On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 14:20:02 -0700, Alan wrote:

>> Everyone knows you do not need to create a google account to search for,
>> download and install apps directly from the google play store repository.
>>
>> Except you.
>
> I showed you a screenshot that proves you wrong.

Like I said, everyone knows two things you do not know.

The first is that apple inserts a unique tracking identifier into every app
that you download which not only locks that app (even free apps!) to your
appleid but also allows apple to sell any information they gain from it.

Only apple inserts your unique identification into every app you install.

For you say you don't know this by now means you're lying because everyone
knows it and therefore it's easy to find out with a simple google search.

The second is that only you are unaware that anyone can install apps
directly from the google play store repository using any number of foss
skins much like how a web browser can access any file made available.

Since you've had ample opportunity to look up what auroraoss does, I will
be forced to assume you're lying since everyone knows that this is so.

The reason that everything you've said has to be a lie is everyone knows
this and for you to say that only you don't know it must then be a lie.

On 11 Oct 2023 15:28:30 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> The reason Apple ties every app installed to the person who installed it
>> is that Apple is logging every mouse click he does with every app he uses.
>>
>> It's all tied to his AppleID which is why Apple wants him logging in.
>>
>> Apple is probably selling his data to the developers and to advertisers.
>
> Everything in this post is false.

Except that it's all correct and only apple modifies every app to insert a
unique tracking it that is strictly locked to your appleid into every app.

On 11 Oct 2023 15:29:34 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Both, and a weak troll to boot.

You call it a troll because you refuse to believe that only apple inserts a
unique tracking identifier tied to your appleid into every app you install.

And you refuse to believe you do not need to create a google account to
download and install any free app directly from the google play repository.

Try this test and watch it work on android and fail on ios.

Without ever creating an apple account, download an app from the apple app
store and install it and then use the saved ipa on a phone you don't own.

Compare the results with......

Without ever creating a google account, download an app from the google
play store and install it & then use the saved apk on any other phone.

The proof that you're lying is both will work on any android phone.
Neither will work on any iphone.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 23:09:59 -0700, Alan wrote:

>> You're saying you are installing apple app store apps without an account?
>>
>> You're a liar.
>
> How is not being able to do that one thing the same as "almost everything"?

Try this test and watch it work on android and fail on ios.

Without ever creating an apple account, download an app from the apple app
store and install it and then use the saved ipa on a phone you don't own.

Compare the results with......

Without ever creating a google account, download an app from the google
play store and install it & then use the saved apk on any other phone.

The proof that you're lying is both will work on any android phone.
Neither will work on any iphone.

Wally J wrote:
> "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> The help pages for what is needed don't seem to make it clear though that
>>> the MSA is required, but I only skimmed them - the OP can look deeper.
>>> <https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/phone-link-app-requirements-and-setup-cd2a1ee7-75a7-66a6-9d4e-bf22e735f9e3>
>>>
>>> I am still on Windows 10, but if the OP is on Windows 11, maybe the need
>>> for that MSA isn't so onerous as he would already have created it, right?
>>>
>>
>> The docs on the app could have been written better.
>>
>> For the most part(for Win10) if the app requires an MSA to download from
>> the MSFT store or a feature included app in Windows, there's a good
>> chance an MSA is required for use.
>>
>> For Win11, which is more closely designed(and expected) to be used with
>> an MSA, it seems reasonably logical that the MSA logon used for Windows
>> 11 having already signed on - meets the Phone Link's MSA requirement.
>
> I think we agree (you, me and Andy Burns at least) that the MSA is a
> requirement, even it's not explicitly spelled out at the "beginning".
>
> Now... what about Ant's objection that Bluetooth is also required?
>
> When I grep for bluetooth in the document, the word "bluetooth" shows up 14
> times, but tellingly, first only under the "setup for Instant Hotspot"...
> <https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/phone-link-app-requirements-and-setup-cd2a1ee7-75a7-66a6-9d4e-bf22e735f9e3>
> How to setup Instant Hotspot?
> ... stuff ...
> What are the requirements for using this feature?
> ... stuff ...
> A PC with Bluetooth support and Wi-Fi adapter
> ... stuff ...
>
> But then "bluetooth" shows up 13 more times after that, where I'm not sure
> if BT is needed or not for the typical normal Link to Windows requirements.
>

