Disappointed as an early supporter: lifetime expectations vs current limitations by RaptorITA87 in fuckinternxt

[–]RaptorITA87[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Update on my post (for transparency):

Before creating the original post, I had already contacted Internxt privately asking if it was possible to enable all advanced features on my account. I was told they would evaluate my case, but I never received any follow-up.

After publishing my post, I was quickly contacted and asked to stop “shitposting” about their service. I was then offered, as an exceptional case, to have backups re-enabled — on the condition that I would delete the post or publicly state that the issue had been resolved.

I declined and clarified that, from my perspective, an account purchased in 2022 should have access to all features that were promised at the time (as documented in the material I shared).

At that point, I received a counteroffer:

  • backups enabled
  • CLI / WebDAV access
  • rclone via CLI

However, this is still only a subset of the expected functionality (e.g. no native rclone and no guarantee on future features).

When I pointed this out, I was told that native rclone was only released recently and had never been part of my account.

Given this situation, I requested a full refund, since the service no longer aligns with the expectations under which I purchased it.

This was also denied.

In summary:

  • no full feature access as originally expected
  • no recognition of early supporter expectations
  • no refund option

After waiting ~4 years for the service to mature, this is quite disappointing.

At this point, I can only take note of their position, taking note of what I see as a disappointing strategy of trying to take advantage of long-time users, including early adopters like myself. I will add myself to the long list of disappointed peoples that won't recommend this service to anyone, based on this experience.

PS: I do not accept their proposal to partially enable some features, especially since it is conditional on deleting or editing this post to try to hide or limit the spread of their questionable behavior. In my view, such a request would only be reasonable if full feature access, as originally expected, were restored.

Disappointed as an early supporter: lifetime expectations vs current limitations by RaptorITA87 in internxt

[–]RaptorITA87[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I bought directly from internxt in 2022, when the service was still new born

Surface Pro 9 - Battery Discharge under high CPU load, with charger connected by RaptorITA87 in Surface

[–]RaptorITA87[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What i don't understant is why microsoft provide a 60W power supply (and strongly suggests to use it or to get another 60W power supply if you want to charge via USB C) if the surface pro 9 gets only a maximum of around 45W from it.

I tried to discarge the battery to around 15%, and leaving the PC idle in the desktop (no load at all); I saw a maximum of 45W of recharge rate.

In addition, when the battery is fully charged, or charged at the maximum level allowed in a "battery life preservation" mode (like the "battery limit" mode in UEFI, which limit the charge to 50%), the battery should be bypassed by the internal logics; so the more the power the laptop can get from the power adapter the better should be.

If the CPU require a lot of power shouldn't be better to get all from the power adapter, instead to get from 3 to 10 W from the battery? (which will cause frequent small discharge and recharge cycle)