On 11/28/2022 11:14 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>>> AJL <noemail@none.com wrote:

>> Actually I pay my [Google Drive] $2 every month. It's an automatic
>> charge on my credit card. No muss no fuss.

> Whether you pay for it once a year or twelve times a year doesn't
> matter. It's the same $24 a year.

To me $2/mo is zip. YMMV.

> Before you tell me that drives don't last forever, yes I know. Of
> course. But they usually last a long time, and depending on your age
> and how much you use them, they may last for the rest of your life.

Again, a physical drive won't serve my purpose. That is to be an off
site backup and to be available (and current) to all my devices no
matter their location.

> But leaving all of that aside, I think my most important point is
> that if you want backup to an external location, you should consider
> Carbonite.

I'm happy with the status quo. No reason for the hassle of changing
anything. Especially just to save a few pennies a month...

> My computer (a desktop) is *way* too big and heavy for me to even
> lift it, let alone take it to a restaurant.

Weakling. I can lift my computer over my head with one hand. But then
this laptop is just a bit over 2 pounds...

> I'm too old (85) and frail to do that.

Oh wow, a real old man. I'm just a youngster (80).

> Moreover if you took a laptop to your local restaurant and used a
> table there for as long as I sit at my computer every day, you'd
> soon get thrown out.

Maybe. Course I could sit outside in my car. And I'll bet I could save a
lot more than the measly 2 bucks a month we're discussing. Hmmmmm.... ;)

On 28/11/2022 19:13, Char Jackson wrote:
> I have multiple Google accounts and I provided exactly the same
> information when I created each of them. Why would Google care if a
> person has multiple accounts? There are multiple valid reasons for doing
> so.

They might not like it if you have hundreds of accounts and on each you
made full use of the free 15GB of cloud storage.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 22:02:40 +0000, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

>On 28/11/2022 19:13, Char Jackson wrote:
>> I have multiple Google accounts and I provided exactly the same
>> information when I created each of them. Why would Google care if a
>> person has multiple accounts? There are multiple valid reasons for doing
>> so.
>
>They might not like it if you have hundreds of accounts and on each you
>made full use of the free 15GB of cloud storage.

Well, I don't have hundreds of accounts. I have fewer than a half dozen.
See ...winston's contribution to the thread, though. Google is probably
happy to see that I have multiple accounts. Why wouldn't they be?

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> And if you mean an off site drive, since I've never come close to my
> 100GB Google Drive limit (currently storing 68GB) why would I pay a
> "small extra expense" just to store my 68GB on a larger 2TB drive??

I sync some folders using OneDrive, and sometimes store some files using
Google Drive. However, I still do local backups which are on an
internal SATA HDD. Why? Because restoring from the cloud is SLOW.
Restoring a file is okay, but you'll wait longer. Restoring a folder
with lots of files will take a long time. Restoring several folders
with lots of files each means you start the restore, and come back
tomorrow.

You do not get the full bandwidth of your Internet connection with your
ISP with the cloud storage server. You are afforded the bandwidth from
the cloud storage server, and that will be throttled to ensure all users
get some response. Your downstream bandwidth is likely much higher than
your upstream bandwidth (do a test at speedtest.net). That means
uploading the files is a lot slower than downloading them, but even
downloading them won't be at the rate of the Internet connection, but at
the rate the server affords to your connection with it.

To upload that 68 GB you put up on the cloud, it took a long time to do
so. That's why a local client is used to run in the background to keep
uploading the files under low priority and probably without choking your
Internet connection. Low impact on CPU and low impact on network
traffic prevents your computer from getting so slow as to be unusable.
Uploading is slower than downloading, because your upstream bandwidth is
often much slower than your downstream bandwidth. When you later want
to restore all that 68 GB, it will still be very slow. Your downstream
bandwidth is higher, but the server is still going to throttle your
connection to it.

You can sync some content to cloud storage, it's handy for access across
hosts synchronizing to the same account, or access via the web interface
anywhere you can run a web browser, but cloud storage is slow. You
cannot afford an Internet backbone connection, and the server isn't on
one, either. For recovery of a couple files, yeah, cloud storage is
doable. But for anything larger, you'll want local and much faster
storage devices. Internal drives are much faster for recovery.
External [USB] drives are much faster. Even a intranetwork FTP server
on your own Ethernet network is much faster.

You say you have 68 GB in cloud storage, but it got up there
incrementally and/or over a long time. The same for when it comes back.
It's handy on a small scale. How fast you need to recover, and how much
you need to recover, dictates where to store the data. Duplication is
okay: do local backups or clones for big jobs, and cloud storage for
smaller tasks.

