In message , Brian-Gaff
writes
Blimey I thought I was out of date with xp.

My bad, Brian. I am indeed using XP, not 98. Fingers in gear, brain in
neutral again.

--
Graeme

On 28/05/15 23:01, Simon263 wrote:

No one ever said that no one would ever stuff up the design
of the connector that is in the device rather than on the cable.

Mostly it is the one on the cable that wears out first tho.


I've never had a cable wear out

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
On 28/05/15 23:01, Simon263 wrote:

No one ever said that no one would ever stuff up the design
of the connector that is in the device rather than on the cable.

Mostly it is the one on the cable that wears out first tho.


I've never had a cable wear out

Plenty of us have with wired mice particularly.

On 28/05/15 22:56, Simon263 wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message

? Micro is assymetric and easier to try to force the wrong way.

Yes, and that is why the latest version is symmetric and can't be used
the wrong way.

The Type-C ?

http://www.howtogeek.com/211843/usb-...youll-want-it/

Ah - that is nice. 100W of power potentially...

On 29/05/15 09:41, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/05/15 22:56, Simon263 wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message

? Micro is assymetric and easier to try to force the wrong way.

Yes, and that is why the latest version is symmetric and can't be used
the wrong way.

The Type-C ?

http://www.howtogeek.com/211843/usb-...youll-want-it/


Ah - that is nice. 100W of power potentially...

But, if the power is bidirection what happens if you plug a battery pack
into a laptop?

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 28/05/15 22:56, Simon263 wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message

? Micro is assymetric and easier to try to force the wrong way.

Yes, and that is why the latest version is symmetric and can't be used
the wrong way.

The Type-C ?

Yep.

http://www.howtogeek.com/211843/usb-...youll-want-it/

Ah - that is nice. 100W of power potentially...

Yeah, seems to do all that is necessary but it
remains to be seen how long that will be true for.

For quite a while IMO.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 29/05/15 09:41, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/05/15 22:56, Simon263 wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message

? Micro is assymetric and easier to try to force the wrong way.

Yes, and that is why the latest version is symmetric and can't be used
the wrong way.

The Type-C ?

http://www.howtogeek.com/211843/usb-...youll-want-it/


Ah - that is nice. 100W of power potentially...

But, if the power is bidirection what happens if you plug a battery pack
into a laptop?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#USB_type-C

On 29/05/15 11:10, Simon263 wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#USB_type-C


"Full-featured USB type-C cables are active, electronically marked
cables that contain a chip with an ID function based on the
configuration data channel and vendor-defined messages (VDMs) from the
USB Power Delivery 2.0 specification. "

Hang on - is this the same stupid ******** that stops me powering my
Dell laptop from a generic PSU?

In which case, seems like a total own goal - you need to carry the
device and its lead (not any lead) as well as the generic but beefy
enough for everything PSU?

or is this always going to work:

"or they can support the full Power Delivery specification using both
BMC-coded configuration line and legacy BFSK-coded VBUS line."

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 29/05/15 11:10, Simon263 wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#USB_type-C


"Full-featured USB type-C cables are active, electronically marked cables
that contain a chip with an ID function based on the configuration data
channel and vendor-defined messages (VDMs) from the USB Power Delivery 2.0
specification. "

Hang on - is this the same stupid ******** that stops me powering my Dell
laptop from a generic PSU?

No, nothing like that.

In which case, seems like a total own goal - you need to carry the device
and its lead (not any lead) as well as the generic but beefy enough for
everything PSU?

Nothing like that either.

or is this always going to work:

"or they can support the full Power Delivery specification using both
BMC-coded configuration line and legacy BFSK-coded VBUS line."

No reason why not.

On 29/05/15 11:59, Simon263 wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 29/05/15 11:10, Simon263 wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#USB_type-C


"Full-featured USB type-C cables are active, electronically marked
cables that contain a chip with an ID function based on the
configuration data channel and vendor-defined messages (VDMs) from the
USB Power Delivery 2.0 specification. "

Hang on - is this the same stupid ******** that stops me powering my
Dell laptop from a generic PSU?

No, nothing like that.

In which case, seems like a total own goal - you need to carry the
device and its lead (not any lead) as well as the generic but beefy
enough for everything PSU?

Nothing like that either.

or is this always going to work:

"or they can support the full Power Delivery specification using both
BMC-coded configuration line and legacy BFSK-coded VBUS line."

