"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:suoko5.8h8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
> Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> > Chris Green wrote:
>> >
>> > > I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from
>> > > the
>> > > auto-mounted file system. Why should there be any other way?
>> >
>> > My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi
>> > (which I
>> > suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).

My pictures get uploaded to the cloud - somewhere - goodness know where. No
idea how to turn it on or off, or how to access the storage from another
device such as a PC.

I tend to attach photos to an email if I want to transfer the odd one to my
PC, because this is quicker than connecting the phone by USB and then
waiting *ages* for the mounted folder in Windows Explorer to populate itself
with the list of photos. If I want to transfer a lot, I just wait for them
all to appear and then copy them (selected with Ctrl-click or Shift-Click)
to my PC.

I wonder if my phone only has a USB1 port which is why it takes so long to
transfer the names of all the photo files. I think the transfer of the
selected files is fairly quick, so maybe that is not at USB1 speed. But it
typically takes about 5 minutes for the 500 or so photos in the phone's DCIM
folder to appear in Windows Explorer: I can see the list growing at a rate
of a few per second.

On 2/19/2022 5:51 AM, NY wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message news:suoko5.8h8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
>> Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> > Chris Green wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I just connect my camera to my computer and copy the pictures from > > the
>>> > > auto-mounted file system.  Why should there be any other way?
>>> >
>>> > My phone uploads to the cloud, my camera can do the same if it has wifi > (which I
>>> > suppose it can have via the phone if necessary).
>
> My pictures get uploaded to the cloud - somewhere - goodness know where. No idea how to turn it on or off, or how to access the storage from another device such as a PC.
>
> I tend to attach photos to an email if I want to transfer the odd one to my PC, because this is quicker than connecting the phone by USB and then waiting *ages* for the mounted folder in Windows Explorer to populate itself with the list of photos. If I want to transfer a lot, I just wait for them all to appear and then copy them (selected with Ctrl-click or Shift-Click) to my PC.
>
> I wonder if my phone only has a USB1 port which is why it takes so long to transfer the names of all the photo files. I think the transfer of the selected files is fairly quick, so maybe that is not at USB1 speed. But it typically takes about 5 minutes for the 500 or so photos in the phone's DCIM folder to appear in Windows Explorer: I can see the list growing at a rate of a few per second.

The grass isn't any greener in other ecosystems.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gvfs/+bug/1792085

You can use usbtreeview (Uwe Sieber) to get basic information
about a USB port. One of the fields in the config space,
is the current connection rate.

USB1.1 1MB/sec \
USB2.0 35MB/sec \___ Very approximate ballpark numbers
USB3.0 400MB/sec /

MTP is a poor protocol. It's in the category of "What were they thinking".
It ranges from "sorta OK" to "not acceptable". You would never
expect to hear "I was blown away by how fast it was".

It operates at the "transfer of full object" level. That means,
to pass a directory, it has to pass the entire directory structure
as an object. You can't just index into a few bytes and get some info.
Wikipedia has an article on MTP, that gives some of the history.
They did try to fix it. MTP stands for Media Transfer Protocol.

It's just possible, that to index all the files in the tree, it
is doing N^2 operations. Listing the entire tree each time, to
tell you about one more file.

If you had a hardware or software USB analyzer, you might be
able to see just exactly how bad the scheme is.

If the file system was flat, it might be a bit faster.

A puzzler, is why the rest of the industry fell for this,
hook, line, and sinker.

*******

VirtualBox supports USB passthru. VirtualBox is hosting software that
runs on multiple platforms. On Windows, a person could install Linux in
a VirtualBox Guest, while continuing to run Windows 10 as the Host
and be doing other things.

https://docs.oracle.com/en/virtualization/virtualbox/6.0/admin/usbtrafficcapturing.html

You can plug a USB flash stick into the host machine, and have it show
up "exclusively" for the use of the Guest OS.

It is in that situation, that the above article can be applied. You can
collect a log of all the USB packets sent, and load them into
Wireshark. This is an alternative, to trying to get Wireshark to
record USB directly (which is a possibility, but details unknown).

So if you were having an MTP problem, you could at least see
at a gross level, how many millions of packets it takes to
load a simple directory structure :-) You could load Windows 10
into a virtual machine, connect the phone to the host, use the
VBox Settings to forward the phone to the Guest, then log all
the packets.

If I owned a device that supported the cursed MTP, I'd have
tried it by now. My camera supports USB Mass Storage, which came
before MTP... and USB Mass Storage actually works.

Paul

Frank Slootweg wrote:

>>>*not* using cloud services is semantics IMO.
>>
>> I think your whole argument is merely semantics, and rather pointless -
>> I think most people here would understand exactly what I mean when I
>> say that I don't cloud services.
>
> Fair enough. 'Case' closed.

To be fair to Frank, his argument was perfectly apropos.

Frank owns the intelligence to comprehend detail.