By the way, the default storage quota for free accounts is 15 GB (which
is 10 GB more than free accounts at OneDrive). 100 GB is more, yes, but
not a lot more. If you need more than 15 GB, you likely will need more
than 100 GB. You're already approaching the 100 GB limit. To compare
apples to apples, the pricing is:

OneDrive:
Free: 5 GB
$19.99/yr: 100 GB (standalone OneDrive, not with MS 365 bundle)
$69.99/yr: 1 TB w/MS 365 bundle

Google Drive:
Free: 15 GB
$1.99/mo: 100 GB
$2.99/mo: 200 GB
$9.99/mo: 2 TB

OneDrive is cheaper: $19.99/yr for 100 GB is $1.67/mo for 100 GB,
compared to $1.99/mo for 100 GB at Google. While Google doesn't offer a
1 TB tier, their 2 TB tier would be $120/yr. If linearly priced, that
would be 1 TB for $60/yr. For $70/yr, you can get OneDrive's 1 TB, and
also get Microsoft 365. If you have no interest in MS 365, and $10 is a
lot to you, go with Google.

No idea why Microsoft shot themself in their foot by slashing storage
quota on OneDrive accounts. It was at 15 or 25 GB, Google introduced
their cloud storage at 15 GB (maybe it was also 5 GB, but it got raised
on keeping your account active), and Microsoft cut theirs down to 5 GB
(unless you logged into their web site into your OneDrive account within
the 10 or 15 day limit declared in an e-mail they sent to OneDrive
users). Instead of being competitive at the free service tier,
Microsoft threw one shoe away and cut off the toe of the other shoe to
become non-competitive with Google.

I use cloud storage for synchronizing or access across multiple hosts
whether they be mine, or someone else's. As for backup, it's a very
slow backup/restore method. If I setup a new build, and wanted to sync
68 GB to my new computer, gesh, that would take a long time. It's
doable, but I'd only use it for recovery if the local drive used to
store backup went dead, and the backup drive where I save copies of my
backups also went dead. Cloud storage is really only good on a small
set of files per foreground operation. Way too costly and far too slow
to save backup images of partitions to restore a computer.

Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 04:03:56 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>>The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>
>>>> I only have a free account.
>>>
>>> Why would anyone have anything else? If you need more than 15GB just
>>> open a new account.
>>
>>Because folks don't like having to log into multiple accounts hunting
>>for a file.
>>
>>I wish I could remember, but there was a tool that would combine Gmail
>>accounts, so you used one tool to look at files in all your Google Drive
>>accounts. The accounts were still separate, but you got a frontend that
>>made all of them look like one drive. You could even consolidate cloud
>>storage from different providers, like MS OneDrive, Google Drive,
>>Dropbox, etc.
>>
>>When creating multiple Google accounts, they ask for information to
>>identify you. That means you would have to enter alternate user data
>>for each account, so Google wouldn't notice you're opening multiple
>>accounts.
>
> I have multiple Google accounts and I provided exactly the same
> information when I created each of them. Why would Google care if a
> person has multiple accounts? There are multiple valid reasons for doing
> so.

They probably don't care if you pay for their services. Free services
are at /their/ expense; i.e., no revenue generated on those. They're a
business, not your parents.

When creating a Google account, and after entering first and last names,
and selecting an e-mail address, you are asked for a phone number (and
other stuff, like birthdate). In the past, you could not create a new
account without specifying a valid phone which they use to validate the
account. Looks like they removed that requirement, especially not
everyone that does e-mail has a phone number, or they don't want to
divulge it. Back then, if you entered the same phone number as used in
another account, they'd bitch that number was already used by another
account, and you got aborted, or had to use another valid phone number.

I created my Google account more than 2 decades ago. As I recall, I had
to enlist in a waiting list to get an invite from Google before I could
create an account. Then they restricted how many accounts you could
have. Looks like they've grown since then to allow multiple accounts as
noted at:

https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1721977

This is why spammers like to abuse Google accounts: they can create as
many as they want, and have hundreds or thousands of them in reserve, to
discard them the moment after they spew out a million turds. Without a
phone number or valid recovery e-mail address that can be used to
validate a new-account creation, there is no restriction on spammers
collecting an army of Google accounts from which they launch their
turds. With no validation data on the accounts, Google cannot check if
it is the same person spewing spam turds across multiple accounts and
kill them all owned by the same identity. The only reason why other
e-mail providers don't blacklist everything emitted from Gmail accounts
is "they're too big to fail, too big to bail" (like when the US bailed
out Chrylser and GM). For Google Groups as a spam, uber-boob, troll,
peurile, and malcontent source, I do block that source in newsgroups.