No reason why not.

So any idea what the "chip" is for?

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 29/05/15 11:59, Simon263 wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 29/05/15 11:10, Simon263 wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#USB_type-C


"Full-featured USB type-C cables are active, electronically marked
cables that contain a chip with an ID function based on the
configuration data channel and vendor-defined messages (VDMs) from the
USB Power Delivery 2.0 specification. "

Hang on - is this the same stupid ******** that stops me powering my
Dell laptop from a generic PSU?

No, nothing like that.

In which case, seems like a total own goal - you need to carry the
device and its lead (not any lead) as well as the generic but beefy
enough for everything PSU?

Nothing like that either.

or is this always going to work:

"or they can support the full Power Delivery specification using both
BMC-coded configuration line and legacy BFSK-coded VBUS line."

No reason why not.

So any idea what the "chip" is for?

Basically so the system can work out what current is available
and can indicate what currents it can use for charging.

Currently USB charging is done using a number of ways of
signalling that stuff by DC levels on the data lines and that
is done differently by Apple and by androids and by at least
one other system. The chip gets rid of that proprietary stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Power

Tim Watts wrote:

Hang on - is this the same stupid ******** that stops me powering my
Dell laptop from a generic PSU?

Whenever I've found myself without a Dell charger, I've used HP chargers
on my last two Dell Laptops, the laptop whinges because nothing "speaks"
to it on the central ID pin, it won't charge the battery while running
like that, but it does run ...

Tim Watts wrote:

"Full-featured USB type-C cables are active, electronically marked
cables that contain a chip
Hang on - is this the same stupid ******** that stops me powering my
Dell laptop from a generic PSU?

any idea what the "chip" is for?

The extra power is delivered by using higher voltages than 5V, so you
don't want something accidentally zapping kit that's not expecting it.

On 29/05/15 13:34, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

"Full-featured USB type-C cables are active, electronically marked
cables that contain a chip
Hang on - is this the same stupid ******** that stops me powering my
Dell laptop from a generic PSU?

any idea what the "chip" is for?

The extra power is delivered by using higher voltages than 5V, so you
don't want something accidentally zapping kit that's not expecting it.



OK - that kinda makes sense, with the caveat that we are back into
"special lead" territory...

I wonder why they could not start at 5V and negotiate up using the comms
wire?

[This thread was originally only in uk.d-i-y but I'm x-posting it to
comp.mobile.android since that is probably more relevant.]

Following advice given here to enable ES File Explorer's Remote Manager
function, I managed to use an FTP application running on my W7 computer
to do two-way file transfers between the computer and my Android 5 Moto
G phone - including accessing data stored on a micro-SD card inside the
phone.

It's probably a pure coincidence but - the very next day after I got
this working - I got an error message on the phone complaining that the
SD card had been "removed unexpectedly" - which of course it hadn't!

According to Google, this is not an uncommon occurrence and is sometimes
caused by some sort of incompatibility between phone and SD card.
However, in my case, the card really seems to be screwed!

It's a 16GB Class-10 card, but only just over 1GB is actually used. This
includes some photos and audio files - for which I have backups - but it
also includes a number of Apps which have been been moved to the card
and some off-line map files for the Here mapping/navigation App. I have
turned the phone off several times and removed and re-seated the SD card
- after which it appears to work for a very short time, but then the
error message reappears. Needless to say, if the phone can't access the
card, the on-card Apps no longer work!

The card is now removed from the phone, and I have a new one on order.
When I put the card into a micro-SD to SD adapter and plug that into the
card reader slot of one of my PCs, the PC recognises the presence of the
card, but goes unresponsive if I try to access any of the files. I've
had slightly more success with another PC and have - I think - made a
backup of everything on the card. But that took over 24 hours!!! to copy
1GB of data. What the hell was it doing all that time?

Having (I hope) got the data off, I've tried several times to re-format
the card - but it just sits there like a lemon saying "0 percent
completed".

I'm hoping that when the new card comes, I'll be able to restore all the
files to it, put it into the phone and everything will work as before.
Is this wishful thinking?

Does anyone have any insight as to what can happen to a micro-SD card
such that it can only be read incredibly slowly, seemingly cannot be
written to at all (and, no, it's not write protected) and makes a phone
think that it's been removed when it hasn't?