Java Jive, by his own admittance, does not process detail all that well.

And that's OK.
Lot's of people are like Java Jive who can't comprehend technical detail.

But it's not fair to Frank for Java Jive to claim it's "merely semeantics".
It's not.

It's called technology.
Not semantics.

Java Jive doesn't understand the technology.

However, I can, and I, for one, _appreciate_ Frank's helpful efforts at
educating Java Jive, as the detail is where the differences lie.

Paul wrote:

>> it's highly unlikely that *any* cloud provider will fail.
>
> One already has.

Facts:
1. Apple destroyed one of my iPads.
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg>
2. Apple unilaterally locked me out of the iCloud on the other.
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg>

I use the iPads only as a learning experience, so that I can teach others.
<https://i.postimg.cc/SKGfmgnK/appleid05.jpg>

Hence, I don't really care that Apple destroyed one iPad (which, you have to
admit, is rather funny considering of what I think of Apple).

I haven't used that iPad for years (it happened two years ago).
<https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg>

I only have the iPads to learn how iOS works, and, to prove that the iKooks
consistently brazenly fabricate functionality for them that doesn't exist.

I don't even care that Apple is _trying_ to lock me out of my second iPad.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>

As it just proves my point that the iKooks only stay inside the walled
garden, where Apple _hates_ when people try to find a way out of it.
<https://i.postimg.cc/8k3GQyj4/appleid09.jpg>

What I find irksome is that Apple _forces_ you to re-establish a presence
with the Apple tracking servers, which is proof I've provided that the
iKooks hate, but which nobody would know unless I ran these tests for them.

The point to rememember, since most of you stay inside the walled garden is:
a. To own Apple hardware is to risk Apple unilaterally _destroying_ it, and,
b. To put anything on the iCloud is to risk losing it all. Poof! Gone.

Those are facts the iKooks _hate_ but it doesn't change that they're facts.

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> A minimum of due diligence has to be done before. And I simply do not
> believe your story. Period.

The iKooks can never believe anything Apple hasn't fed them to believe.

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> My camera supports USB Mass Storage, which came
> before MTP... and USB Mass Storage actually works.

Is there a good way to add that faster USB Mass Storage to a smartphone?

NY wrote:

> I wonder if my phone only has a USB1 port

I would be amazed if it wasn't USB2.

badgolferman wrote:

> Paul wrote:
>
>> My camera supports USB Mass Storage, which came
>> before MTP... and USB Mass Storage actually works.
>
> Is there a good way to add that faster USB Mass Storage to a smartphone?

Not generally, the way mass storage previously worked on android required the
whole filesystem was unmounted from the phone, so every app and background
service had to be stopped, so that the flash storage was exclusively mounted to
the computer for the duration ... acceptable for a camera, not really for a phone.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 at 10:03:40, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>badgolferman wrote:
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>> My camera supports USB Mass Storage, which came
>>> before MTP... and USB Mass Storage actually works.
>> Is there a good way to add that faster USB Mass Storage to a
>>smartphone?
>
>Not generally, the way mass storage previously worked on android
>required the whole filesystem was unmounted from the phone, so every
>app and background service had to be stopped, so that the flash storage
>was exclusively mounted to the computer for the duration ... acceptable
>for a camera, not really for a phone.

Yes, I suppose today's 'phone users can't bear to have their 'phone
turned off for even a second, let along a few minutes while such
transfers are done.

But more seriously - surely it wouldn't be beyond the wit of 'phone OS
programmers to detect when it's connected to a PC (or other such host),
and make the relevant parts of internal memory (e. g. the micro-SD card,
and/or the "pictures" folder) transparent to the PC (perhaps via a "do
you want to" popup on screen)? Rather than go through the current
moderately complex procedure that _is_ required. I guess there's just
insufficient incentive for them to do so.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...

In article <1aRNh+g6LlEiFwl0@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> But more seriously - surely it wouldn't be beyond the wit of 'phone OS
> programmers to detect when it's connected to a PC (or other such host),
> and make the relevant parts of internal memory (e. g. the micro-SD card,
> and/or the "pictures" folder) transparent to the PC (perhaps via a "do
> you want to" popup on screen)?

they do.

> Rather than go through the current
> moderately complex procedure that _is_ required. I guess there's just
> insufficient incentive for them to do so.

what complicated procedure?

connect phone to computer and copy photos. or even easier, set it up to
automatically sync wirelessly, without any user interaction needed.

On 2/20/2022 5:03 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> badgolferman wrote:
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>> My camera supports USB Mass Storage, which came
>>> before MTP... and USB Mass Storage actually works.
>>
>> Is there a good way to add that faster USB Mass Storage to a smartphone?
>
> Not generally, the way mass storage previously worked on android required the whole filesystem > was unmounted from the phone, so every app and background service had to be stopped, so that the
> flash storage was exclusively mounted to the computer for the duration ... acceptable for a
> camera, not really for a phone.

