Jump to content


DirtyHarry50

Member Since 09 Mar 2015
Offline Last Active Today, 07:17 AM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Apple Photos App Confusion

Yesterday, 09:05 AM

View Postmacdude22, on 19 October 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

Ya are you using OneDrive iOS app to upload your photos to OneDrive or do you want to enable iCloud Photo Library (which is not the same as Photostream)? iCloud library will sync the Photos library on any mac/ios device that has iCloud library enabled. Basically you get a new library, the iCloud Photo Library. You can then copy/merge additional items/libraries into that library. If going the iCloud route I would suggest turning off iCloud library on all devices, then enabling it first on the primary device (your phone?), getting the library configured to your specifications, then enabling it on additional devices.

I don't know anything about how the OneDrive iOS app determines what to automatically upload in the background when you enable this in the app (I don't use OneDrive). It sounds like OneDrive doesn't just scoop up your photos when this is enabled but sends them up as you take them. I would imagine there is some ability to tell it to send the rest, but I have never used the app.

I would not recommend turning off iCloud iOS backups unless you are using iTunes to backup the device. You will lose any app settings, saves, etc.... in the event of a device failure. The backups themselves only backup custom data (ergo apps are not included in the backup because they get re-downloaded from Apple during restore)

Thanks for all the detail here too. I did not say it clearly being too lazy to go look up the precise name of the setting but I turned on iCloud Library on both the iPhone and iPad when I got them which was about a week apart almost 1.5 years ago now I think. So library sizes should be nearly identical but they are way off. My interpretation was something is wrong with that but I don't know what and I am sick of dealing with broken stuff. It should have always kept both devices and iCloud itself in sync but that did not happen. I have no idea why. Either I tripped some strange bug that requires a unique set of circumstances to make it happen or I screwed it up sometime along the way somehow on my own. I don't know how I could have done that though since I set it and forget it for that. I rarely mess with settings in iOS at all. In fact, for months I have been meaning to go prune the stupid number of notifications I get but I haven't gotten to it.

Yeah, the device backups stay on. I can drop iCloud back to 5 GB free and it'll support that. I don't need anything else on there.

In Topic: Apple Photos App Confusion

Yesterday, 08:58 AM

View PostTetsuya, on 19 October 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

I mean... you might be anti Google (i dunno), but...Google Photos will do -exactly- what youre talking about.  Even on iOS.  I use it on my phone (Android 7.1.x via LineageOS) and my iPad (iOS 11), and my HTPC (OS X 10.9), and my daily-driver (High Sierra).  It will also automatically upload your entire existing iPhoto library, and can be set (if you choose) to keep itself synced with that library (if new photos get added to your iPhoto library, they are added to Google Photos automatically).  Works on Windows as well.  

You couldnt pay me to use iCloud or OneDrive.  Theyre both unintuitive messes, IMO.  

Thank you. This sounds like the way to go for me and I like the pricing for 100 GB at 20 bucks annually. That's plenty for what I want to store there.

Thanks for all the replies. Rereading it just now that post was really horrible. I'm sorry! I was all over the place and not clear about the basic issue and desired cure. Maybe that was a late night one (I hope). I haven't been sleeping right for a while now which results in me being more out to lunch than usual.

A big plus for me with Google is they are everywhere. It doesn't matter what this crazy changeling feels like doing or trying this week. Whatever I feel like using Google is on it. There is major value in that for me personally.

The deal with Google of course is: software and services in exchange for user data. In a word, whatever. I don't care and it isn't like I have not learned about and considered what it is that I choose to not care about.

In Topic: Suggestions For Windows 10 Performance Tuning

18 October 2017 - 11:58 PM

Later that same year...

I managed to tweak Windows 10, app and service startups and more to get the HP laptop into a usable state not that the performance could be called good. Boot time is down from over 10 minutes to a useable desktop at around 3 minutes. Once I get a working desktop I have noticed overall performance has improved significantly also. So while not great, it'll do.

For anyone interested the major fixes were as follows:
  • Remove iCloud not because it is bad per se but simply because the overhead is too much for this PC with Windows 10.

