| Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 05 04:54AM Massive chip flaw not limited to Intel <https://www.axios.com/massive-chip-flaw-not-limited-to-intel-2522178225.html> Intel is dealing with a major chip bug, but full impact unclear <https://www.axios.com/intel-is-dealing-with-a-major-chip-bug-but-full-impact-unclear-2522162631.html> How to protect your PC from the major Meltdown and Spectre CPU flaws <https://www.pcworld.com/article/3245810/security/how-to-protect-your-pc-meltdown-spectre-cpu-flaws.html> Mac and iPhone both affected by big chip vulnerability <https://www.axios.com/apple-mac-and-iphone-both-affected-by-big-chip-vulnerability-2522548093.html> How the Spectre CPU flaw affects phones and tablets <https://www.pcworld.com/article/3245790/mobile/spectre-cpu-faq-phones-tablets-ios-android.html> Google Project Zero: Reading privileged memory with a side-channel <https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.jp/2018/01/reading-privileged-memory-with-side.html> Intel's full statement: Intel and other technology companies have been made aware of new security research describing software analysis methods that, when used for malicious purposes, have the potential to improperly gather sensitive data from computing devices that are operating as designed. Intel believes these exploits do not have the potential to corrupt, modify or delete data. Recent reports that these exploits are caused by a "bug" or a "flaw" and are unique to Intel products are incorrect. Based on the analysis to date, many types of computing devices - with many different vendors' processors and operating systems - are susceptible to these exploits. Intel is committed to product and customer security and is working closely with many other technology companies, including AMD, ARM Holdings and several operating system vendors, to develop an industry-wide approach to resolve this issue promptly and constructively. Intel has begun providing software and firmware updates to mitigate these exploits. Contrary to some reports, any performance impacts are workload-dependent, and, for the average computer user, should not be significant and will be mitigated over time. Intel is committed to the industry best practice of responsible disclosure of potential security issues, which is why Intel and other vendors had planned to disclose this issue next week when more software and firmware updates will be available. However, Intel is making this statement today because of the current inaccurate media reports. Check with your operating system vendor or system manufacturer and apply any available updates as soon as they are available. Following good security practices that protect against malware in general will also help protect against possible exploitation until updates can be applied. Intel believes its products are the most secure in the world and that, with the support of its partners, the current solutions to this issue provide the best possible security for its customers. |
| BK@Onramp.net: Jan 04 04:46PM -0600 On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:03:08 -0500, rickman >It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts. But you have to >consider the noise level they bring as well. In this thread all but one >post was noise. That's an unacceptable level. By your definition you have become a troll. IOW why don't take your own advice and not respond as you have several times. JR has less posts about this than you now. |
| Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 04 10:46PM >> there is *no* avoiding it. *every* battery ages. > Yes, but it doesn't have to impact the operation of the product in the > first year. Where's the evidence that all (or even the majority) of iPhones are impacted in the first year? Answer: it doesn't exist because it's bullshit hyperbole. > A well designed product would be sized to continue to operate as the > battery ages. Apple devices *do* continue to operate as the battery ages. I've got an eight year old iPad 1st generation sitting right here beside me that's working just fine on the original battery. And the feature in question actually extends the *runtime* of devices with dying batteries rather than putting so much load on them they fail outright and shut down the device. Personally, eeking out every little bit of runtime possible happens to be precisely what I *expect* from the OS that runs on my devices. Is that something that sets Apple users apart from the rest of the herd? > I've had laptop batteries that worked nearly as well as new for two or > three years. Just two or three? I'm posting this on a six year old MacBook Pro with the original battery (486 cycles and counting and 88% healthy) without any issues. I have an iPhone 3GS that still works on the original battery. I have a 2010 iPhone 4 in the car as a dedicated dashcam that still runs great too. > Do you not understand the issue? Do you? > Apple would seem to have either not given this attention in the design > stage (indicating incompetence) Nonsense. Apple's customers have good experiences, which is why Apple tops customer satisfaction and rakes in the profits. Real-world use trumps some blogger with a slant any day. > or they made a conscious decision to allow battery deterioration to > impact the operation of the phone in the first year of operation (with > potential warranty issues). Anecdotes and hyperbole don't equate to pandemics. This entire "issue" is a big, overblown bucket of bullshit from people who don't understand the engineering involved. And a few months from now it'll be forgotten and replaced with the next new "scandal". -- 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 |