At this end, not actually agreeing. Just stating what I know is
true(required).
- MSA required

Bluetooth
- requirement is Android and iOS based for their smartphones.
i.e. not a MSFT or Windows requirment per se. It's the connectivity
required by Android and iOS to sync the phone for the Windows app.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

"...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote

> At this end, not actually agreeing. Just stating what I know is
> true(required).
> - MSA required
>
> Bluetooth
> - requirement is Android and iOS based for their smartphones.
> i.e. not a MSFT or Windows requirment per se. It's the connectivity
> required by Android and iOS to sync the phone for the Windows app.

Leave it to Microsoft to be so sneaky as to not be explicit that the MSA is
required for things that it should NOT need to have an MSA to do.

An example is I just tried to install this "To Do" app from Microsoft.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.todos>

Nowhere does it say (that I could find) that you need an MSA account.
So I install it.

Guess what the first thing is that it requires just to open up the app.....

On 2023-10-12 14:35, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 14:20:02 -0700, Alan wrote:
>
>>> Everyone knows you do not need to create a google account to search for,
>>> download and install apps directly from the google play store repository.
>>>
>>> Except you.
>>
>> I showed you a screenshot that proves you wrong.
>
> Like I said, everyone knows two things you do not know.
>
> The first is that apple inserts a unique tracking identifier into every app
> that you download which not only locks that app (even free apps!) to your
> appleid but also allows apple to sell any information they gain from it.
>
> Only apple inserts your unique identification into every app you install.
>
> For you say you don't know this by now means you're lying because everyone
> knows it and therefore it's easy to find out with a simple google search.

None of that addresses the fact that I showed you a screenshot of the
Google Play store telling me I needed an account.

>
> The second is that only you are unaware that anyone can install apps
> directly from the google play store repository using any number of foss
> skins much like how a web browser can access any file made available.
>
> Since you've had ample opportunity to look up what auroraoss does, I will
> be forced to assume you're lying since everyone knows that this is so.
>
> The reason that everything you've said has to be a lie is everyone knows
> this and for you to say that only you don't know it must then be a lie.

I dealt with that.

Direct from the URL YOU gave me:

'Account login: You can login with either personal or an anonymous account'

Which therefore explicitly shows you need a Google account to use Aurora
OSS.

You lose.

On 2023-10-12 14:42, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2023 15:28:30 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> The reason Apple ties every app installed to the person who installed it
>>> is that Apple is logging every mouse click he does with every app he uses.
>>>
>>> It's all tied to his AppleID which is why Apple wants him logging in.
>>>
>>> Apple is probably selling his data to the developers and to advertisers.
>>
>> Everything in this post is false.
>
> Except that it's all correct and only apple modifies every app to insert a
> unique tracking it that is strictly locked to your appleid into every app.

And yet you've snipped so much of his post...

....so you are obviously (tacitly) admitting he was correct about
everything else.

And since no one denies that Apple inserts the AppleID into app
downloads, you're left arguing a straw man.

On 2023-10-12 14:51, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 23:09:59 -0700, Alan wrote:
>
>>> You're saying you are installing apple app store apps without an account?
>>>
>>> You're a liar.
>>
>> How is not being able to do that one thing the same as "almost everything"?
>
> Try this test and watch it work on android and fail on ios.

Will that answer the question regarding you claiming you wouldn't be
able to do "almost everything"?

>
> Without ever creating an apple account, download an app from the apple app
> store and install it and then use the saved ipa on a phone you don't own.
>
> Compare the results with......
>
> Without ever creating a google account, download an app from the google
> play store and install it & then use the saved apk on any other phone.

Sorry, but the Google Play store requires an account.

That is completely settled.

You've tacitly admitted as much my suggesting you can work around that
fact by using Aurora OSS (or something similar)...

....when in fact Aurora OSS says you need an account as well.

>
> The proof that you're lying is both will work on any android phone.
> Neither will work on any iphone.

So you (tacitly) agree this is the only thing that actually can't be done.

Got it!