Is there any possibility that using FTP between computer and phone could
have damaged the card in some way? [I've had a smaller capacity card in
the phone for a couple of days as a temporary measure, and that seems
happy enough with the FTP process].

Informed comments please!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

Roger Mills wrote:
[This thread was originally only in uk.d-i-y but I'm x-posting it to
comp.mobile.android since that is probably more relevant.]

Following advice given here to enable ES File Explorer's Remote
Manager function,


snip

I am terribly sorry that I've led you into the mire. All I can say is
that I've used/set up others to use the Remote Manager on tablets and
phones without such problems.

Does anyone have any insight as to what can happen to a micro-SD card
such that it can only be read incredibly slowly, seemingly cannot be
written to at all (and, no, it's not write protected) and makes a
phone think that it's been removed when it hasn't?

Is there any possibility that using FTP between computer and phone
could have damaged the card in some way? [I've had a smaller capacity
card in the phone for a couple of days as a temporary measure, and
that seems happy enough with the FTP process].

Informed comments please!

Only thought is that I've read some phones with 4.4 (KitKat) don't like
files being copied to SD cards 'cos of security around apps.

Apologies again. And do please let me know if I need to get out my
insurance policy/flee the country.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Sun, 31 May 2015 21:06:32 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

[This thread was originally only in uk.d-i-y but I'm x-posting it to
comp.mobile.android since that is probably more relevant.]

Following advice given here to enable ES File Explorer's Remote Manager
function, I managed to use an FTP application running on my W7 computer
to do two-way file transfers between the computer and my Android 5 Moto
G phone - including accessing data stored on a micro-SD card inside the
phone.

It's probably a pure coincidence but - the very next day after I got
this working - I got an error message on the phone complaining that the
SD card had been "removed unexpectedly" - which of course it hadn't!

According to Google, this is not an uncommon occurrence and is sometimes
caused by some sort of incompatibility between phone and SD card.
However, in my case, the card really seems to be screwed!

It's a 16GB Class-10 card, but only just over 1GB is actually used. This
includes some photos and audio files - for which I have backups - but it
also includes a number of Apps which have been been moved to the card
and some off-line map files for the Here mapping/navigation App. I have
turned the phone off several times and removed and re-seated the SD card
- after which it appears to work for a very short time, but then the
error message reappears. Needless to say, if the phone can't access the
card, the on-card Apps no longer work!

The card is now removed from the phone, and I have a new one on order.
When I put the card into a micro-SD to SD adapter and plug that into the
card reader slot of one of my PCs, the PC recognises the presence of the
card, but goes unresponsive if I try to access any of the files. I've
had slightly more success with another PC and have - I think - made a
backup of everything on the card. But that took over 24 hours!!! to copy
1GB of data. What the hell was it doing all that time?

Having (I hope) got the data off, I've tried several times to re-format
the card - but it just sits there like a lemon saying "0 percent
completed".

I'm hoping that when the new card comes, I'll be able to restore all the
files to it, put it into the phone and everything will work as before.
Is this wishful thinking?

Does anyone have any insight as to what can happen to a micro-SD card
such that it can only be read incredibly slowly, seemingly cannot be
written to at all (and, no, it's not write protected) and makes a phone
think that it's been removed when it hasn't?

Is there any possibility that using FTP between computer and phone could
have damaged the card in some way? [I've had a smaller capacity card in
the phone for a couple of days as a temporary measure, and that seems
happy enough with the FTP process].

Informed comments please!

Two thoughts.

(i) If you've got safe copies of all files you've ever stored on that SD
card, you might want to spend a few hours letting software test the card:
use H2testw.exe (perhaps available at
http://www.cratercake.com/downloads/h2testw.rar) Virus-test first..

(ii) Again if you've got safe copies of everything on the card, you might
try reformatting it with a known trustworthy SD-card formatter -- google

: sd formatter trendy

for advice on that. HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

Roger Mills wrote:

It's a 16GB Class-10 card, but only just over 1GB is actually used.

Is it possible it's one of those counterfeit cards that only have e.g.
1GB of actual flash, but have been doctored to indicate having many
times more than that? Problems generally show up once you copy more than
the true capacity onto them ...

On 31/05/2015 22:05, Robin wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:
[This thread was originally only in uk.d-i-y but I'm x-posting it to
comp.mobile.android since that is probably more relevant.]

