ever
bother to insert a SIM card into that T-Mobile phone and
before it ever is able to connect to a WiFi access point.

For you, out of the box clearly means something other than
that static number for each phone.

That's OK; but let's stop discussing it because we're clearly
not talking about the same 'out of the box' condition.

It's my opinion that any phone carrier that does not know
how much usable space is on their phone, out of the box,
then, that carrier has no business selling phones because
they are too complicated for them to keep track of.

Out of the box.

My argument is really that simple, but, I've said it so
many times already that even I am tired of saying it.

On Monday, April 14, 2014 6:26:48 AM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 08:15:02 -0700, trader_4 wrote:



Do you disagree that to keep it accurate, the free storage space

would have to be updated real-time?



Hi Trader,



Sigh.



I'm getting repetitive, so, maybe we'll just need to agree to

disagree so everyone doesn't have the read the same arguments.



Somehow, every other company on the planet manages to understand

its product "contents" "out of the box" well enough to report to

the consumer how much it "contains" (out of the box) when those

contents can vary across items.



That's not true. The example of a PC has been cited many times.
I've never seen a PC manufacturer spec a number other than the
unformatted drive capacity. They don't spec what's left after
it's formatted, after the OS, after the restore partition, after
the apps, etc. You say that doesn't count, because the amount of
space left is still large. So then take a look at tablet devices.
I just looked at Dell's website. They have a bunch of tablets and
all they give is the spec for the total storage, not what's left.



Why can't phone companies tell us how much memory it has available,

out of the shrink-wrapped box?


I've explained one good reason why they don't want to, but you refuse
to address it. That's because they would have to maintain a list and
update it in real-time. That doesn't work well when you want to put
out marketing literature, advertisements, maintain websites, etc.
All Tmobiles competitors are saying their phone has 16GB internal storage,
and Tmobile is going to say, as of 10AM, 4/14, our LG L9 has 650MB,
later today, it may be different?





As I already stated multiple times, Kelloggs manages to state at

least how much cereal is guaranteed to be in a box ("some settling

of contents may occur"); Coca Cola manages to state how much liquid

is going to be in a bottle; Airsoft manages to guarantee 1,000

BBs in a bag; toilet paper manufacturers seem to be able to figure

out how many sheets are on a rool; tire manufacturers seem to get

the load-carrying capacity under control; Toyota can tell you how

many miles per gallon the various Camrys will get within reason;

etc.



Do any of those products have an automatic update service that can
change the those product parameters any time you turn it on? Good grief.
And it;s not that they just can, it's that they do get updates
frequently.




Heck, even Safeway can tell me, for every single slab of meat

in the refrigerated section, how much each one weighs, within

reason.



See the above. Which is a more vaild comparison, beef or PC's
and tablets?




If a phone carrier can't tell me, within reason, how much memory

is available to the user at the time the box is opened, then

they have absolutely no business selling phones.



It's that simple.


And again, to do that, they'd have to maintain a list of all phones
they are selling, updated in real-time. Do tablet manufacturers do
that?



If someone thinks that's too much to ask of the phone carrier,

then we will just need to agree to disagree, & leave it at that.

If I was the carrier and I only had a few people complaining,
I don't think I'd maintain a list. I would put a disclaimer on
the literature that says a substantial portion of the available
flash storage is used by the OS, pre-loaded apps, etc. That
way anyone that is concerned can go to the phone store, turn
the thing on, and take a look.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:26:48 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote in

As I already stated multiple times, Kelloggs manages to state at
least how much cereal is guaranteed to be in a box ("some settling
of contents may occur");

Well, if you are comparing an Android phone with a box of corn flakes,
I can see where you went wrong.
--
I kill-file all messages posted through Google Groups.

On 04/14/2014 06:26 AM, Danny D. wrote:

Heck, even Safeway can tell me, for every single slab of meat
in the refrigerated section, how much each one weighs, within
reason.

When you buy meat at Safeway that they don't describe as "boneless,"
like chicken, semi-boneless ham, T-bone steak, pork chops, rib roast,
whole fish, etc, does Safeway tell you how much of the contents are
usable (i.e. NOT bone), or do they tell you the TOTAL weight? The
supermarkets around here all tell you "net weight," including inedible,
unusable bone. And in the case of a pork roast, that weight often
includes a piece of inedible, unusable skin, as well.