| BK@Onramp.net: Jan 04 04:49PM -0600 On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:09:25 -0500, rickman >> trolls post for a reaction, not for content. >And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me. I guess that shows he >isn't trolling. No, it shows that you aren't knowledgeable enough to see his idiocy. |
| Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 04 10:49PM >> with batteries that are on the way out. > yep. > put simply, the peaks are clipped. Exactly, and the benefit is a device with longer runtime towards the end of its battery life. I'll take it. > for everyday tasks that don't push it hard, such as reading email or > web surfing, there is no slowdown. Yup. But details like that don't fit the troll narrative. >> No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically >> mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret. > they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries. Yes. -- 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 |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Jan 04 05:05PM -0500 In article <p2m8as$5hc$1@dont-email.me>, rickman > It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts. actually, it's extremely unusual. trolls post for a reaction, not for content. |
| Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>: Jan 04 02:52PM -0800 On Jan 4, 2018, rickman wrote > Oh, but then someone on the Internet would be wrong without knowing it! > https://xkcd.com/386/ > I've killfiled JR, we'll see if the problem improves. The problem will continue, because the actual news group spoiling, anti-Apple agenda holding troll, is the nymshifting OP. He taunts with his provocative bait knowing that he will precipitate the thread into a flamewar. Many of the usual participants, such as JR, Lewis, nospam, and others seem to be unable to resist to temptation to engage with him. I for one will not entertain playing into the trollish flamewar trap he sets in the Apple NGs and cross pollinates to other groups which have no interest in things Apple. -- Regards, Savageduck |
| harry newton <harry@at.invalid>: Jan 04 11:47PM He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:17:11 -0500: >> there is *no* avoiding it. *every* battery ages. > Yes, but it doesn't have to impact the operation of the product in the first > year. This is the key point, rickman, where you and almost all the logical people who bought iPhones (and even logical people who didn't buy them) would have presumed that the CPU speed of a phone would be the same on day 1 when the reviews come out as it would be on day 366 after a year of ownership. Nobody (but Apple & the Apple Apologists) has even tried to defend the secret, permanent, and drastic halving of the CPU speeds as being "beneficial" for "prolonging the life" of the phone. I can understand why Apple says that (they have a dozen lawsuits to not give any ammunition to), but it's harder to understand the logic of the defense that we should have known all along that Apple would halve the speeds based on what Apple said it put in the iOS 10.2.1 release (and 11.2 for the iPhone 7). "iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves the security of your iPhone or iPad. It also improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone." <https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_US> Affected phones were: iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, and iPhone SE. <https://www.apple.com/iphone-battery-and-performance/> > A well designed product would be sized to continue to operate as the > battery ages. I've had laptop batteries that worked nearly as well as new > for two or three years. Do you not understand the issue? Bear in mind that it is a fact that I am the one who first broke the news to the Apple newsgroups of the problem, and who first broke the news of Apple's apology about the problem - so I am vehemently hated by the Apple Apologists (nospam, Jolly Roger, Savageduck, Snit, BKonRamp, etc.). You have to understand that on the affected iOS newsgroups, there is a set of bona-fide lifer Apple Apologists who hate any fact that is truthful but not what they like to hear. So they will *destroy* any thread that contains facts that they don't like, using a variety of techniques, some of which you've seen here, all combined with guile and vitriol and ill logic, where, in the end, they always attempt to destroy truthful facts like any competent cancer would. You have Jolly Roger exclaiming today that an Apple battery is as easy to replace as a "user replaceable" battery for example, which is just patently ridiculous - and yet - he makes that claim with a straight face. Worse, Jolly Roger consistently fabricates content that never occurred, just so that he can appear witty (to himself?) by responding to that completely fabricated content! Why does Jolly Roger habitually fabricate quoted content? <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FJ0ScwZ9sLE/d40Bp9jKDQAJ> You have nospam insisting that Apple duly informed its users with that cryptic 10.2.1 release-note blurb, and you have Savageduck trying to skirt facts with semantic outliers such as iOS-based non-Apple cameras, and you have BK@Onramp.net who consistently high-fives other people's posts but has never once (ever!) added technical value to any thread in his entire life! All of these ill-logical people resort to complete and utter fabrications of non-existing functionality, whenever confronted with patently unassailable facts - that they don't like. Why do iOS apologists incessantly fabricate fictional iOS functionality? <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/vcq3ESStmlc/bjhf9Z5vBAAJ> That's the kind of people you're currently dealing with. > incompetence) or they made a conscious decision to allow battery > deterioration to impact the operation of the phone