However, there might still be a restriction on how many multiple Google
accounts can share the same phone number (if you provide one); see:

https://www.dragapp.com/blog/how-many-gmail-accounts-can-you-have/

Alas, like many blog authors, this has no datestamp, and info is time
sensitive. It does link to their 2022 Gmail Guide, so the above article
probably isn't too old. Also, some Youtube videos on creating a new
Google account show "(optional)" in the phone number field (and for the
recovery e-mail address field). I just started a "create a new account"
process at Google, and phone number is optional. So, if you don't give
a phone number, and no recovery e-mail address (sometimes really
needed), then you could probably surpass the 4-account max by 1 identity
limitation. As noted above, if there's no required identity when
creating a Google account, and no limit on how many unidentified
accounts can be created by someone, that leads to abuse, and it
happened.

I recommend having a recovery e-mail address as it may be the only way
to get into your account, but the recovery e-mail address could be
tracked across multiple accounts just like the phone number can. I've
been travelling, had Google bitch that I was logging outside my normal
region or from a host that wasn't recognized before, and refused to let
me log in. I didn't have a recovery e-mail address, so I couldn't get
in even to update my account to have a recovery e-mail address. When I
got back home, I logged into my Google account, and set my recovery
e-mail address to my ISP e-mail address. I didn't use my Hotmail
address since that had the same protection as Gmail, so the result would
be I'd be trying to recover my Gmail address using a Hotmail address
that also wanted me to recover using another e-mail address, and in
circles I'd run. My ISP doesn't have that lockout protection, so I used
it as the recovery e-mail address for both Gmail and Hotmail. When the
same lockout happened again, I could go to my ISP e-mail address to
click on the recovery e-mail to unlock my Gmail or Hotmail account.

So, yes, you can now have multiple Google accounts, but you're still
using one account at a time. You'd have to bounce around trying to find
under which account you saved a file. It's not like you can use Agent
Ransack (aka File Locator) or [Search] Everything to find a file across
multiple cloud accounts. That's why I mentioned either a consolidator
client to merge multiple accounts (even across multiple cloud storage
providers) or a consolidation service to make it easy to manage all your
cloud files under one drive/volume/interface.

I can buy multiple drives to install or attach to my computer, and
spread all my data files across them, or I could get a much bigger drive
and have all those files on the same drive. Some folks like to organize
their files across drives, like one is for documents, another for
videos, another for backups, and so on. Some folks don't like having to
use multiple volumes (drives) and prefer one larger volume where are all
their files. When doing a new build, I often bring forward the biggest
of my drives, but I usually also incorporate much larger capacity drives
to make file management simpler. That way, I can still organize files
across multiple drives, but I also have more room one one drive. I have
both options. With multiple cloud accounts, just one option: jump
around accounts looking for a file.

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:21:13 -0700, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On 11/28/2022 3:03 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> If I was taxing my free cloud storage accounts, I'd look into what
>>> would be free or cheap for a personal cloud consolidator. Having
>>> umpteen accounts to wade through trying to find which has what would
>>> get tedious real quick.
>>
>>When I was taxing my free Google Drive (currently have 68GB stored) I
>>simply upped to the $2/mo 100GB subscription. Easy peasy. Dunno about
>>the rest here but $2/mo is not a real big drain on my finances...
>
> No, $24 a year isn't a lot of money for most people, but for $55 (just
> over the cost of 2 years of your Google subscription) you could
> instead buy a 2TB external drive from Amazon. 2TB is 20 times as much
> as what you get from Google. I don't know how you feel about it, but I
> would much rather have the 2TB external drive, for the small extra
> expense.

Those that have or consider cloud storage are NOT interested in toting
around a hard drive (HDD or SSD). They want their files available
anywhere, even on someone else's computer that is locked down to kill
all the USB ports making that portable drive useless, but they still let
you use a web browser. Divide the weight of an external USB drive by
the weight of a web browser, and you get the web browser is infinitely
times lighter than an drive, even a USB flash drive.

There's no abusing or destroying USB port with a cloud drive. Users are
often rough on port hardware, sometimes so much so that they come here
asking for help on how to replace a USB port. You can use a
sledgehammer on your computer, but that won't affect your cloud files.