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| > Yes, "cell phones" is an American thing.
| | Because it's based on "cellular radio" with roaming/handoff. Who knew.
|

Anything but "smart phone" is fine with me. That's
just marketing. Though I've noticed that increasingly people
just say "phone". And I've noticed that increasingly
people assume my phone number is cell phone, which
it isn't. People get suspicious, like I'm not giving them
my "real" number.

On 2023-10-12, Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2023 15:29:34 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Both, and a weak troll to boot.
>
> You call it a troll because you refuse to believe that only apple inserts a
> unique tracking identifier tied to your appleid into every app you install.

I've known that since the App Store first opened, dumbass. 🤣 It's
common knowledge. You're just latching onto this straw man and trying to
weasel your way out of the actual topic of this thread out of
desperation, and that's crystal clear for all to see. You're a mental
weakling, Arlen. Just pathetic.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Wally J wrote:
> "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> At this end, not actually agreeing. Just stating what I know is
>> true(required).
>> - MSA required
>>
>> Bluetooth
>> - requirement is Android and iOS based for their smartphones.
>> i.e. not a MSFT or Windows requirment per se. It's the connectivity
>> required by Android and iOS to sync the phone for the Windows app.
>
> Leave it to Microsoft to be so sneaky as to not be explicit that the MSA is
> required for things that it should NOT need to have an MSA to do.
>
> An example is I just tried to install this "To Do" app from Microsoft.
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.todos>
>
> Nowhere does it say (that I could find) that you need an MSA account.
> So I install it.
>
> Guess what the first thing is that it requires just to open up the app.....
>
:)
I believe I mentioned(earlier)...
- if it's an app from MSFT, good chance in every instance an MSA is
required. While some included apps can be run without an MSA(or a notice
to sign on with an MSA), the design intent since Windows 8.0 has been to
use an MSA.
- pretty much strengthened further since Win10 was released

Lol...its not much different when design intent using a Microsoft
Account(fka as Live account) in 2008 first appeared with the release of
the Windows Essentials suite(Windows Live Mail, Photo Gallery, Movie Maker)
- while not necessary the design intent was to use these programs with
an MSA(Live Account - Outlook/Hotmail/Live/Msn.com, Passport.net or any
third party email registered as an MSA/Microsoft account).

Sneaky? No...an MSA use has been the norm for years with the initial
direction over 15 yrs ago.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

"...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote

> I believe I mentioned(earlier)...

Ah. You did. My bad. I'm just slowly coming to that realization.
Empirically.

> - if it's an app from MSFT, good chance in every instance an MSA is
> required. While some included apps can be run without an MSA(or a notice
> to sign on with an MSA), the design intent since Windows 8.0 has been to
> use an MSA.

You have a better handle on Microsoft's MSA-lockin strategy than I do.

There is no doubt the always-logged-into-the-mothership-servers model has
worked beautifully for Apple where I'd wager 98% of Apple users don't even
realize they're sheep kept in the slaughterhouse surrounded by the garden.

But I thought Windows users were smarter than that in that we've all
rebelled against, oh, say, Windows 10 S which at first "seemed to" require
a MSA but in reality, it was very easily worked around (turning Windows 10
S into Windows 10 Home rather easily).

The requirement for the MS Store account also was easily circumvented
simply by not getting anything from the MS Store (which, to my knowledge,
doesn't contain anything of any worth). Even Paint.NET (my favorite free
PhotoShop editor on Windows) is obtained outside of the MS Store (although
inside the MS Store they charge people dumb enough to pay for it there).

> - pretty much strengthened further since Win10 was released

You're ahead of me on understanding Microsoft's MSA strategy as I have no
account still - and yet - I've tried to remove my Apple account from my
iPads and everything stops working.

While temporarily creating a MSA account for my first Windows 10 S
conversion was "fixed" by requesting a deletion from MS (which they did
some time later), I hear that only in Windows 11 is the damn thing
required.

If that's true, then it took Microsoft from Windows 8 to now to make it a
reality. Luckily there's nothing Windows 11 does that all the other
Windows versions don't (or won't) do, so I'm safe for another few years.
--
The whole point of Usenet is to find people who know more than you do.
And to add tribal knowledge to the newsgroup archives for others to find.