in the first year of > operation (with potential warranty issues). It seems from all the evidence (quoted elsewhere already), that Apple didn't test the product thoroughly enough (they admitted as much that they were blindsided by the initial shutdowns) and then, after the second series of reports came in, Apple finally realized what happened. The "fix" is clear - which they already apologized for not communicating (but only because they got caught so they had to apologize). The fact is that they implemented a secret solution that is permanent and drastic (cutting CPU speeds to less than half after only one year of use). The conjecture is "WHY" they did that. I posit, with logical thought, that they realized how BIG of a problem this design flaw is, and they realized they didn't have ANY options to fix it in software that were palatable to the customer. They certainly *could* have implemented a recall, where they provided the customer with a better design - but they took the easy way out - which was to secretly mask the design flaw. This is all well described already in valid factual references I've supplied in each of my posts, so I will let you decide who is a troll on this newsgroup, and who is providing valid referenced facts. <https://www.computerworld.com/article/3245048/mobile-wireless/apple-makes-its-intent-on-the-battery-fiasco-clear-and-not-in-the-way-it-wanted.html> Title: "Apple makes its intent on the battery fiasco clear. And not in the way it wanted." |
| harry newton <harry@at.invalid>: Jan 05 12:08AM He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:09:25 -0500: > And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me. I guess that shows he > isn't trolling. You have to understand, rickman, that the Apple Apologists *hate* me, with a vengeance, because I speak facts that they don't like. I call out Jolly Roger on his trolls (if you run a search for the combination of Jolly Roger and troll on the iOS newsgroups, he comes up on top, by far, since he calls every fact he doesn't like, a troll). http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone BTW, I always *add* value to a newsgroup, so who do you think *created* those tinyurls in the first place? I did. For example: http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android http://tinyurl.com/sci-electgronics-repair Why did I create them? For the good of all, as I've been on Usenet for decades, being an old octogenarian (where you'll note Jolly Roger always tries to insult me for simply being old). What the Apple Apologists you're dealing with absolutely hate, are facts that they don't like so they attempt to defame and destroy the bearer of those valid verified facts. For example, this is my thread on the iOS newsgroups which *broke* the news to them that Apple was caught secretly throttling CPU speeds. Report says Apple 'Powerd' code secretly slows your iOS device down to trick you into buying a new device <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/GdEtzzrc9F0%5B1-25%5D> When you skim that thread, you'll instantly see how the Apple Apologists react to truthful facts and how the others on the iOS newsgroup who are not Apple Apologists, react. They are two completely different mentalities (which you're noticing). a. Adults who can converse using logic and facts, and, b. Apple Apologists (e.g., nospam, Savageduck, Jolly Roger, BKonRamp, etc.) who can, but don't. |
| harry newton <harry@at.invalid>: Jan 05 12:18AM He who is harry newton said on Fri, 5 Jan 2018 00:08:08 +0000 (UTC): > For the good of all, as I've been on Usenet for decades, being an old > octogenarian (where you'll note Jolly Roger always tries to insult me for > simply being old). OOoooops. Typo. Here are the URLs I created for the good of all, so that *facts* can be researched easily and so that the immense effort most of us put into adding value to Usenet can be harvested to the benefit of others. http://tinyurl.com/sci-electronics-repair http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-system http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-apps http://tinyurl.com/alt-os-linux etc. Note: When Google took over dejanews, and when TinyUrl came out years ago, I added the Windows newsgroups - but Google consistently breaks them over the years, so I eventually gave up adding Windows newsgroups for tinyurl convenience. |
| harry newton <harry@at.invalid>: Jan 05 12:22AM He who is Jolly Roger said on 4 Jan 2018 22:23:50 GMT: > The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not > permanent This is a good topic for adult logical discussion... Title: How to take advantage of Apple's $29 iPhone battery replacement program right now URL: <http://bgr.com/2018/01/01/iphone-battery-replacement-29-how-to-iphone-slowdown-scandal/> Quote: "There is no way to toggle Apple's hidden throttling on or off within the company's iOS software. Instead, the only way to disable an iPhone slowdown is to install a new battery in your phone." This was already referenced in the iOS newsgroups here: Title: For anyone who still thinks the iPhone throttling isn't *permanent* - read this article URL: <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wq4r6ALKewE> |
