I'm not saying any particular person said that, and the question to Slashdot was asked over 2 decades ago. But I was assured that SSDs were "now reliable as an archival store", despite my informal test failure. (I had backed up something to them, and stuck them in a drawer for perhaps a year. They became unreadable.)
For a mobile device, I'm not sure I would let that much data stack up unique to the device. Pictures/video I would try to do backups on a PC before it got to that.
None of it is unique to the device — I have backups of everything — but I still want the photos and videos on the new phone.
My sample size was small (just a couple), but it decided me not to trust SSDs for backup even though everyone on Slashdot said I should trust them. What I'm afraid is that portable USB drives will start being main with SSDs rather than spinning rust without bothering to tell me.
Not a good idea, but you could try paper tape.
Without knowing precisely how Explorer is structured, it's conceivable that there may be different dynamically-linked libraries and/or execution points for running the desktop and for the file explorer, in which case just having explorer.exe running in and of itself doesn't mean that new modules have to be loaded if explorer.exe process fires up. The solution could very well be to load the libraries involved in file browsing when the desktop opens.
Just guessing here. There was a time when there was a lot more horsepower required for GUI elements than folder browsing, but this is 2025, and explorer.exe probably uses orders of a magnitude more resources now than it did in 1995, because... well, who knows really. Probably to sell more ads and load up more data to their AI.
That, on modern hardware, they have to preload a fucking file browser so that it pops up faster is just an indication of what a steaming pile of garbage MS is. They had sweet spots with Win2k-WinXP and with Win7, but their incoherent need to be a whole bunch of contradictory things --- with AI! has led what was a rather iffy OS and UI experience to begin with to become a cluster fuck of incoherence.
I do most of my day to day work on MacOS and Gnome, and fortunately the Terminal services version I have to RDP into is Server 2016, but every time I have to work with Windows 11 I'm just stunned by just how awful it looks and how badly it behaves.
Thank you for your reply. I can agree not all premium phone users are on the upgrade treadmill. I also bought what was billed as a flagship for its time, but it's 4 years old now and I'm not really feeling the need to upgrade to something newer. My impression was upgrading wasn't such a pain if you had a device that was recent and in high demand still as carriers seem to love running promos with trade-ins, and only mainstream makes/models tend to be eligible.
Transferring a terabyte of data from one phone to another takes the better part of an hour even at real-world USB 3 speeds.
Interesting statistic. I haven't tried the drug, so my response is due to the results I've read reported. I'm a bit surprised that it's as high as 1/4.
- Owners of flagship devices concerned with their image and having the latest tech would be more likely to replace devices more often to get access to the latest gear, perhaps handing the old device down to a spouse or child if they aren't getting a trade-in credit for it.
Counterpoint: My phone history includes:
Assuming I keep the 15 Pro for 3 years (the prior minimum), that's 4.75 years average. I also buy the device with the largest capacity, and always wish it were bigger. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't increase capacity quickly enough for upgrading to help with that.
- Owners of cheap phones more focused on value. Top end features are nice but a luxury for something that has core essential functions for them (acting as a communication device). They lack the disposable income to replace devices as quickly, and wish to get the most return (usable life) for their purchase. They are more likely to keep a device until it becomes unusable (damaged, obsolete on mobile network, etc).
Upgrading is expensive and it is a pain in the a**. So there are multiple reasons to keep a device until it dies. Some people who buy flagship phones have the same concerns.
The main difference is that flagship phones typically get security updates for five to seven years. Low-end phones are often previous generation hardware that is still for sale, and may get security updates for as little as one year from the date of purchase. So unless you're willing to put your entire life at risk by using a phone that has gaping security holes, low-end phones are often false economy, purchased by people who see the price tag and are too broke to afford a better one, who then end up paying for replacement after replacement at a higher rate because they can't afford a phone that will actually last five or six years.
So I would expect low-end phones to get junked every couple of years, and for high-end phones to get junked when support is dropped, assuming that the owners know that the phone is no longer supported, and the rest of them just end up in a giant botnet, and they replace their phones because they're bogged down with malware a few months to a year after they go out of support.
The Android vs. iPhone angle can be more of a toss-up. I would expect the iPhone group to be more on the image/latest-tech group, but iOS devices are generally longer-supported at the OS level, so there is less need to update to stay on a device getting patches. But the Android group might care less about being on a device still getting patches.
iPhone users keep their phones longer than Android users, on average. 61% of iPhone users have owned their phone for more than 2 years, versus just 43% of Android users.
So patch availability does appear to have a significant impact on how long people keep their devices.
The most common side effect I've seen reported is nausea. Sometimes that can lead to vomiting, but it doesn't usually.
They're passenger (and freight) trains. The rails were built for travel, not for scenic display.
OTOH, the sure aren't high speed rail. Most of the lines were build over 50 years ago.
OTOH, the BART example was for a "high speed train", though I believe the speed is limited underground. But the rise is from perhaps two or three stories below ground to about 1 story above ground. That said, I believe that the rise is about 2-3 miles long, so it's not steep.
The capacity of the government of a large jurisdiction like California, or more particularly the US, could bankrupt someone like Musk, so I say, bring it on. Within a decade Musk would have abandoned all efforts, or, even better, be stone cold broke (frankly billionaires shouldn't exist at all, and we should tax the living fuck out of them down to their last $200 million).
We're too afraid of these modern day Bond villains when we should be aiming every financial, and probably every real, cannon straight at them and putting them in a sense of mortal danger every minute of their waking lives, so that they literally piss themselves in terror at the though that "we the people" might decide to wipe them out for good.
N.B.: I good system of automated taxis could do the job...but note "good system". Most places I've ever lived the taxis were both too expensive and to difficult to use to do the job.
A HSR network is really problematic without a really good local transit network. (One you can reasonably carry your baggage on.)
Sometimes using the highway ROW works, other times it doesn't. This partially depends on the design of the highways, and partially depends one whether they have the same destination. A train station under a section of elevated roadway can work well...but if you don't have that convenient elevated roadway things can get more difficult.
I can't even estimate costs, but they can get pretty high. (And sometimes it's easy.)
Nothing motivates a man more than to see his boss put in an honest day's work.