Often, the unusable portion could be considered insignificant - but not
always. For example, by the time you remove the patch of skin and the
rather large bone from a pork shoulder, you have maybe half the volume
of the original piece of meat - if you're lucky. That's why it's one of
the least expensive cuts of pork. Bone-in chicken is often a good half
bone, as well.

But the supermarkets don't tell you that, do they?

TJ

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 02:52:31 -0400, tlvp wrote:

If you have a BETTER way for me to point to a photo ..

I haven't. Like you, I'd welcome seeing more ways ...

It's a pain, but I can now point to the flickr photo
directly, instead of to some "photostream" active image.

By viewing the source code, I can reconstruct the image
URL, but I have to be careful to not use the small images.

For example, here's a reconstructed URL of the software that
I organized for the gift recipient of the Nexus 5 that arrived
recently from T-Mobile (in trade for the Optimus F3):
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_n.jpg

But, here is the much larger photo reconstruction URL:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_b.jpg

The "trick" is to turn off javascript, and then "open link in
new tab", and then "view source", and then "cut and paste"
the partial URL (properly reconstructed) into the USENET post.

Cumbersome. Tedious. Yes.

But, I feel that giving you pictures allows you to help me
(and others) more efficiently (and picturepush died recently).

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:17:20 -0500, VinnyB wrote:

Well, if you are comparing an Android phone with a box of corn flakes,
I can see where you went wrong.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:35:57 -0400, TJ wrote:

But the supermarkets don't tell you that, do they?

Good point!

Sometimes they tell you a fat content, but for a slab of meat,
which varies (sometimes considerably) in each and every package,
they don't.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 05:45:33 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

The example of a PC has been cited many times.

And the reply has been, just as many times, that the order
of magnitude of loss is nothing like what we're seeing here
with 4GB Android phones that end up being 600MB phones.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 05:45:33 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

If I was the carrier and I only had a few people complaining,
I don't think I'd maintain a list.

Notice that there are plenty of people complaining, now that I
look at every review, by LG Optimus L9 customers (model p769):
http://www.lg.com/us/cell-phones/lg-...eviews#reviews

Most of those reviews were apparently put there *after* I had
bought the L9 phone, so even had I known about this web page, I
wouldn't have seen them in time to trade in the phone right
away for the 16GB/12GB-usable Nexus 5 instead:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2825/1...849b4ff3_h.jpg

Anyway, I'm setting up the LG/Google 16GB/12GB Nexus 5 as we
type, and here's how much space (roughly) is left after adding
desired applications (before giving it to the gift recipient):
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2926/1...11cbc4f4_b.jpg

It's Android 4.4.2, which, all by itself, out of the box,
(roughly) took up 16GB - 12.5GB = 3.5GB
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2918/1...bd07a0ed_b.jpg

The pre-installed apps (roughly) took up, of course,
more of the space such that in usable form, only (roughly)
8.5GB of the original 16GB is actually available to the user:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_b.jpg

Note: There is no external SD card, but an sd card would only be
usable for user content anyway (and not for apps).

On 04/14/2014 07:35 AM, TJ wrote:

On 04/14/2014 06:26 AM, Danny D. wrote:

Heck, even Safeway can tell me, for every single slab of meat
in the refrigerated section, how much each one weighs, within
reason.

When you buy meat at Safeway that they don't describe as "boneless,"
like chicken, semi-boneless ham, T-bone steak, pork chops, rib roast,
whole fish, etc, does Safeway tell you how much of the contents are
usable (i.e. NOT bone), or do they tell you the TOTAL weight? The
supermarkets around here all tell you "net weight," including inedible,
unusable bone. And in the case of a pork roast, that weight often
includes a piece of inedible, unusable skin, as well.

Often, the unusable portion could be considered insignificant - but not
always. For example, by the time you remove the patch of skin and the
rather large bone from a pork shoulder, you have maybe half the volume
of the original piece of meat - if you're lucky. That's why it's one of
the least expensive cuts of pork. Bone-in chicken is often a good half
bone, as well.

But the supermarkets don't tell you that, do they?

No, but if you ring the bell for the butcher he can probably tell you
roughly how much waste there is. Moreover, food is likely to be
something that you continue to purchase, so your experience will tell
you the difference between a whole chicken and boneless, skinless
chicken breasts. I think they're also required to tell you how much
water has been injected into it, but again, that's something you can
learn through experience. We really don't buy a new cellphone every few
weeks, and when we do buy another one it's not likely to bear much
relationship to the one we bought before.