Wally J wrote:

[snip]

> While temporarily creating a MSA account for my first Windows 10 S
> conversion was "fixed" by requesting a deletion from MS (which they did
> some time later), I hear that only in Windows 11 is the damn thing
> required.

It's not required. It is possible to install Windows 11 Pro without a
MSA. Not sure about Windows 11 Home.

This is for a Dell Vostro 5620 with W11Pro pre-installed.

Power up
Agree language and keyboard settings
It wants a network connection

Key Shift + Fn + F10 to get a command window.

(The Fn key is becasye it's a small keyboard, so the Function keys are
shared with the number keys alon the top row.)

Then type:
oobe\bypassnro
machine restarts

Then repeat steps until given the option:

.... I don't have internet ...

Continue limited setup, which allows you to create a Local Administrator
account.

--
Graham J

On 10/13/2023 2:50 AM, ...winston wrote:
> Wally J wrote:
>> "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> At this end, not actually agreeing.  Just stating what I know is
>>> true(required).
>>>    - MSA required
>>>
>>> Bluetooth
>>>    - requirement is Android and iOS based for their smartphones.
>>>    i.e. not a MSFT or Windows requirment per se. It's the connectivity
>>> required by Android and iOS to sync the phone for the Windows app.
>>
>> Leave it to Microsoft to be so sneaky as to not be explicit that the MSA is
>> required for things that it should NOT need to have an MSA to do.
>>
>> An example is I just tried to install this "To Do" app from Microsoft.
>>   <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.todos>
>>
>> Nowhere does it say (that I could find) that you need an MSA account.
>> So I install it.
>>
>> Guess what the first thing is that it requires just to open up the app.....
>>
> :)
> I believe I mentioned(earlier)...
>  - if it's an app from MSFT, good chance in every instance an MSA is required. While some included apps can be run without an MSA(or a notice to sign on with an MSA), the design intent since Windows 8.0 has been to use an MSA.
>  - pretty much strengthened further since Win10 was released
>
> Lol...its not much different when design intent using a Microsoft Account(fka as Live account) in 2008 first appeared with the release of the Windows Essentials suite(Windows Live Mail, Photo Gallery, Movie Maker)
>  - while not necessary the design intent was to use these programs with an MSA(Live Account - Outlook/Hotmail/Live/Msn.com, Passport.net or any third party email registered as an MSA/Microsoft account).
>
> Sneaky?  No...an MSA use has been the norm for years with the initial direction over 15 yrs ago.
>

A way to install a Metro App, might be to use "winget".
I don't know what dependencies that has.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/package-manager/winget/

Paul

Graham J wrote:

> It is possible to install Windows 11 Pro without a MSA.  Not sure about
> Windows 11 Home

I used shift-F10 then
taskkill /F /IM oobenetworkconnectionflow.exe

Wally J wrote:
> "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> I believe I mentioned(earlier)...
>
> Ah. You did. My bad. I'm just slowly coming to that realization.
> Empirically.
>
>> - if it's an app from MSFT, good chance in every instance an MSA is
>> required. While some included apps can be run without an MSA(or a notice
>> to sign on with an MSA), the design intent since Windows 8.0 has been to
>> use an MSA.
>
> You have a better handle on Microsoft's MSA-lockin strategy than I do.
>
> There is no doubt the always-logged-into-the-mothership-servers model has
> worked beautifully for Apple where I'd wager 98% of Apple users don't even
> realize they're sheep kept in the slaughterhouse surrounded by the garden.
>
> But I thought Windows users were smarter than that in that we've all
> rebelled against, oh, say, Windows 10 S which at first "seemed to" require
> a MSA but in reality, it was very easily worked around (turning Windows 10
> S into Windows 10 Home rather easily).
>
That doesn't change much. The Windows apps in Win10/11 S are the same
apps in Windows 10/11 Home/Pro.
S mode is a Windows Store app only mode requiring Edge for browsing
- i.e. not able to install programs from other sources(e.g.3rd party)

> The requirement for the MS Store account also was easily circumvented
> simply by not getting anything from the MS Store (which, to my knowledge,
> doesn't contain anything of any worth). Even Paint.NET (my favorite free
> PhotoShop editor on Windows) is obtained outside of the MS Store (although
> inside the MS Store they charge people dumb enough to pay for it there).