| harry newton <harry@at.invalid>: Jan 05 01:04AM He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:57:04 -0500: > This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen a number of ham groups destroyed by > this sort of behavior. Hi rickman, I too have been on Usenet since the early days, so we've seen groups utterly devastated by this cancer, such as what happened here: http://tinyurl.com/alt-free-newsservers And yet, not to the (somewhat) related newsgroup: http://tinyurl.com/news-software-readers In many cases over the decades where we both have seen a newsgroup fall into the cesspool, it's only a *handful* of viciously angry posters who ruin the newsgroup for everyone else who is just trying to learn from the immense tribal knowledge of all the members of the group, as a whole. I don't know, offhand, whether you come from the android side or from the electronics side (where I love Jeff Liebermann, who lives near me, but we've yet to meet fact to face), so I apologize for the behavior of the folks whom I call Apple Apologists (after having dealt with them for years and trying to figure out why they act the strange way that they do). Of the Apple Apologists you're dealing with, here's a characterization: 1. nospam - by far - the most clever and most knowledgeable of them all 2. Jolly Roger - nonsensically consumed by his own vitriol and rage 3. BKonRamp - if you find him ever adding value - I'll send you money! 4. Savageduck - he is knowledgeable (hence useful) on digital photography but he hates iOS facts as much as the others - so he's unreasonable but still very useful because he's expert at digital photography REFERENCE: http://tinyurl.com/rec-photo-digital Overall, they're useful, where, in my killfile, even after two decades on Usenet, is only Snit (whom you haven't experienced yet, I think), who is a *perfect* example of an Apple Apologists - in that he even created a public video attempting to "refute" my facts (which are always correct since they're all validated by references), which he trolled incessantly over 400 times, where even I had to plonk him. You really need to listen to the first minute of this video before I tell you the key facts about these Apple Apologists (who are not normal people): Title: iOS showing Wi-Fi over time URL: <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo> Once you listen to the first minute of that video, you then need to know that the Apple Apologists here (nospam, Jolly Roger, BK, etc.) all *agreed* with him, numerous times. It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0%5B26-50%5D> For example, here's a direct quote from "nospam" on the facts I presented: "Harry can't back anything he says, mostly because it's false. what's even worse, he continues with his bogus claims after being proven wrong with actual facts (not the ones in his delusional head)." Notice how the Apple Apologists (who are not normal adults), claim to have facts, and they claim to have been providing proof all along, and they do it in such as self-serving way that you have to wonder if they actually *believe* a single word they utter (they're that different from normal people!)... But get this - none of them, even after all that vitriol, know the difference between a megabit and a decibel! <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/BK4Vtbg9BwAJ> Yup. They whole time they've been just blatantly *fabricating* non-existent iOS functionality. Why? They hate the bearer of facts! Here's how I tried to respond to the Apple Apologists (with facsts): "One look at the graph it outputs proves that it's just a speedtest app. <http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg> The Apple Apologists insist it's a wifi signal strength app. Why when it's a fact iOS apps can't graph wifi signal strength over time? Meanwhile, the Android Fritz app clearly show Y-axis decibels (not Mbps). <http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/fritzapp.jpg> As does the Android WiFi Analyzer app wifi signal strength timeline: <http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifianalyzer.jpg> The problem here, which I've noticed over the decades happens in spades in the Apple-related newsgroups, is that there is a clan of people who viciously hate the bearers of facts that they just don't like. What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted? <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0> So they react by *fabricating* functionality and then arguing for a billion posts that what they claim exists, actually exists (when, in fact, it does not). Just look at this thread, initiated by Jolly Roger himself: Apple Is Being Slandered For What Chemistry Cannot Fix <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/zM-uvnUrSCk> Any thread that deals with facts on the iOS newsgroups that the iOS apologists don't like, follows this same formula. 1. Someone states a valid fact about Apple that they don't like. 2. They deny the fact - almost always with childishly idiotic "logic" 3. More facts are provided in response to the fake denials 4. That incenses them so much they resort to vicious insults (JR) 5. Or they resort to extremely clever semantic contortions (nospam) 6. Or, they simply say that every fact is wrong (Savageduck) 7. And they pile on and high-five and support each other (JKonRamp) Any casual reader of the thread gives up reading because of the cancer above (which is exactly their goal). It happens every time. Just watch. Why do the Apple Apologists deny facts & habitually fabricate imaginary content? <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eRTC23FyVDY> That's the kind of people you're dealing with. Years ago, I termed them "Apple Apologists"; but you can term them whatever you think is appropriate. They are not like normal adults in that viciously and repeatedly attack the bearer of truthful facts they don't like. |