  • Reviewed all startup processes and disabled anything rarely used or unnecessary

  • Turned on write caching for the boot disk which is safe overall given that this is a battery backed laptop

  • Employed the delayed start feature for certain services to accelerate getting to a working desktop. The delay on a system which performs this poorly is not meaningful. However, the fact that Windows also lowers the priority of delayed services when they do execute is somewhat helpful. Interestingly to me since I did not know this before, Microsoft delays start of certain of their own services to improve startup performance. One has to exercise care here since messing with this can impact various dependencies and cause errors but judicious use of the feature is helpful. Errors are not difficult to isolate and fix if you don't go overboard with it.

  • Last but not least, after reading about Readyboost first introduced with Windows Vista and still present in Windows 10, I decided to try it and see if it helped also. I used a Sandisk 16 GB USB 3 stick and rebooted multiple times trying to populate the cache faster than would normally happen. I made zero attempt to formally test the impact of using this but subjectively speaking I think it has helped significantly. It isn't difficult to believe it would on a system like this with cheap 5400 RPM rusty badness and 4 GB of RAM.
So the tweaks in total helped a lot but naturally, this is as low as low end gets really. I don't think systems that perform like this should even be sold but that's another topic for another time I guess.

Speaking of another time... you know what all of this means ultimately? What does one do with crappy low end PC hardware? That's right. It's time for more Adventures in Linux!!!

Yep, the guy who whines about complexity in the Photos app is excited about what's new in the wonderful world of linux. I'll save that for another thread here in off-topic which may become the new home for the resident special snowflake, otherwise known as a real man who runs linux and loves editing configuration files by hand with the standard text EDitor, the mighty ed. Tune in next time for, "Fun with Kubuntu!"

Yes, I know that people who use the mighty ed should at least use Arch if they are too lazy to use Gentoo but the less work this particular box and the crazy fool working it has to do the better for now. Oh, and just one more thing. Who needs games when there is linux to play with? I mean, how can they be more fun than linux?

In Topic: Windows gaming via Parallels or VMware Fusion?

18 October 2017 - 11:09 PM

By the way, a check of WineHQ's AppDB reveals LOL in its most current version has a Gold rating. A quick perusal of the info made me wonder if it would be more hassle than its worth but then again, I sometimes found I could set up games with less fanfare than various folks posted about and yet still achieve good results. So Wineskin might be of help there and provide better performance than a virtual machine setup. I would be inclined to test the VMware solution first though as it is easier if you have a Windows license to use anyway.

In Topic: Windows gaming via Parallels or VMware Fusion?

18 October 2017 - 11:02 PM

I used both but it was years ago so I couldn't speak for current performance either. The thing that won't have changed though is the inescapable overhead involved in running such a demanding application in a virtual machine. The port would have to be pretty bad for a VM solution to be superior to it in my opinion. I would especially be wary of playing any competitive multiplayer game in a virtual machine because you don't want any performance hit at all there, the reason I suspect you are wanting to try something other than a port you aren't pleased with.

What I found them to be great for in terms of gaming was to be able to run older games beautifully when they work which was often. I don't mean ancient either but I wouldn't even consider anything new really and certainly not new AAA although I imagine LOL is not so demanding as those games? Maybe it is.

Anyway, it never hurts to try I guess and you can do a free trial of either product probably. Personally, I am with Frost on the Parallels issue of milking users for more cash. I ditched them when they made a false claim about a version not being capable of operating at all unless upgraded for a new macOS which was not true. It worked fine for me and other people. That means, either they didn't test it at all or they lied. The software is decent but the suits in that company are bad news.

I found VMware to be a superior product and with a fair and decent management at least several years ago. I wouldn't even touch Parallels. I'd go straight for VMware. It nothing else, you may find it a great way to run older Windows games without messing around with Wine. I had VMs for Windows XP SP3, Windows 7 SP1 (?) and the occasional linux I think and everything just worked well.

Lastly, after years of trailing Parallels in Windows gaming performance, at the time I switched which was maybe 3 years ago, they had come up from behind and were outperforming Parallels. Of course, I have no idea how things are now but I can tell you that if it were me, again I would go straight to VMware. I never cared about all the integration stuff Parallels loves to market. I always wanted my VMs to live in their own little isolated worlds and not to have anything related to Windows showing up anywhere on my Mac unless it was contained inside that VM when I started it up. I guess some people like that but not me.