There are two releases of Paint.net - one free, one paid
iirc, the Store version has auto version updating

Paint.net does appreciate donations for using the free version, the paid
version meets that intent.

>
>> - pretty much strengthened further since Win10 was released
>
> You're ahead of me on understanding Microsoft's MSA strategy as I have no
> account still - and yet - I've tried to remove my Apple account from my
> iPads and everything stops working.

Design intent. That been the same for years, even before iPads, iPods
and iTouch devices used iTunes and an Apple ID to sync.

>
> While temporarily creating a MSA account for my first Windows 10 S
> conversion was "fixed" by requesting a deletion from MS (which they did
> some time later), I hear that only in Windows 11 is the damn thing
> required.

Not necessarily true. A Local account can still be created in Windows 11
If upgraded to Win11 from Win10, all Windows logon accounts(MSA and
Local) by default/design will be retained.

>
> If that's true, then it took Microsoft from Windows 8 to now to make it a
> reality. Luckily there's nothing Windows 11 does that all the other
> Windows versions don't (or won't) do, so I'm safe for another few years.
>
See above, not entirely true.
Nothing wrong with staying on Windows 10 at least until EOL in 2025

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

"...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote

>> But I thought Windows users were smarter than that in that we've all
>> rebelled against, oh, say, Windows 10 S which at first "seemed to" require
>> a MSA but in reality, it was very easily worked around (turning Windows 10
>> S into Windows 10 Home rather easily).
>>
> That doesn't change much. The Windows apps in Win10/11 S are the same
> apps in Windows 10/11 Home/Pro.

The power of any operating system, particularly Windows, isn't in the
programs that come with it - but in the programs you can add to it later.

To that end, Windows S, to me, is no different than iOS or Chrome as a
locked-down operating system, where I grew up in the freedom of the fifties
and sixties and seventies and eighties and nineties - so I rebelled against
the attempts in the past decade to lock me into a walled garden in Redmond.

> S mode is a Windows Store app only mode requiring Edge for browsing
> - i.e. not able to install programs from other sources(e.g.3rd party)

My first (of three) Windows S to Windows 10 Home conversions required the
MSA (as I recall - but only because I allowed it to go too far at first, as
I recall). The other two did NOT require me to make an MSA and then ask for
deletion of the MSA (which Microsoft did, after a lengthy span of time).

While my wife unthinkingly moved her laptop to Windows 11, none of my
desktops have the requisite hardware so I'm stuck on Windows 10 for now.

If/when I do migrate to Windows 11, it will likely be on a laptop that
already has it installed where I saw the posts from Andy Burns & Graham J
that Windows 11 doesn't necessarily require teh MSA account.

I should probably try it first on my wife's migrated laptop - but she'll
kill me if something goes wrong. :)

>> The requirement for the MS Store account also was easily circumvented
>> simply by not getting anything from the MS Store (which, to my knowledge,
>> doesn't contain anything of any worth). Even Paint.NET (my favorite free
>> PhotoShop editor on Windows) is obtained outside of the MS Store (although
>> inside the MS Store they charge people dumb enough to pay for it there).
>
> There are two releases of Paint.net - one free, one paid
> iirc, the Store version has auto version updating

Funny thing is that FOSS Pinta is supposed to replace the FOSS Paint.NET,
but I tested them both over the years (albeit not recently) and it had not.

Maybe it's time to test the two of them again for the 3 things I do most.

Another funny thing is if you act innocent and just google for how to
install Paint.NET for free, it's not easy to find the correct URLs for it.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?&q=download+paint.net+freeware>

To help others, these are the "correct" URLs if anyone here wants them.
<https://www.dotpdn.com/downloads/pdn.html>
<https://github.com/paintdotnet/release/releases/tag/v5.0.11>
> Paint.net does appreciate donations for using the free version, the paid
> version meets that intent.

I'm helping a very small number of developers on XDA improve their apps,
where the way I "donate" is I test their software for them, in detail.

I suggest to every one of them to add a button to ask for donations.