Also, the cloud storage services do backups versus users that rarely
schedule them to run at periodic intervals nor save a backup before
committing a major change. Even if they add the 2 TB external USB
drive, they're likely using it as primary storage, not to schedule
backups to save the image files on that 2 TB drive. You can restore
OneDrive to a prior time state.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/restore-your-onedrive-fa231298-759d-41cf-bcd0-25ac53eb8a15

Google is not so useful on restores, as they simply refer to using the
Trash folder to recover files you have deleted instead of reverting
files back to a prior time state. So their "recovery" method is to use
the web Trash bin, like you would use the local Recycle Bin. No really
much of a backup.

https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375102?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop

If you're an admin of Google Drive, see below on recovering files up to
25 days before they were deleted. However, that article smacks of paid
accounts, like for Google Workspace, where there is an admin for
multiple managed Google accounts. Else, for your own personal account,
all Google offers is their Trash folder.

https://support.google.com/a/answer/6052340?hl=en

This article mentions the Google Drive admin console described below.
"This article is for people who manage Google services or devices for a
company, school, or group." Sure sounds like a paid Google account used
to manage other Google accounts.

https://support.google.com/a/answer/182076

So, you'll probably want to use that 2 TB external USB drive to store
your own backups rather than rely on reverting to prior file versions in
Google Drive. If so, schedule periodic backup jobs. Don't rely on you
remembering to do the backups, because you won't do them often enough.
OneDrive has better recovery methods, but I'd still keep local backups.

There are folks that are leery or paranoid about storing their files in
the cloud despite the vast majority of their files having nothing
sensitive within them. So, just don't store those highly sensitive
files anywhere the client-side cloud client will synchronize some
folders. Or, geez, encrypt your files before putting them in a folder
the cloud client syncs to your online account. Folks that do encrypt
forget there is an unencrypted copy still on their computer in
unallocated file space, and don't bother to wipe free space after
encryption, so they are locally vulnerable after encryption. Encryption
creates a new file, but I've not seen encryptors that wipe the file
space occupied by the original file (even if they have an option to
delete the original) nor their buffer space. And, for Pete sake, use a
strong password when encrypting, and NEVER rely on your account login
credentials to protect your files from hackers. For the rest of users,
their files have nothing highly sensitive. You don't need to protect
your Mother's Day happy message from potential hackers, and if the
hackers got into your account then they have ALL your contacts, not just
mom's e-mail address.

On 11/28/2022 3:59 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> I've never come close to my 100GB Google Drive limit (currently
>> storing 68GB) why would I pay a "small extra expense" just to
>> store my 68GB on a larger 2TB drive??

> I sync some folders using OneDrive

Since I use Google Drive I had no need of OneDrive. Surprisingly MS let
me completely delete it in Programs and Features.

> I still do local backups which are on an internal SATA HDD.

I keep my local backups on thumb drives stored and secured separately.

> Because restoring from the cloud is SLOW.

I've never used GD for a complete restoration so no problem for me. My
off site backups are stuff like family photos (from late 1800s), music
collections, legal documents (encrypted), etc.

> Restoring a file is okay, but you'll wait longer.

I seldom need to restore even one file from GD since I also have them
available locally. However some of my cheaper devices (toys?) have
little storage (one Chromebook has only 32GB storage) so for them I do
use GD downloads. For example if I want to peruse a few photos from my
collection. No NOTICIBLE difference from loading locally however. YMMV.

> To upload that 68 GB you put up on the cloud, it took a long time to
> do so.

But in small upload increments over the years uploading the 68GB didn't
seem all that bad.

> If you need more than 15 GB, you likely will need more than 100 GB.
> You're already approaching the 100 GB limit.

I've been under 75GB on my GD for several years now since I started the
(gasp) $2/mo subscription.

> OneDrive is cheaper: $19.99/yr for 100 GB is $1.67/mo for 100 GB,
> compared to $1.99/mo for 100 GB at Google.

It is amazing to me that anyone would worry about much less comment on a
32 cents a month difference in price.

BTW I just did some calculations. This should really shake you up. I
spent over $7000 on sodas in the last ten years. Whoa... 8-O

On 28/11/2022 22:47, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 22:02:40 +0000, Brian Gregory
> <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 28/11/2022 19:13, Char Jackson wrote:
>>> I have multiple Google accounts and I provided exactly the same
>>> information when I created each of them. Why would Google care if a
>>> person has multiple accounts? There are multiple valid reasons for doing
>>> so.
>>
>> They might not like it if you have hundreds of accounts and on each you
>> made full use of the free 15GB of cloud storage.
>
> Well, I don't have hundreds of accounts. I have fewer than a half dozen.
> See ...winston's contribution to the thread, though. Google is probably
> happy to see that I have multiple accounts. Why wouldn't they be?
>

I guess if you're only using email and not the cloud storage.