Following advice given here to enable ES File Explorer's Remote
Manager function,


snip

I am terribly sorry that I've led you into the mire. All I can say is
that I've used/set up others to use the Remote Manager on tablets and
phones without such problems.


I'm not suggesting for one moment that you've led me into the mire. As I
said, I am currently regarding it as a coincidence that the card gave up
shortly after being accessed via FTP. I've used FTP on my temporary
replacement 4GB card with no problems so far - and it appears that
Android devices can produce the "card unexpectedly removed" message
under all sorts of circumstances not related to FTP.

Incidentally, my sloooow (24 hour) backup of the card seems to have
worked because I have copied all the files from the backup onto my 4GB
card and the on-card Apps are now working again.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 31/05/2015 22:15, tlvp wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2015 21:06:32 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

[This thread was originally only in uk.d-i-y but I'm x-posting it to
comp.mobile.android since that is probably more relevant.]

Following advice given here to enable ES File Explorer's Remote Manager
function, I managed to use an FTP application running on my W7 computer
to do two-way file transfers between the computer and my Android 5 Moto
G phone - including accessing data stored on a micro-SD card inside the
phone.

It's probably a pure coincidence but - the very next day after I got
this working - I got an error message on the phone complaining that the
SD card had been "removed unexpectedly" - which of course it hadn't!

According to Google, this is not an uncommon occurrence and is sometimes
caused by some sort of incompatibility between phone and SD card.
However, in my case, the card really seems to be screwed!

It's a 16GB Class-10 card, but only just over 1GB is actually used. This
includes some photos and audio files - for which I have backups - but it
also includes a number of Apps which have been been moved to the card
and some off-line map files for the Here mapping/navigation App. I have
turned the phone off several times and removed and re-seated the SD card
- after which it appears to work for a very short time, but then the
error message reappears. Needless to say, if the phone can't access the
card, the on-card Apps no longer work!

The card is now removed from the phone, and I have a new one on order.
When I put the card into a micro-SD to SD adapter and plug that into the
card reader slot of one of my PCs, the PC recognises the presence of the
card, but goes unresponsive if I try to access any of the files. I've
had slightly more success with another PC and have - I think - made a
backup of everything on the card. But that took over 24 hours!!! to copy
1GB of data. What the hell was it doing all that time?

Having (I hope) got the data off, I've tried several times to re-format
the card - but it just sits there like a lemon saying "0 percent
completed".

I'm hoping that when the new card comes, I'll be able to restore all the
files to it, put it into the phone and everything will work as before.
Is this wishful thinking?

Does anyone have any insight as to what can happen to a micro-SD card
such that it can only be read incredibly slowly, seemingly cannot be
written to at all (and, no, it's not write protected) and makes a phone
think that it's been removed when it hasn't?

Is there any possibility that using FTP between computer and phone could
have damaged the card in some way? [I've had a smaller capacity card in
the phone for a couple of days as a temporary measure, and that seems
happy enough with the FTP process].

Informed comments please!

Two thoughts.

(i) If you've got safe copies of all files you've ever stored on that SD
card, you might want to spend a few hours letting software test the card:
use H2testw.exe (perhaps available at
http://www.cratercake.com/downloads/h2testw.rar) Virus-test first..

(ii) Again if you've got safe copies of everything on the card, you might
try reformatting it with a known trustworthy SD-card formatter -- google

: sd formatter trendy

for advice on that. HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

Thanks, but the standard Windows formatter did absolutely nothing - and
just sat there like a lemon. What are the chances that anything else
would be any different?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 31/05/2015 22:51, Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:

It's a 16GB Class-10 card, but only just over 1GB is actually used.

Is it possible it's one of those counterfeit cards that only have e.g.
1GB of actual flash, but have been doctored to indicate having many
times more than that? Problems generally show up once you copy more than
the true capacity onto them ...



Unlikely. The card was actually supplied with a dash cam - and has had
16GB of data on it. But it became spare when I bought a 32GB card for
the cam - so I re-formatted it and used it in the phone. It's been ok in
the phone for quite a few months - until now!

Now, it won't let me re-format it - so something has gone awry.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On Sun, 31 May 2015 17:15:52 -0400, tlvp suggested ... :

... to spend a few hours letting software test the card:
use H2testw.exe (perhaps available at
http://www.cratercake.com/downloads/h2testw.rar) Virus-test first..