An example is this free app which is the best engine for what it does.
<https://xdaforums.com/t/app-6-0-app-finder-the-most-advanced-search-engine-for-android-apps.4578809/page-10#post-89024201>

>>> - pretty much strengthened further since Win10 was released
>>
>> You're ahead of me on understanding Microsoft's MSA strategy as I have no
>> account still - and yet - I've tried to remove my Apple account from my
>> iPads and everything stops working.
>
> Design intent. That been the same for years, even before iPads, iPods
> and iTouch devices used iTunes and an Apple ID to sync.

I see the inherent advantage to the mothership of having everyone do all
that neat 'garden' stuff on mothership servers, but I rebel against it.

Currently I have no MSA and I can do whatever I need to do.
Likewise I have no Google Account on my Androids & I do just fine w/o it.
It's on the iPads that removing the mothership account caused all to fail.

I don't blame Microsoft for wanting to get everyone on their servers.
I'm happy that on Windows 11 Home, we can avoid it when I get there.

I'm of the opinion that nothing changes but the paint when Microsoft shifts
to a new operating system, although the bugfix support is a necessary item.

>> While temporarily creating a MSA account for my first Windows 10 S
>> conversion was "fixed" by requesting a deletion from MS (which they did
>> some time later), I hear that only in Windows 11 is the damn thing
>> required.
>
> Not necessarily true. A Local account can still be created in Windows 11
> If upgraded to Win11 from Win10, all Windows logon accounts(MSA and
> Local) by default/design will be retained.

Hmmmm.... oh... wow... that may be how my wife upgraded her laptop as she
punched the buttons without even telling me (as I don't open her laptop
unless it's the only laptop around & I need to do a search or whatever).

I was actually surprised she was on Windows 11, so I had simply _assumed_
she had created the MSA. I didn't even ask her as I assumed it was needed.

Since I set up her laptop (years ago) when I had bought it for her, and
since it came as S, I know she had only a local account on Windows 10 Home.

How would I run a test on her laptop to see if she has an MSA?

(She probably wouldn't even know herself as I assigned the local laptop
username and password, although none of my computers or phones have them).

>> If that's true, then it took Microsoft from Windows 8 to now to make it a
>> reality. Luckily there's nothing Windows 11 does that all the other
>> Windows versions don't (or won't) do, so I'm safe for another few years.
>>
> See above, not entirely true.
> Nothing wrong with staying on Windows 10 at least until EOL in 2025

I have asked, in the past, what we can do on Windows 10 that we couldn't do
on the previous versions and the answer is pretty much nothing is new.

Having been on Windows since the 95/XP days, I'm willing to bet the trend
is similar with Windows 11, although as you're well aware, I had to pull my
WinXP 1/2 GB RAM Dell laptop off the net which still runs my USB printer.

About the only issue is the loss of hotfix support for Windows 10.

I'm hoping by then they will have workarounds for my older circa 2009 (but
powerful at the time) 16 GB RAM Windows Pro desktops.

In summary, thank you for your insight, which exceeds that of mine.
--
The whole point of Usenet is to find people who know more than you do.
And to add tribal knowledge to the newsgroup archives for others to find.

Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>
> | > Yes, "cell phones" is an American thing.
> |
> | Because it's based on "cellular radio" with roaming/handoff. Who knew.
>
> Anything but "smart phone" is fine with me. That's
> just marketing. Though I've noticed that increasingly people
> just say "phone".

Well, first of all, it's not a "smart phone", but a "smartphone'. The
former leads to biased assumptions like yours.

But indeed, if it's about the normal voice calling and SMS/MMS
functions, calling it a "mobile phone" or "phone" is appropriate/
enough.

Only if the additional functions of a smartphone are being discussed,
it's better to say "smartphone", unless that's evident from the context
(for example a post in comp.mobile.android).

> And I've noticed that increasingly
> people assume my phone number is cell phone, which
> it isn't. People get suspicious, like I'm not giving them
> my "real" number.