But WTF would they be happy to let you have 90GB of free cloud storage
when they expect to charge you for having more than 15GB.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 17:38:49 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

>Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 04:03:56 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>
>>>The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I only have a free account.
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone have anything else? If you need more than 15GB just
>>>> open a new account.
>>>
>>>Because folks don't like having to log into multiple accounts hunting
>>>for a file.
>>>
>>>I wish I could remember, but there was a tool that would combine Gmail
>>>accounts, so you used one tool to look at files in all your Google Drive
>>>accounts. The accounts were still separate, but you got a frontend that
>>>made all of them look like one drive. You could even consolidate cloud
>>>storage from different providers, like MS OneDrive, Google Drive,
>>>Dropbox, etc.
>>>
>>>When creating multiple Google accounts, they ask for information to
>>>identify you. That means you would have to enter alternate user data
>>>for each account, so Google wouldn't notice you're opening multiple
>>>accounts.
>>
>> I have multiple Google accounts and I provided exactly the same
>> information when I created each of them. Why would Google care if a
>> person has multiple accounts? There are multiple valid reasons for doing
>> so.
>
>They probably don't care if you pay for their services. Free services
>are at /their/ expense; i.e., no revenue generated on those. They're a
>business, not your parents.

They probably don't care, period. I see no reason why they would.

>When creating a Google account, and after entering first and last names,
>and selecting an e-mail address, you are asked for a phone number (and
>other stuff, like birthdate). In the past, you could not create a new
>account without specifying a valid phone which they use to validate the
>account. Looks like they removed that requirement, especially not
>everyone that does e-mail has a phone number, or they don't want to
>divulge it. Back then, if you entered the same phone number as used in
>another account, they'd bitch that number was already used by another
>account, and you got aborted, or had to use another valid phone number.

I didn't run into that issue, and several of my Google accounts date
from the time that you needed an invitation. I used the same name, the
same phone number, and the same recovery email, for several accounts
back then. My other accounts are slightly newer, from when the
invitation requirement was first dropped, but they too had no issues
with using the same name/phone/recovery as the earlier accounts.

<snip>

>So, yes, you can now have multiple Google accounts, but you're still
>using one account at a time. You'd have to bounce around trying to find
>under which account you saved a file.

I primarily use my Google accounts for Gmail, not GD file storage. As a
result, I use all of the accounts all of the time.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> On 11/28/2022 3:59 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> I've never come close to my 100GB Google Drive limit (currently
>>> storing 68GB) why would I pay a "small extra expense" just to
>>> store my 68GB on a larger 2TB drive??
>
>> I sync some folders using OneDrive
>
> Since I use Google Drive I had no need of OneDrive. Surprisingly MS let
> me completely delete it in Programs and Features.
>
>> I still do local backups which are on an internal SATA HDD.
>
> I keep my local backups on thumb drives stored and secured separately.
>
>> Because restoring from the cloud is SLOW.
>
> I've never used GD for a complete restoration so no problem for me. My
> off site backups are stuff like family photos (from late 1800s), music
> collections, legal documents (encrypted), etc.
>
>> Restoring a file is okay, but you'll wait longer.
>
> I seldom need to restore even one file from GD since I also have them
> available locally. However some of my cheaper devices (toys?) have
> little storage (one Chromebook has only 32GB storage) so for them I do
> use GD downloads. For example if I want to peruse a few photos from my
> collection. No NOTICIBLE difference from loading locally however. YMMV.
>
>> To upload that 68 GB you put up on the cloud, it took a long time to
>> do so.
>
> But in small upload increments over the years uploading the 68GB didn't
> seem all that bad.
>
>> If you need more than 15 GB, you likely will need more than 100 GB.
>> You're already approaching the 100 GB limit.
>
> I've been under 75GB on my GD for several years now since I started the
> (gasp) $2/mo subscription.
>
>> OneDrive is cheaper: $19.99/yr for 100 GB is $1.67/mo for 100 GB,
>> compared to $1.99/mo for 100 GB at Google.
>
> It is amazing to me that anyone would worry about much less comment on a
> 32 cents a month difference in price.

I also mentioned features in OneDrive you won't get in Google Drive,
like restoring file state to a specified date and time. Nothing close
to that in Google Drive. OneDrive is designed to cooperate with MS
Office. Google Drive isn't, so all you can do is point Office, or any
app, at the local volume for the Google Drive. There's more choice with
OneDrive; however, if you've been using Google Drive, stick with what
you're used to.

I said OneDrive is cheaper. For some, that means better. For others,
they have reasons for sticking is a more expensive service, but often
the reason is resistance to change. I use both OneDrive, Google Drive,
and Dropbox (and have trialed other cloud storage services).

Tit for tat: It is amazing to me that anyone would worry about ...
saving a little bit of money while getting more features. I take it you
don't use coupons at your grocery store, either.

> BTW I just did some calculations. This should really shake you up. I
> spent over $7000 on sodas in the last ten years. Whoa... 8-O

Many schools got rid of soda dispenser machines. The sugar affects
retention with short-term memory. Of course, there might've been diet
or sugar-free choices, but the students don't predominately pick those.