I don't really know, what kind of "programmer" they were favoring
with this protocol.

How would many of our protocols work, without time sharing
and multiplexing ? Lots of things don't have to be taken offline,
for two parties to update them. We wouldn't have NAS devices,
if it wasn't possible for many computers to be working them
at the same time.

MTP wasn't only about this "sharing" capability. It was also
there to enforce some kind of DRM models. A whole object
could have a "Do Not Copy" property, and be denied in whole.

Presumably, they wanted a protocol which did not work at
the block level, so you couldn't "dd" the DRM protected
content off the device. By turning the protocol into
a "giant gate", it is what it is. Sucky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Transfer_Protocol#Performance

"Google's MTP implementation in Android includes extensions to deal
with this limitation; however, these extensions must be supported
by the host operating system.[9][10]"

"Loading longer file lists (thousands of items) and "preparing" for
transferring files might take longer than the file transfer itself." <===

It's a bottomless pit of "optimization".

Paul

It turns out this method has a big problem. When I u sed it, it copied
everything for the month including all the ones from the first half of
the month that had already been copied. They were named with a suffix
as you know and I had to delete all of them.

Other methods, like file manager's copy, note whether there is already a
file of a g iven name and let you decide whether to use the old one or
the new one.

I've gone back to that method.

In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 17 Feb 2022 09:22:21 +0200, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>[This topic is so worthwhile that I've added a bunch of new addressees
>to my email version. If you don't recognize my email address, I'm the
>one you know and love in Baltimore.]
>
>For some reason, maybe MS did it on purpose so I'd notice, when I went
>to a pre-opened page of Settings, on its own it took me to the Settings
>index, which I think they call home.
>
>And there in the top middle row was Phone. Does everyone but me already
>know about this? Does everyone on the Android group know but not on
>the win10 group? How are you going to pass your Android finals if you
>don't keep up with things?
>
>At Settings / Phone, you can link your android or iphone. And then you
>can copy your pictures from the phone to the laptop or PC by unlocking
>the phone, connecting it with a USB cable, on the computer pressing
>Start / Photos -- takes a while to open, in the upper right "Import".
>From a connected device, your phone!!!
>
>It said it was looking on my phone for photos and it took a really long
>time, so much that I was doing something else when it displayed them, so
>if it said anything in the middle, I missed it. It also said the phone
>had to be unlocked. I don't lock my phone but when it took a long time,
>I thought swiping up, and then I thought restarting the process might
>help, but it still took a long time. Not that time matters, but don't
>assume it's not working.
>
>A problem is that it looks beyond DCIM / Camera and found a bunch of
>worthless graphics I had to either uncheck or copy. I suppose one can
>uncheck a group all at one time using the shift key to mark the other
>end. I suppose it could be an asset, maybe, under special
>circumstances, that it looks beyound the Camera folder, and maybe that's
>why it took a long time to display.
>
>
>This duplicates one of the functions, but far from all, of My Phone
>Explorer. And it might be a little better, although I'd have to use it
>a few more times to decide. So far;
> Advantages of My Phone Explorer, Don't have to open an app on phone;
>goes by calendar month (although I presume it know which ones were
>already copied)
>
> Simlarities, Do have to open an application, just a different one, on
>the computer. b) MPE is free
>
> Disadvantages, Was prepared to copy in 60 worthless files from
>Ad:Cache, a bunch of silly graphics. I had to uncheck each one. b) It
>puts the photos whereever it chooses and I have to now go find them. It
>doesn't put them where I want them, and if I move them to where I want
>them, it may lose track of what is already copied, so I'll be stuck with
>lots of duplicates. Maybe if I only move them at the end of every
>month, but that's one more thing to keep track of. And it could be I
>want some pictures one place and another somewhere else. Can MS Photos
>handle that?
>
>c) You have to install a program on the computer, an app on the phone,
>then start each one and press F1 to connect, but it's so easy to use
>after that it's well worth it.
>
>My Phone Explorer is still great for moving files, photos and all the
>others, back or forth or synching. For writing and sending texts while
>using the full-size keyboard, for updating the contact list and copying
>back or forth or synching and lots of other things I haven't tried yet.
>And it works either with a cable or with wifi or bluetooth. It does
>not work with the semaphore.
>
>
>Note that selfies are reversed left to right.

micky wrote:

>>My Phone Explorer is still great for moving files, photos and all the
>>others, back or forth or synching.

Since I last posted to this thread, I've used three more ways to copy files
back and forth between the Android phone and the Windows computer.
a. net use Z: \\192.168.0.2@8080\DavWWWRoot /USER:andy burnelli
b. scrcpy
c. vysor

Where the associated software for each is located here:
A. <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zq.webdav.app_free>
B. <https://github.com/Genymobile/scrcpy>
C. <https://www.vysor.io/download/>