Well, that's what you get for living in that weird country! No such
problem in the real world! :-)

On 14 Oct 2023 12:40:24 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>>
>> | > Yes, "cell phones" is an American thing.
>> |
>> | Because it's based on "cellular radio" with roaming/handoff. Who knew.
>>
>> Anything but "smart phone" is fine with me. That's
>> just marketing. Though I've noticed that increasingly people
>> just say "phone".
>
> Well, first of all, it's not a "smart phone", but a "smartphone'. The
>former leads to biased assumptions like yours.

I'll add that in the early days of "smartphones," there were still a
lot of fliptop cellular phones around that did almost nothing but make
and receive calls. So using the term "smartphone" was a good way to
distinguish them from those.

Now that those "dumb" phones are largely gone, the term "smartphone"
is really no longer needed.

By the way, the spell checker here in Agent doesn't like "smartphone"
and wants to change it to "smart phone." Personally I think either
spelling is OK.

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2023 12:40:24 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> >> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
> >>
> >> | > Yes, "cell phones" is an American thing.
> >> |
> >> | Because it's based on "cellular radio" with roaming/handoff. Who knew.
> >>
> >> Anything but "smart phone" is fine with me. That's
> >> just marketing. Though I've noticed that increasingly people
> >> just say "phone".
> >
> > Well, first of all, it's not a "smart phone", but a "smartphone'. The
> >former leads to biased assumptions like yours.
>
>
> I'll add that in the early days of "smartphones," there were still a
> lot of fliptop cellular phones around that did almost nothing but make
> and receive calls. So using the term "smartphone" was a good way to
> distinguish them from those.

Yes, but the digital - i.e. GSM and later - 'dumb' phones already had
quite a bit of other stuff, like calendar, note taking, games :-),
predictive text, etc., etc. (I could fire up my old Nokia to check
:-)), that's why they were often called 'feature phones'. Some even had
e-mail, web-browser, modem (to connect to a computer (*laptop*! :-)) for
Internet connectivity), etc..

> Now that those "dumb" phones are largely gone, the term "smartphone"
> is really no longer needed.

Our Prime Minister ('Minister President') used one (a 'dumb' Nokia)
until not too long ago. He was forced to switch to a smartphone,
because the Nokia couldn't store enough messages, so he was deleting old
ones, which violated the archiving laws. :-) He also drives a very old
Saab.

> By the way, the spell checker here in Agent doesn't like "smartphone"
> and wants to change it to "smart phone." Personally I think either
> spelling is OK.

Before posting, I checked. Wikipedia, Samsung and 'my' major
electronics webshop. All say "smartphone", that's enough proof for me.

Ken Blake wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2023 12:40:24 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>> | > Yes, "cell phones" is an American thing.
>>> |
>>> | Because it's based on "cellular radio" with roaming/handoff. Who knew.
>>>
>>> Anything but "smart phone" is fine with me. That's
>>> just marketing. Though I've noticed that increasingly people
>>> just say "phone".
>>
>> Well, first of all, it's not a "smart phone", but a "smartphone'. The
>> former leads to biased assumptions like yours.
>
>
> I'll add that in the early days of "smartphones," there were still a
> lot of fliptop cellular phones around that did almost nothing but make
> and receive calls. So using the term "smartphone" was a good way to
> distinguish them from those.
>
> Now that those "dumb" phones are largely gone, the term "smartphone"
> is really no longer needed.
>
> By the way, the spell checker here in Agent doesn't like "smartphone"
> and wants to change it to "smart phone." Personally I think either
> spelling is OK.
>

I think your dating yourself<g> or never had one of the later flip type
phones.
My last flip phone(before switching to an iPhone[made sense since all my
music was already in iTunes having used iPods since original release and
an iPod touch) had the expected(call/recieve phone calls) but it also
had a calendar, sms txt, apps, create notes and the ability to access
the internet via cellular(aka LTE, no wifi) using the included browser
and upload/backup contacts to the Verizon server.
Never used the flip phone for those other features because my iPod
touch(wifi/BT capable) synced my Outlook contacts and calendar, Safari
web browser, send/received mail and all my music.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 21:27:18 -0400, "...winston"
<winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 14 Oct 2023 12:40:24 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>>>>
>>>> | > Yes, "cell phones" is an American thing.
>>>> |
>>>> | Because it's based on "cellular radio" with roaming/handoff. Who knew.
>>>>
>>>> Anything but "smart phone" is fine with me. That's
>>>> just marketing. Though I've noticed that increasingly people
>>>> just say "phone".
>>>
>>> Well, first of all, it's not a "smart phone", but a "smartphone'. The
>>> former leads to biased assumptions like yours.
>>
>>
>> I'll add that in the early days of "smartphones," there were still a
>> lot of fliptop cellular phones around that did almost nothing but make
>> and receive calls. So using the term "smartphone" was a good way to
>> distinguish them from those.
>>
>> Now that those "dumb" phones are largely gone, the term "smartphone"
>> is really no longer needed.
>>
>> By the way, the spell checker here in Agent doesn't like "smartphone"
>> and wants to change it to "smart phone." Personally I think either
>> spelling is OK.
>>
>
>I think your dating yourself<g>