More details on the nature of the problem and its solutions at
http://www.cratercake.com/list-of-freeware/.

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

On Sun, 31 May 2015 23:36:40 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

Thanks, but the standard Windows formatter did absolutely nothing - and
just sat there like a lemon. What are the chances that anything else
would be any different?

Fair to excellent, as a matter of fact :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On 31/05/15 23:36, Roger Mills wrote:
standard Windows formatter did absolutely nothing - and just sat there
like a lemon. What are the chances that anything else would be any
different?

Immense. Windows itself just sits there like a lemon...


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

Roger Mills writes:
Does anyone have any insight as to what can happen to a micro-SD card
such that it can only be read incredibly slowly, seemingly cannot be
written to at all (and, no, it's not write protected) and makes a
phone think that it's been removed when it hasn't?

Its broken. Chuck it in the bin.

Is there any possibility that using FTP between computer and phone
could have damaged the card in some way?

No.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Richard Kettlewell wrote:

Its broken. Chuck it in the bin.

Surely you mean take it to the WEEE recycling centre?

On 31/05/2015 21:06, Roger Mills wrote:
[This thread was originally only in uk.d-i-y but I'm x-posting it to
comp.mobile.android since that is probably more relevant.]

Following advice given here to enable ES File Explorer's Remote Manager
function, I managed to use an FTP application running on my W7 computer
to do two-way file transfers between the computer and my Android 5 Moto
G phone - including accessing data stored on a micro-SD card inside the
phone.

It's probably a pure coincidence but - the very next day after I got
this working - I got an error message on the phone complaining that the
SD card had been "removed unexpectedly" - which of course it hadn't!

According to Google, this is not an uncommon occurrence and is sometimes
caused by some sort of incompatibility between phone and SD card.
However, in my case, the card really seems to be screwed!

It's a 16GB Class-10 card, but only just over 1GB is actually used. This
includes some photos and audio files - for which I have backups - but it
also includes a number of Apps which have been been moved to the card
and some off-line map files for the Here mapping/navigation App. I have
turned the phone off several times and removed and re-seated the SD card
- after which it appears to work for a very short time, but then the
error message reappears. Needless to say, if the phone can't access the
card, the on-card Apps no longer work!

I recall reports of some class 10 uSD memory cards doing strange things
in certain phones (including Moto G) but I though it had been fixed now.
See:

http://forum.xda-developers.com/show....php?t=2783238

and

http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=75383

(with 4.4.4 and I thought these bugs were now long gone)

The card is now removed from the phone, and I have a new one on order.
When I put the card into a micro-SD to SD adapter and plug that into the
card reader slot of one of my PCs, the PC recognises the presence of the
card, but goes unresponsive if I try to access any of the files. I've
had slightly more success with another PC and have - I think - made a
backup of everything on the card. But that took over 24 hours!!! to copy
1GB of data. What the hell was it doing all that time?

Struggling to read blocks of data with CRC errors very probably.

Having (I hope) got the data off, I've tried several times to re-format
the card - but it just sits there like a lemon saying "0 percent
completed".

I'm hoping that when the new card comes, I'll be able to restore all the
files to it, put it into the phone and everything will work as before.
Is this wishful thinking?

Does anyone have any insight as to what can happen to a micro-SD card
such that it can only be read incredibly slowly, seemingly cannot be
written to at all (and, no, it's not write protected) and makes a phone
think that it's been removed when it hasn't?

Allocation table mangled beyond all recovery. Might be worth running one
of the file recovery programs on it to see if the manufacturers
diagnostics can make any sense of what remains. Or a third party tool.

Is there any possibility that using FTP between computer and phone could
have damaged the card in some way? [I've had a smaller capacity card in
the phone for a couple of days as a temporary measure, and that seems
happy enough with the FTP process].

Informed comments please!

Most likely the card is a bit too quick for the phone and OS combo.
(very similar faults were reported a year ago elsewhere)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Roger Mills wrote:

[This thread was originally only in uk.d-i-y but I'm x-posting it to
comp.mobile.android since that is probably more relevant.]

Following advice given here to enable ES File Explorer's Remote Manager
function, I managed to use an FTP application running on my W7 computer
to do two-way file transfers between the computer and my Android 5 Moto
G phone - including accessing data stored on a micro-SD card inside the
phone.

