As has been proven, it was YOU who had no clue iCloud could download to the device, you repeated it many times until I informed you. You seem to be a beginner shill - still being taught the "definition" of iCloud so you are fixated on definition.
And it was YOU who (continued to) compare SD card and iCloud by stating just one difference between them (have to wait! huh!)
And it is still YOU who does not understand the context of the thread - you replied to a reply of (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4011029&cid=44384797), which not only compared but equated, falsely, SD card and iCloud. Your reply was to a post made in that context - the false equality of SD card and iCloud.
And of course, quoting my next sentence would cause deduction from your shill salary as it amounts to confessing being idiotic, wrong and unable to follow simple discussions. So you didn't quote it, without affecting these traits of yourself, of course.
Samsung has an inescapable problem. If they make their additions to the phone small enough to apply easily to upstream Android, they won't have a distinct enough offering to really distinguish from stock Android. If they modify their platform with a lot of large changes, now they have a hard merge problem as new upstream Android releases come out.
Written from a very poor understanding of Software.
Making software "distinct enough offering to really distinguish from" some other software, does not need changes not "small enough to apply easily". Especially on code as well modularized as Android.
Any software professional worth his salt can make very little, maintainable changes to make vast differences in usability of software.
Exactly, it's not giving "extra" capacity. But you have to butt in like an idiot and compare it to an SD card which DOES give extra capacity, by saying that one has to "wait" for files to go into SD card, and not for saving to iCloud.
You quote the degenerate case of sync, where you have one device with a file and you want it on another immediately
Not immediately after putting it on one device. But immediately before (say) watching the movie.
Further more you compound the stupidity of your blow by blow comparison, you've entirely left off tha fact that in the equivalent scenario you have to remove the back of each of the two Android devices, and take the SD_card out of one and put it in the other.
No, SD card is mostly part of the same device. Just that you get much bigger storage capacity than without SD card. For which capacity one would need to use iCloud in the degenerate case on some SD-card-less devices.
But the degenerate case is not what defines what a thing is.
Just FYI, this is not a "define iCloud" shill training session going on. No one attempted to "define" iCloud here.
So far you were maintaining there is no download happening. Now when that didn't work, this becomes a "degenerate" case? This is the topic of this discussion, whether degenerate or not. Go to some other thread which has the topic "define iCloud".
And in the normal case happens without you noticing. Because it happens without you needing to ask for the download. The sync service has already done it for you.
Thank god it has decided which movie I want to watch. The choice might have killed me.
None of this happens in with SD-cards.
Yes, store the movie when you have it, watch the movie when you want to.
Other than capacity,
Yes, other than the topic being discussed, your post is applicable to everything else.
You are replying to a thread of which the BASIS is the comparison between iCloud and SD card. Got it? Stop comparing them yourself, by saying "You have to wait whilst it saves to SD card. There's no waiting to save to iCloud". Then get the hell out of the thread if you still think they are not comparable.
No, it's NOT acquired from iCloud. How many more times? It's a sync service. It's NOT a download service.
1. Put data on one device. 2. Sync to iCloud 3. Re-download to another device. *IT IS ACQUIRED FROM ICLOUD* Download speed limited to wifi-speed / cellular / whatever.
Comparison to micro SD card was made as a similar data flow exists there too (although million times more convenient, and much faster) 1. Put data on SD card 2. Watch movie directly from SD card as it supports 70 Mbps.
Sync cannot happen without a possibility of download.
And yes, that is the nature of this thread - the stupid comparison between SD cards and iCloud. You didn't take the advice to keep up with the discussion subject before butting in.
So access to the data that is NOT on device memory when needed is being discussed. In one case it is acquired from iCloud, and from the SD card in the other case.
Lack of expandable storage in certain classes of devices causes people to think of horrible workarounds - e.g. using iCloud to replace SD cards. Which is what started the discussion and which is the very basis of this discussion. So while stupidly impractical, iCloud as a replacement of SD cards will remain the underlying topic.
If you did not read the thread context, ask your shill manager to deduct your salary.
And what is more, you completely ignored "download" part when saying one has to wait for data to be stored TO micro SD card. Speed of micro SD card is much higher than most internet connections in both directions - upload and download. For download, the device HAS to wait for iCloud - like I said, to play 1 mbps movie.
But again, you have to do it for your shill salary.
Meanwhile, SD cards are usable when outside range of wifi (even cellular) . "iCloud" is not. So your statement that one has to wait for saving to SD card is idiotic because even before that one has to wait for wifi (or cellular data) . But mentioning that would get your shill salary deducted.
And the 64 gb micro SD card is NOT a synchronizing service. It actually increases the amount of data that can be addressed without "killing " the data transfer quotas most mobile connections have. Which was being discussed before you butted in. Read the context, idiot : http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4011029&cid=44370439
Why should Microsoft be interested in facilitating your grandparents in that conversion
And why should the user (or his grandchild) not gripe about it online? And why should it not lead to 11% stock price drop? Why shouldn't every single user with downgrade rights to Windows 7 exercise it?
In other words, your statement (question?) I quoted above is irrelevant to all the points of topic in general as well as those of the GP post.