Perhaps. I do it all the time. <g>

> or never had one of the later flip type
>phones.

No, I never did. the only I ever had was an early one.

But my point remains. The reason the adjective "smart" isn't needed
before "phone" is that these days, all (almost all?) cell phones are
smart..

On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:35:06 -0400, Paul wrote:

> A way to install a Metro App, might be to use "winget".
> I don't know what dependencies that has.
>
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/package-manager/winget/

This app says it fives SMS/MMS directly to the Windows PC.

Private Contacts - Private Call & SMS on Windows Pc
https://appsonwindows.com/apk/2426789/
https://download.appsonwindows.com/download/hazar.studio.privatecontacts-v1.2.9-appsonwindows.com.apk

About this app
On this page you can download Private Contacts - Private Call & SMS and
install on Windows PC. Private Contacts - Private Call & SMS is free
Communication app, developed by Hazar Studio. Latest version of Private
Contacts - Private Call & SMS is 1.2.9, was released on 2018-08-01 (updated
on 2019-07-06).

Technical details
File Name: hazar.studio.privatecontacts-v1.2.9-appsonwindows.com.apk
Version: 1.2.9 (Release Date August 01, 2018)
File Size: 11.5 MB
File MD5: 284522C8C0F9D8445AD5FD14C8324488
Developed By: Hazar Studio

Step By Step Guide To Install Private Contacts - Private Call & SMS using
BlueStacks

Download and Install BlueStacks at: https://www.bluestacks.com. The
installation procedure is quite simple. After successful installation, open
the Bluestacks emulator. It may take some time to load the Bluestacks app
initially. Once it is opened, you should be able to see the Home screen of
Bluestacks.
Open the APK/XAPK file: Double-click the APK/XAPK file to launch BlueStacks
and install the application. If your APK/XAPK file doesn't automatically
open BlueStacks, right-click on it and select Open with... Browse to the
BlueStacks. You can also drag-and-drop the APK/XAPK file onto the
BlueStacks home screen
Once installed, click "Private Contacts - Private Call & SMS" icon on the
home screen to start using, it'll work like a charm :D
[Note 1] For better performance and compatibility, choose BlueStacks 5
Nougat 64-bit read more
[Note 2] about Bluetooth: At the moment, support for Bluetooth is not
available on BlueStacks. Hence, apps that require control of Bluetooth may
not work on BlueStacks.

How to install Private Contacts - Private Call & SMS on Windows PC using
NoxPlayer

Download & Install NoxPlayer at: https://www.bignox.com. The installation
is easy to carry out.
Drag the APK/XAPK file to the NoxPlayer interface and drop it to install
The installation process will take place quickly. After successful
installation, you can find "Private Contacts - Private Call & SMS" on the
home screen of NoxPlayer, just click to open it.

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

>
I'll add that in the early days of "smartphones," there were still a
lot of fliptop cellular phones around that did almost nothing but make
and receive calls. So using the term "smartphone" was a good way to
distinguish them from those.

Now that those "dumb" phones are largely gone, the term "smartphone"
is really no longer needed.
>

Actually they're making a comeback. I visited two brothers
this weekend. Both now have a fliphpone. Why? They don't
want to text and the flip-phone is cheap. Though my fully
computerized Tracfone only cost me $0 + $20 every 3 months.
It has Firefox installed and has no problem going online. I
could text... if I wanted to give anyone the phone number. :)