It's probably a pure coincidence but - the very next day after I got
this working - I got an error message on the phone complaining that the
SD card had been "removed unexpectedly" - which of course it hadn't!

According to Google, this is not an uncommon occurrence and is sometimes
caused by some sort of incompatibility between phone and SD card.
However, in my case, the card really seems to be screwed!

It's a 16GB Class-10 card, but only just over 1GB is actually used. This
includes some photos and audio files - for which I have backups - but it
also includes a number of Apps which have been been moved to the card
and some off-line map files for the Here mapping/navigation App. I have
turned the phone off several times and removed and re-seated the SD card
- after which it appears to work for a very short time, but then the
error message reappears. Needless to say, if the phone can't access the
card, the on-card Apps no longer work!

The card is now removed from the phone, and I have a new one on order.
When I put the card into a micro-SD to SD adapter and plug that into the
card reader slot of one of my PCs, the PC recognises the presence of the
card, but goes unresponsive if I try to access any of the files. I've
had slightly more success with another PC and have - I think - made a
backup of everything on the card. But that took over 24 hours!!! to copy
1GB of data. What the hell was it doing all that time?

Having (I hope) got the data off, I've tried several times to re-format
the card - but it just sits there like a lemon saying "0 percent
completed"
I'm hoping that when the new card comes, I'll be able to restore all the
files to it, put it into the phone and everything will work as before.
Is this wishful thinking?

Does anyone have any insight as to what can happen to a micro-SD card
such that it can only be read incredibly slowly, seemingly cannot be
written to at all (and, no, it's not write protected) and makes a phone
think that it's been removed when it hasn't?

The most likely explanation is that the partition table is corrupted
and you will need to repartition, not just reformat. I believe that
the "official" formatter from the SD Association does this
https://www.sdcard.org/downloads/formatter_4/index.html.
Alternatively, here is an explanation of how to do it using the
partition utilities supplied with Windows, Linux and Mac OS
http://tinyurl.com/bu6b8kd.

Is there any possibility that using FTP between computer and phone could
have damaged the card in some way? [I've had a smaller capacity card in
the phone for a couple of days as a temporary measure, and that seems
happy enough with the FTP process].

FTP is no more, or less, risky than any other way of writing to the
card. I suggest that you don't use the card for any data that you
cannot replace easily because it seems likely that you will have the
same trouble again.

Informed comments please!

How can anyone, including me, tell if we meet that criterion? Were you
willing to wait for a response from an engineer at the SD Association?

On 05/31/2015 10:06 PM, Roger Mills wrote:

Following advice given here to enable ES File Explorer's Remote Manager
function, I managed to use an FTP application running on my W7 computer
to do two-way file transfers between the computer and my Android 5 Moto
G phone - including accessing data stored on a micro-SD card inside the
phone.

Just general side note hint for file transfer:

I use a convenient way of WiFi syncing between Android 4.3
and my PC over the WPA2 Wifi router by SyncMe android utility.

I have shared a dedicated PC folder \WIFISH
and I defined for SyncMe several syncing profiles
defining ways of syncing and synced Android folder.


--
Poutnik

On Monday, 1 June 2015 11:00:16 UTC+1, Gordon Levi wrote:
How can anyone, including me, tell if we meet that criterion? Were you
willing to wait for a response from an engineer at the SD Association?

Anything's possible on this group ...

Owain

Andy Burns writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Its broken. Chuck it in the bin.
Surely you mean take it to the WEEE recycling centre?

Yes l-)

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 01/06/2015 00:21, tlvp wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2015 17:15:52 -0400, tlvp suggested ... :

... to spend a few hours letting software test the card:
use H2testw.exe (perhaps available at
http://www.cratercake.com/downloads/h2testw.rar) Virus-test first..

More details on the nature of the problem and its solutions at
http://www.cratercake.com/list-of-freeware/.

HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp

thanks - but it's probably easier to throw the card in the bin and get a
new one.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 01/06/2015 08:34, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Roger writes:
Does anyone have any insight as to what can happen to a micro-SD card
such that it can only be read incredibly slowly, seemingly cannot be
written to at all (and, no, it's not write protected) and makes a
phone think that it's been removed when it hasn't?

Its broken. Chuck it in the bin.


I think that's the best solution!

Is there any possibility that using FTP between computer and phone
could have damaged the card in some way?

