On 1/28/2023 9:56 PM, DK wrote:
In article <tqgvul$2l64n$[email protected]>, "Newyana2" <[email protected]> wrote:
I just thought I'd post this info, in case it's of use to
anyone. I was trying to copy PDFs from a computer to
an Android cellphone. People were helpful and I finally
managed to work it out on Win10.
Out of curiosity I decided to try XP, my main machine
No go. It turns out that XP doesn't properly support MTP
protocol, required for the job.
I've no idea but I have two older phones that have no problem
doing that:
1. HPT One. Simply plugging it as USB allows the use it as a flash drive.
I can see everything on the phone and am able to copy back and forth.
2. Ancient Samsung (I can't even remember a version). Had to install
some sort of Samsung USB drivers. After that, it's exactly as #1.
Did Android move to Apple-like evilness in the past decade?
DK
Samsung has provided an MTP driver in the past, and that's probably
what you were using for (2). The INF may list a bunch of Samsung
devices. You could download and check and see how "Samsung-specific" the
file was.
https://drivers.softpedia.com/get/MOBILES/Samsung/SAMSUNG-Mobile-MTP-Device-Driver-2-12-5-0-for-XP.shtml
Your (1) case would be USB Mass Storage standard, rather than MTP.
And the OS has USB Mass Storage in WinXP, already.
The Windows Media Player is simply another way to get the WinXP MTP driver.
It would cover cases where the device manufacturer was negligent
and provided no MTP driver.
With MTP, the device can access flash at the same time as Windows
accesses the flash storage.
With USB Mass Storage, only one processor at a time has access to flash.
If Windows accesses the HPT in (1), then the device itself cannot
use the flash at the same time.
The reason the MTP concept is bad, is the interface standard
works at a file level, and this results in a lot of cable
traffic for directory listing and directory updating. This makes
MTP a particularly inefficient storage standard. Google attempted
to fix this, by adding a feature to MTP protocol, so that
there was some mechanism for "fractions of a file". This may have
been an attempt to make the interface seem more responsive, instead
of it sullenly sitting there and not telling you what it was doing.
if you were moving a 30GB file, there would be a granularity issue.
Paul
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)