What a fucking idiotic comment. This is RT we are talking about, not the x86 version. It is MANDATORY to NOT allow the user to disable secure boot. I know it is confusing but at least shills should inform themselves .
If you don't get water(or other of those cloudy services) for a while, you calculate the gravity of the situation, and plan to suspend the business / close it altogether / shift premises elsewhere before the situation is too critical.
When data is stored in cloud, and lost, business situation becomes VERY hairy. Periodic backups don't help. No one likes the prospect of telling customers that we have received your payment but we don't remember if we have shipped your order. Data needs to be sent to multiple places before being confirmed - a process that slows down all operations.
Oracle does provide "Data Guard" for this, but most popular configurations are where data is committed when a request to store at remote site is sent. Which doesn't solve the problem.
There are various ROMs available with all links to Google broken (contacts sync, gmail, market etc.). Google's applications can then be installed on a need basis.
It won't really be fair to use Google's backup services without giving them access to data for data mining - that is Google's price for giving you services.
The various open source "recovery" software for android devices (e.g. clockworkmod) do let you backup whole operating system data (that includes wifi passwords, application settings etc.) to SD card. This in turn can be encrypted and stored on various cloud services - including Google's. There, at least, Google's "price" is not access to your data for data mining.
It takes some work, but not much for most users of recovery software. Also gives you "versioning", unlike Google Android default "only latest" policy.
Why are you assume that I expect for people to write their own programs
I am not assuming that. But your statement that "more RAM _always_ means more speed" is only true if people write their own programs. So, while making that statement, YOU made that assumption.
My argument was, if not for Windows and their policy on 64 bit, we would have by now a standard of 32GB or more RAM in laptops and desktops, because of market pressure. And also, we would have software today that would use that amount of RAM for speed or features.
But sadly, because of Windows and their policy on 64 bit, the current standard is still 4 GB RAM. And that is why you don't have software that leverage more then 4 GB RAM, even if you have more available
But that doesn't mean more RAM _always_ means more speed.
Slashdot Mirror
As has been proven, it was YOU who had no clue iCloud could download to the device, you repeated it many times until I informed you. You seem to be a beginner shill - still being taught the "definition" of iCloud so you are fixated on definition.
And it was YOU who (continued to) compare SD card and iCloud by stating just one difference between them (have to wait! huh!)
And it is still YOU who does not understand the context of the thread - you replied to a reply of (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4011029&cid=44384797), which not only compared but equated, falsely, SD card and iCloud. Your reply was to a post made in that context - the false equality of SD card and iCloud.
And of course, quoting my next sentence would cause deduction from your shill salary as it amounts to confessing being idiotic, wrong and unable to follow simple discussions. So you didn't quote it, without affecting these traits of yourself, of course.
Samsung has an inescapable problem. If they make their additions to the phone small enough to apply easily to upstream Android, they won't have a distinct enough offering to really distinguish from stock Android. If they modify their platform with a lot of large changes, now they have a hard merge problem as new upstream Android releases come out.
Written from a very poor understanding of Software.
Making software "distinct enough offering to really distinguish from" some other software, does not need changes not "small enough to apply easily". Especially on code as well modularized as Android.
Any software professional worth his salt can make very little, maintainable changes to make vast differences in usability of software.
It's like saying one has to wait for a phone call to go through from an iPhone, but no waiting is required if you use cow-dung instead of iPhone.
True but idiotic in the context.
Exactly, it's not giving "extra" capacity. But you have to butt in like an idiot and compare it to an SD card which DOES give extra capacity, by saying that one has to "wait" for files to go into SD card, and not for saving to iCloud.
You quote the degenerate case of sync, where you have one device with a file and you want it on another immediately
Not immediately after putting it on one device. But immediately before (say) watching the movie.
Further more you compound the stupidity of your blow by blow comparison, you've entirely left off tha fact that in the equivalent scenario you have to remove the back of each of the two Android devices, and take the SD_card out of one and put it in the other.
No, SD card is mostly part of the same device. Just that you get much bigger storage capacity than without SD card. For which capacity one would need to use iCloud in the degenerate case on some SD-card-less devices.
But the degenerate case is not what defines what a thing is.
Just FYI, this is not a "define iCloud" shill training session going on. No one attempted to "define" iCloud here.
So far you were maintaining there is no download happening. Now when that didn't work, this becomes a "degenerate" case? This is the topic of this discussion, whether degenerate or not. Go to some other thread which has the topic "define iCloud".
And in the normal case happens without you noticing. Because it happens without you needing to ask for the download. The sync service has already done it for you.
Thank god it has decided which movie I want to watch. The choice might have killed me.
None of this happens in with SD-cards.
Yes, store the movie when you have it, watch the movie when you want to.
Other than capacity,
Yes, other than the topic being discussed, your post is applicable to everything else.
If it's on iCloud it's also on your device
No, it at least once was on at least one of my devices.
Then stop comparing them.
You are replying to a thread of which the BASIS is the comparison between iCloud and SD card. Got it? Stop comparing them yourself, by saying "You have to wait whilst it saves to SD card. There's no waiting to save to iCloud". Then get the hell out of the thread if you still think they are not comparable.