No.

I couldn't see how it could have done - it's strange that the problem
occurred immediately after using FTP - but was almost certainly just a
coincidence.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 01/06/2015 08:57, Andy Burns wrote:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:

Its broken. Chuck it in the bin.

Surely you mean take it to the WEEE recycling centre?


I don't think an item that size will be too much of a problem in landfill!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 01/06/2015 09:48, Martin Brown wrote:


Most likely the card is a bit too quick for the phone and OS combo.
(very similar faults were reported a year ago elsewhere)


Yes, other sources suggested that there may be a problem with Class 10
cards. The one I have on order is a Class 6.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 01/06/2015 11:00, Gordon Levi wrote:


The most likely explanation is that the partition table is corrupted
and you will need to repartition, not just reformat. I believe that
the "official" formatter from the SD Association does this
https://www.sdcard.org/downloads/formatter_4/index.html.

Not having much joy there. I've downloaded and unzipped the installer -
but it then complains that it can't read the resulting .msi file!

Alternatively, here is an explanation of how to do it using the
partition utilities supplied with Windows, Linux and Mac OS
http://tinyurl.com/bu6b8kd.


No luck there, either. I can use DISKPART to identify and select the SD
card but when I tell it to clean, it just sits there like a lemon.



FTP is no more, or less, risky than any other way of writing to the
card. I suggest that you don't use the card for any data that you
cannot replace easily because it seems likely that you will have the
same trouble again.

Yes, I'm 99% sure that the problem *wasn't* caused by using FTP.

My phone has only 8GB if internal storage - so I *do* need a card for
additional storage. I have been putting as much as possible on the card
- including all my photos and music, plus those Apps which allow
themselves to be transferred to the card. I was beginning to think that
that might have been a mistake. But - having eventually (it took 24
hours!) copied all the data off the failed card and restored it to a
different card, all the on-card Apps work again - so the philosophy
doesn't seem too bad, as long as I keep backups. Being able to access
the card using FTP makes backups easier to do (although I didn't use it
for this particular transfer).


Informed comments please!

How can anyone, including me, tell if we meet that criterion? Were you
willing to wait for a response from an engineer at the SD Association?

I've found in the past when posing this sort of problem that some -
definitely *uninformed* - people have waded in with all sorts of
hair-brained suggestions. But I have been very impressed with the high
quality of the responses to this particular thread - yours included!

Many thanks to everyone who has responded so far.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 31/05/2015 23:41, Roger Mills wrote:
On 31/05/2015 22:51, Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:

It's a 16GB Class-10 card, but only just over 1GB is actually used.

Is it possible it's one of those counterfeit cards that only have e.g.
1GB of actual flash, but have been doctored to indicate having many
times more than that? Problems generally show up once you copy more than
the true capacity onto them ...



Unlikely. The card was actually supplied with a dash cam - and has had
16GB of data on it. But it became spare when I bought a 32GB card for
the cam - so I re-formatted it and used it in the phone. It's been ok in
the phone for quite a few months - until now!

Now, it won't let me re-format it - so something has gone awry.

They do fail from time to time, I have two dead ones, one old 1G card
that just doesn't appear when you plug it in and a 16G one that I can't
write to any more but I think it has been physically damaged as it looks
like some of the plastic is missing around the connectors but I don't
have another card of the same sort to compare it to.

Roger Mills wrote:
I'm not suggesting for one moment that you've led me into the mire.

Phew!

Incidentally, my sloooow (24 hour) backup of the card seems to have
worked because I have copied all the files from the backup onto my 4GB
card and the on-card Apps are now working again.

I was glad to learn that, thanks.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

In message
Roger Mills wrote:

On 01/06/2015 08:34, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

Roger writes:

Is there any possibility that using FTP between computer and phone
could have damaged the card in some way?

No.

I couldn't see how it could have done - it's strange that the problem
occurred immediately after using FTP - but was almost certainly just a
coincidence.

It would fail after something wrote something to it. It just happened
that it was FTP.

Really, what wrote data to the card was the OS. FTP was just the OS's
client in this case.

Dave

On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:14:43 +0100, Roger Mills wrote of:

... all sorts of
hair-brained suggestions ...

Your speech-to-text engine is showing its inadequacies, I fear.

Cheers, -- tlvp (hare today, ghaan tomorrow :-) )
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.