All we want is to know what we're buying before we buy it. Personally,
I want an easy return method if I can't test beforehand. It's my own
fault that I didn't realize how important being able to take decent
pictures of something more than 3 feet away was within the 2-week easy
return period, which is a learning experience: test the hell out of
something as soon as you buy it!

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =============
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely and in a
well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
and shouting HOLY ****, WHAT A RIDE!!!

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 15:39:53 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

All we want is to know what we're buying before we buy it.

Exactly!

BTW, with the new 16GB/12.5GB Nexus 5 which T-Mobile sent
to replace the almost useless LG Optimus F3:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2825/1...849b4ff3_h.jpg

I'm done installing the necessary apps into the internal memory:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_b.jpg

It seems, after the OS was installed, there was roughly
12.55GB of the original 16GB, so the OS took up about 3.5GB.

The pre-installed apps took up another few hundred MB such
that the Android 4.4.2 phone started with about 12.28GB:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2918/1...bd07a0ed_b.jpg

Then, after I installed these basic smartphone apps:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_b.jpg

The phone was left with about 10.72GB of available space:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2879/1...b02699e3_b.jpg

So, just "my" list of basic apps alone, seem to take up (roughly)
about 2GB of storage space (this includes offline road maps for
California, which are a necessity, IMHO, for when you really
need it when there is no cell signal or your data plan is low).

When I plug in that 12.5GB Nexus 5 into Linux, it shows
"free space" of about 11.5GB, which is actually 1GB too high.

I'm not sure why.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:14:40 -0500, Jack Ryan wrote:

The specs on lg site says:
Total Internal Memory: 4GB ROM***
fine print: *** Available user memory of 1.27GB

I don't see those specs of available user memory on the lG site.

I only see the 4GB of internal memory for the P769:
http://www.lg.com/us/cell-phones/lg-P769-optimus-l9 - technical specifications

Even this LG pdf doesn't seem to mention the available user memory:
http://www.lg.com/us/support/product...timus%20L9.pdf

Memory: up to 4 GB Internal (external microSD slot is
expandable up to 32 GB) 4

Do you have a better source?

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:23:01 +0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:

For example, here's ...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_n.jpg

But, here is the much larger ...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_b.jpg

Hmm. Is the whole deal the difference between suffix "_n" and suffix "_b" ?
That would be almost *too* easy :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Monday, April 14, 2014 3:42:39 PM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 05:45:33 -0700, trader_4 wrote:



The example of a PC has been cited many times.



And the reply has been, just as many times, that the order

of magnitude of loss is nothing like what we're seeing here

with 4GB Android phones that end up being 600MB phones.


Ignoring the other direct example, ie *tablet* computing devices,
which can have just 8GB/16GB flash noted. They just state the total
memory too.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:41:03 -0400, tlvp wrote:

Is the whole deal the difference between suffix "_n" and suffix "_b"

I don't know, but, testing a through z, I find:
b = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_b.jpg
c = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_c.jpg
d = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_d.jpg
e = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_m.jpg
n = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_n.jpg
q = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_q.jpg
s = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_s.jpg
t = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_t.jpg
z = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_z.jpg

Who knows what the purpose or intent of these variations are.
As an aside, notice how "_d", "_q", & "_s" were quite odd results,
but "_b" was the best.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:34:48 +0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:41:03 -0400, tlvp wrote:

Is the whole deal the difference between suffix "_n" and suffix "_b"

I don't know, but, testing a through z, I find:
b = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_b.jpg
c = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_c.jpg
d = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_d.jpg
e = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_m.jpg
n = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_n.jpg
q = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_q.jpg
s = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_s.jpg
t = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_t.jpg
z = http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/1...b9c07b48_z.jpg

Bravo! There's rhyme and reason in their madness :-) .

Who knows what the purpose or intent of these variations are.
As an aside, notice how "_d", "_q", & "_s" were quite odd results,
but "_b" was the best.

Yup, "_b" for "best". And "_t" stands for "thumbnail", eh? Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

Danny D. wrote:

When I plug in that 12.5GB Nexus 5 into Linux, it shows
"free space" of about 11.5GB, which is actually 1GB too high.

I'm not sure why.

Maybe the difference between "Gigabyte" meaning 10^9 or 2^30.

11.5 * 2^30 = 12.3 * 10^9
11.6 * 2^30 = 12.5 * 10^9

-- chris