No, it's NOT acquired from iCloud. How many more times? It's a sync service. It's NOT a download service.
1. Put data on one device.
2. Sync to iCloud
3. Re-download to another device. *IT IS ACQUIRED FROM ICLOUD*
Download speed limited to wifi-speed / cellular / whatever.
Comparison to micro SD card was made as a similar data flow exists there too (although million times more convenient, and much faster)
1. Put data on SD card
2. Watch movie directly from SD card as it supports 70 Mbps.
Sync cannot happen without a possibility of download.
Again, that's the nature of syncing
And yes, that is the nature of this thread - the stupid comparison between SD cards and iCloud. You didn't take the advice to keep up with the discussion subject before butting in.
So access to the data that is NOT on device memory when needed is being discussed. In one case it is acquired from iCloud, and from the SD card in the other case.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4011029&cid=44384797
Lack of expandable storage in certain classes of devices causes people to think of horrible workarounds - e.g. using iCloud to replace SD cards. Which is what started the discussion and which is the very basis of this discussion. So while stupidly impractical, iCloud as a replacement of SD cards will remain the underlying topic.
If you did not read the thread context, ask your shill manager to deduct your salary.
And what is more, you completely ignored "download" part when saying one has to wait for data to be stored TO micro SD card. Speed of micro SD card is much higher than most internet connections in both directions - upload and download. For download, the device HAS to wait for iCloud - like I said, to play 1 mbps movie.
But again, you have to do it for your shill salary.
It's called context. Do look it up sometime.
Meanwhile, SD cards are usable when outside range of wifi (even cellular) . "iCloud" is not. So your statement that one has to wait for saving to SD card is idiotic because even before that one has to wait for wifi (or cellular data) . But mentioning that would get your shill salary deducted.
And the 64 gb micro SD card is NOT a synchronizing service. It actually increases the amount of data that can be addressed without "killing " the data transfer quotas most mobile connections have. Which was being discussed before you butted in. Read the context, idiot : http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4011029&cid=44370439
But can't watch 1 mbps movie when getting 10 kbps data rate, despite your attempts to skirt the issue.
Wow! Background syncing gives you instant access to 1Mbps video stored in iCloud when your network is giving you 10 kbps?
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
and you have to root the phone to
can't turn that off without rooting your phone
And rooting is trivial on many phones. So your score is zero in being able to choose a phone according to your own preferences.
Why should Microsoft be interested in facilitating your grandparents in that conversion
And why should the user (or his grandchild) not gripe about it online? And why should it not lead to 11% stock price drop? Why shouldn't every single user with downgrade rights to Windows 7 exercise it?
In other words, your statement (question?) I quoted above is irrelevant to all the points of topic in general as well as those of the GP post.
If you think 2008 to 2013 is anywhere resembling long term, kindly commit suicide right now, as a social service.
What a fucking idiotic comment. This is RT we are talking about, not the x86 version. It is MANDATORY to NOT allow the user to disable secure boot. I know it is confusing but at least shills should inform themselves .
There is a big difference - permanence of loss.
If you don't get water(or other of those cloudy services) for a while, you calculate the gravity of the situation, and plan to suspend the business / close it altogether / shift premises elsewhere before the situation is too critical.
When data is stored in cloud, and lost, business situation becomes VERY hairy. Periodic backups don't help. No one likes the prospect of telling customers that we have received your payment but we don't remember if we have shipped your order. Data needs to be sent to multiple places before being confirmed - a process that slows down all operations.
Oracle does provide "Data Guard" for this, but most popular configurations are where data is committed when a request to store at remote site is sent. Which doesn't solve the problem.
A typical user has at least one atypical use case.
Read the fucking title.
This is Surface RT, the dumb one. This is NOT a real PC capable of running Windows and .....
3D TVs must have done great when they were new.
I have an evil plan to thwart that - I will change my Wifi password. Muhahahaha.
There are various ROMs available with all links to Google broken (contacts sync, gmail, market etc.). Google's applications can then be installed on a need basis.
It won't really be fair to use Google's backup services without giving them access to data for data mining - that is Google's price for giving you services.
The various open source "recovery" software for android devices (e.g. clockworkmod) do let you backup whole operating system data (that includes wifi passwords, application settings etc.) to SD card. This in turn can be encrypted and stored on various cloud services - including Google's. There, at least, Google's "price" is not access to your data for data mining.
It takes some work, but not much for most users of recovery software. Also gives you "versioning", unlike Google Android default "only latest" policy.
Why are you assume that I expect for people to write their own programs
I am not assuming that. But your statement that "more RAM _always_ means more speed" is only true if people write their own programs. So, while making that statement, YOU made that assumption.
My argument was, if not for Windows and their policy on 64 bit, we would have by now a standard of 32GB or more RAM in laptops and desktops, because of market pressure. And also, we would have software today that would use that amount of RAM for speed or features.
But sadly, because of Windows and their policy on 64 bit, the current standard is still 4 GB RAM. And that is why you don't have software that leverage more then 4 GB RAM, even if you have more available
But that doesn't mean more RAM _always_ means more speed.