Even if I drank 1 soda per day for 10 years, that would be 3650 sodas.
My price on soda is pretty cheap as it get it from Aldi's than from
Walmart, grocery stores, etc. I actually like Aldi's brand of diet soda
better than the name brands. A soda from Aldi's costs $0.49/bottle.
So, my cost on soda over the last 10 years would be $18.25 - but I don't
drink a soda a day. In fact, over the last couple of decades, drinking
bottled water has far surpassed how many bottles of soda are consumed.
Water is the most popular beverage on this planet. If I need some
taste, I add a squirt of lemon juice. Besides, reducing all that
consumption of carbonic acid will help reduce the erosion of the enamel
on your teeth, and then add tooth decay and staining with soda.

On 11/28/22 2:03 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> I only have a free account.
>>
>> Why would anyone have anything else? If you need more than 15GB just
>> open a new account.
>
> Because folks don't like having to log into multiple accounts hunting
> for a file.
>
> I wish I could remember, but there was a tool that would combine Gmail
> accounts, so you used one tool to look at files in all your Google Drive
> accounts. The accounts were still separate, but you got a frontend that
> made all of them look like one drive. You could even consolidate cloud
> storage from different providers, like MS OneDrive, Google Drive,
> Dropbox, etc.
>
> When creating multiple Google accounts, they ask for information to
> identify you. That means you would have to enter alternate user data
> for each account, so Google wouldn't notice you're opening multiple
> accounts.

I have six gmail accounts. When I log in to an account with a tablet
that google hasn't seen for a while I get a number of security alerts in
various accounts. Fortunately I don't have to actually DO anything.

I have photos going up to <date> in one account and <date+n> in another.
2.5GB in one (I haven't deleted the takeouts, plus there's a video
that I share with a lot of people) and 853 MB in another.

Apparently they don't care.

> I have a free 2 GB Dropbox
> account, but I only put stuff there that is shared temporarily.

Ditto.

> If I was taxing my free cloud storage accounts, I'd look into what would
> be free or cheap for a personal cloud consolidator. Having umpteen
> accounts to wade through trying to find which has what would get tedious
> real quick.

Fill one, go on to the next. Sort everything by date, which seems like
the most reasonable way.

My son, the computer genius, and I both name our photos by date-time.
Most people just leave theirs with the IMG...... filename, which seems
less useful even if you can see the date. Wait, most people don't see
the dates of their files anyway, just a drawing of a filefolder with a
filename (or part thereof) beneath. How can they live like that?

--
Cheers, Bev
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

On 11/28/22 6:21 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 11/28/2022 3:03 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> If I was taxing my free cloud storage accounts, I'd look into what
>> would be free or cheap for a personal cloud consolidator. Having
>> umpteen accounts to wade through trying to find which has what would
>> get tedious real quick.
>
> When I was taxing my free Google Drive (currently have 68GB stored) I
> simply upped to the $2/mo 100GB subscription. Easy peasy. Dunno about
> the rest here but $2/mo is not a real big drain on my finances...

No, but it's the principle of the thing! When there is a free
equivalent available, why not use it? Money = heartbeats.

--
Cheers, Bev
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

On 11/28/22 7:03 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:21:13 -0700, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On 11/28/2022 3:03 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> If I was taxing my free cloud storage accounts, I'd look into what
>>> would be free or cheap for a personal cloud consolidator. Having
>>> umpteen accounts to wade through trying to find which has what would
>>> get tedious real quick.
>>
>>When I was taxing my free Google Drive (currently have 68GB stored) I
>>simply upped to the $2/mo 100GB subscription. Easy peasy. Dunno about
>>the rest here but $2/mo is not a real big drain on my finances...
>
>
> No, $24 a year isn't a lot of money for most people, but for $55 (just
> over the cost of 2 years of your Google subscription) you could
> instead buy a 2TB external drive from Amazon. 2TB is 20 times as much
> as what you get from Google. I don't know how you feel about it, but I
> would much rather have the 2TB external drive, for the small extra
> expense.

I regard everything I put in the cloud as disposable because it's just a
duplicate of stuff I have on multiple drives on my home system and in
the cloud for convenience.

Considering minimizing even small expenditures is how people manage to
retire early.

--
Cheers, Bev
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

On 11/28/22 1:17 PM, AJL wrote:
> On 11/28/2022 11:14 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

>> I'm too old (85) and frail to do that.
>
> Oh wow, a real old man. I'm just a youngster (80).

Are we grown-ups on the android or windows side of the house? This
thread lives in both.

Android here.

>> Moreover if you took a laptop to your local restaurant and used a
>> table there for as long as I sit at my computer every day, you'd
>> soon get thrown out.
>
> Maybe. Course I could sit outside in my car. And I'll bet I could save a
> lot more than the measly 2 bucks a month we're discussing. Hmmmmm.... ;)

Have to figure in the cost of the gas, especially if you have to keep
the heater or AC running. We're as "low" as $4.29-4% at the local
Costco, but it's still outrageous.

It's really nice having TWO viable ISPs here now. When one's
introductory bargain price runs out, you can switch to the other's
introductory bargain. The difference between Gigabit and 500Mb is
imperceptible.

--
Cheers, Bev
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

Am 29.11.22 um 02:12 schrieb VanguardLH:
> Those that have or consider cloud storage are NOT interested in toting
> around a hard drive (HDD or SSD). They want their files available
> anywhere, even on someone else's computer that is locked down to kill
> all the USB ports making that portable drive useless, but they still let
> you use a web browser. Divide the weight of an external USB drive by
> the weight of a web browser, and you get the web browser is infinitely
> times lighter than an drive, even a USB flash drive.

You are confusing data backups with cloud storage.

Given the US-legislation no reasonable person will ever trust one of the
big players like Google or Microsoft. Even Apple is not really
trustworthy anymore.

Regular full backups on an external medium are absolutely mandatory to
protect data from blocking or stealing. Nevertheless the cloud can be
used for everyday work.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 29.11.22 um 08:14 schrieb The Real Bev:
> On 11/28/22 7:03 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:21:13 -0700, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/28/2022 3:03 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I was taxing my free cloud storage accounts, I'd look into what
>>>> would be free or cheap for a personal cloud consolidator. Having
>>>> umpteen accounts to wade through trying to find which has what would
>>>> get tedious real quick.
>>>
>>> When I was taxing my free Google Drive (currently have 68GB stored) I
>>> simply upped to the $2/mo 100GB subscription. Easy peasy. Dunno about
>>> the rest here but $2/mo is not a real big drain on my finances...
>>
>>
>> No, $24 a year isn't a lot of money for most people, but for $55 (just
>> over the cost of 2 years of your Google subscription) you could
>> instead buy a 2TB external drive from Amazon. 2TB is 20 times as much
>> as what you get from Google. I don't know how you feel about it, but I
>> would much rather have the 2TB external drive, for the small extra
>> expense.
>
> I regard everything I put in the cloud as disposable because it's just a
> duplicate of stuff I have on multiple drives on my home system and in
> the cloud for convenience.

Same here. The only reasonable way forward.

> Considering minimizing even small expenditures is how people manage to
> retire early.

SIC

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 11/28/22 8:10 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2022 3:59 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> OneDrive is cheaper: $19.99/yr for 100 GB is $1.67/mo for 100 GB,
>>> compared to $1.99/mo for 100 GB at Google.
>>
>> It is amazing to me that anyone would worry about much less comment on a
>> 32 cents a month difference in price.

People who think about things like that get to retire at 40.

> Tit for tat: It is amazing to me that anyone would worry about ...
> saving a little bit of money while getting more features. I take it you
> don't use coupons at your grocery store, either.

I used to when they were for stuff I actually wanted to buy. Now the
only coupons are for overpriced brand-name cosmetics/cleaning products
that I buy as generics for significantly less than the coupon price --
if at all. Back in the dark ages the supermarkets doubled or even
TRIPLED coupons, which meant that judicious shoppers could save a bundle
on the groceries they bought anyway.

Minor exceptions: every once in a while Kroger hands out a coupon for a
free pound of their peanut butter -- their natural crunchy PB is the
best I've had for decades. Actually, Skippy super chunk tastes better,
but that's candy rather than food :-)

>> BTW I just did some calculations. This should really shake you up. I
>> spent over $7000 on sodas in the last ten years. Whoa... 8-O

Kalifornia and the company that picks up your recycling can make a
bundle on sodas. The stores collect the 5 or 10 cent deposit, but most
of the redemption centers have closed so people just toss the cans into
the recycle bin. Hubby used to drink sodas. I once took back $135
worth of cans in the pickup.

--
Cheers, Bev
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 23:08:00 -0800, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have six gmail accounts.

Just curious--why? What do you see as the advantage of having more
than one?

MajorLanGod used his or her keyboard to write :

> Enable usb file sharing on the Android device. Then plug it into the
> Windpws device.You whould see it as a device in Fo;e Explorer. Double
> click on it and you should see one or two drives, depending on wheter
> your Android device has an externaal card or not. Then it should just act
> like any other drive. You should be able to open the images by the normal
> Windows softeate.

Are you sure that works with Irfanview (which is a common photo viewer)?
Irfanview won't step from photo to photo on the Android DCIM/Camera photos.
Irfanview will individually view each photo when clicked.
But not when the spacebar is pressed to step to the next photo.

If I copy the photos to Windows, then Irfanview steps through them.

Is there something Irfanview can't read to get to the next photo when it's
look at an Android usb connection?

On 11/27/2022 3:59 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

> Besides the USB dev mode method mentioned by others,

I don't see any mention of putting the Android phone into USB developers
mode, and even so it would need a specific special option, wouldn't it?

What developers mode option would we set?
--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_123234@hotmail.com

AJL wrote:

> On 11/28/2022 9:48 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 08:41:17 -0700, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> since I've never come close to my 100GB Google Drive limit
>>> (currently storing 68GB) why would I pay a "small extra expense"
>>> just to store my 68GB on a larger 2TB drive??
>
>> Two reasons:
>
>> 1. Because you would pay for it once, not every year.
>
> Actually I pay my $2 every month. It's an automatic charge on my credit
> card. No muss no fuss. But again if 2 bucks a month is a burden for
> someone they probably can't afford any computers or ISP services etc.
> anyway...
>
> Damn. Thinking about that, I could run down to my local restaurant that
> has free WiFi and cancel my ISP and save a bunch, huh... ;)
>
>> 2. Because the 68GB you want to store will grow over time.
>
> It hasn't grown for awhile but if it does I'll just opt for the next
> level. $4/mo? Damn how will I ever survive... 8-O
>
>> But what you do is your choice, not mine.
>
> Of course.
>
>> Feel free to ignore my comments.
>
> Why would I do that?

Why do you feel it so necessary to fling ad hominem insults at anyone who
happens to have a slightly different opinion than you do.

Can you just ignore his comments or disagree on sound factors instead of
hurling insult after insult simply because the guy does do what you do?

Do you do that to make yourself feel richer and more superior?

On 28/11/2022 22:17, AJL wrote:

> To me $2/mo is zip. YMMV.

Subscriptions were invented to prey on the mindless like this AJL character
who somehow feels "elevated" in stature that he pays only $2 a month for
what everyone else gets for free.

Otherwise why is every post from him about how rich he is such that AJL
basically donates his money left and right to unnecessary subscriptions.

Anyone smart enough NOT to fall prey to endless subscriptions, he insults.

On 27.11.2022 16:13, micky wrote:
>>micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote in

>>> I'm going for lunch some place tomorrow, and to someone else next month,
>>> and I have two Android phones full of pictures. Both have wanted to see
>>> my pictures in the past.
>>>
>>> Is there any clever way with a cable to connect an Android phone to
>>> their PC and show them like a slidewhow. I mean software. (It will
>>> make the picture bigger so all can see at once.)
>>>
>>> Especially if it's already in the PC. One of them won't want to install
>>> more software.

>>Enable usb file sharing on the Android device. Then plug it into the
>>Windpws device.You whould see it as a device in Fo;e Explorer.

> Wow. Thanks a lot. This worked great. It's amazing what you can learn
> if you ask. I used "Transfer photos". Despite the convoluted story and
> all the complaints that follow, I'm happy with it.

First of all, I think it is no good idea, to just show all pictures
taken with the phone (there maybe are sequences of very similar pictures).
So the first step would be to choose a subset of the pictures which
will be presented. The next step ist to do some image processing:
cropping, hue correction and resizing to a typical screen resolution
(maybe 1920x1080). There is really no need to transfer 20 MPixel
pictures if the monitor can only display 2 MPixel. And last but
not least, put a greater amount of pictures into a single container:
it is easier to transfer a single pdf file than 200 jpgs and nearly
every computer can display pdf files (also in full screen mode).

And not everybody is happy if you connect a device to an USB port
of his PC (it could emulate a keyboard and do weird things). Use
an ftp server on your smartphone, for example
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.primftpd/
(don't install the version from the Google play store).

This way you only have to start the Windows explorer and
enter the ftp link displayed on the phone to copy the
pdf file to the PC. Then a simple double click on the
local stored pdf file starts the preferred pdf viewer.

On 29/11/2022 07:08, The Real Bev wrote:
> I have six gmail accounts.  When I log in to an account with a tablet
> that google hasn't seen for a while I get a number of security alerts in
> various accounts.  Fortunately I don't have to actually DO anything.
>
> I have photos going up to <date> in one account and <date+n> in another.
>  2.5GB in one (I haven't deleted the takeouts, plus there's a video
> that I share with a lot of people) and 853 MB in another.
>
> Apparently they don't care.

So a basically a tiny amount.

I have nearly 80GB of backups in my one Google account and pay for 100GB.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On 29/11/2022 14:49, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 23:08:00 -0800, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have six gmail accounts.
>
>
> Just curious--why? What do you see as the advantage of having more
> than one?

Yes. I'm wondering that.

I'm seriously considering using one Gmail account to deal with all three
of my email addresses.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).