| harry newton <harry@at.invalid>: Jan 05 01:26AM He who is Fox's Mercantile said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:39:11 -0600: > It won't until you killfile harry newton. You have to realize whom you're dealing with when you deal with these Apple Apologists who claim everyone else is a troll but they themselves. This single screenshot explains it all graphically in a way words can't: <http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg> One Apple Apologist trolled this video *over 400* times alone: itle: iOS showing Wi-Fi over time URL: <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>] In that video, the Apple Apologist Snit claims that iOS does have the functionality that I proved long before it does not. Worse - the Apple Apologists you're dealing with *congratulated* Snit for "proving Harry wrong" when, in fact, absolutely none of the Apple Apologists knew the difference between a decibel and a megabit! <http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/fritzapp.jpg> <http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifianalyzer.jpg> And yet, there must have been at least *400 additional posts* where nospam claims to have proven it to us numerous times, and where Jolly Roger claims that we're all "old fools" for not believing their completely baseless claims. It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0%5B26-50%5D> So that's something like 800 posts, almost all of which are the Apple Apologists denying what is, to normal adults, obvious fact. Why do the Apple Apologists act this way? I do not know the answer. Every single time they post, I have to ask myself: a. Are they really clueless (they don't know a megabit from a decibel?) b. Or, do they do this on purpose (since they post it 800 times!) I still don't know the answer to that question. Do you? |
| rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>: Jan 04 09:08PM -0500 > I keep radio-control submarines. On them, I have a device that reads the state of the battery, and if it goes critical, immediately surfaces the boat, and will not permit diving. I can determine the age of the battery by when that happens on a run. > Again, this is a chemical issue true of every kind of chemical battery over time. Cell phones make heavy demands on batteries depending on what they are asked to do. Some simply cannot meet that demand with an old battery, and so 'limit' the phone much as the "Sub-Safe" device does. That Apple explained this badly is the issue. Not what happened. > Getting back to Jimmy Neutron - he offered a Conspiracy-Based explanation for an obvious phenomenon in order to light off his personal tempest in his virtual teapot. It was neither thoughtful, nor offered as a basis for actual discussion. Wow! You think you understand the issues, but nothing you said was relevant. This is not really a technical issue, this is a business issue. Yes, batteries wear out with time and use. So do a lot of things. A properly designed product will take into account all the issues of using batteries. The bottom line is the phone was not designed properly to even have a 1 year working life without performance problems. Your submarines have nothing to do with it. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>: Jan 04 09:09PM -0500 nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:39 PM: >> deterioration to impact the operation of the phone in the first year of >> operation (with potential warranty issues). > both false. Ok, you seem to think it is acceptable for a product to no longer meet specifications before it is out of warranty. I don't. We'll have to agree to disagree. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>: Jan 04 09:12PM -0500 nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:39 PM: >> No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically >> mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret. > they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries. Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty runs out. But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone which impacted the usability. That's why it became an issue, the phones started slowing down for no clear reason. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Jan 04 09:20PM -0500 In article <p2mmp7$103$2@dont-email.me>, rickman > Ok, you seem to think it is acceptable for a product to no longer meet > specifications before it is out of warranty. i said nothing remotely close to that, and nobody, not even apple, said it no longer meets specs within or without warranty. > I don't. We'll have to agree > to disagree. only because you don't understand what's *actually* going on. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Jan 04 09:20PM -0500 In article <p2mmui$103$3@dont-email.me>, rickman > > they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries. > Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty > runs out. nope. they were extending it as long as possible. > But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone > which impacted the usability. nope. what they did was tune it so that sudden shutdowns, a problem that had been occurring (and affects android too) would be reduced or eliminated. > That's why it became an issue, the phones > started slowing down for no clear reason. nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline. as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*. |
| rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>: Jan 04 09:54PM -0500 nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 9:20 PM: > nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer > capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline. > as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*. I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone. The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No? -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 05 03:11AM > He who is Fox's Mercantile said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:39:11 -0600: >> It won't until you killfile harry newton. > Blah blah blah blah Apple Apologists blah blah blah You're a broken record, old fool. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Jan 04 10:46PM -0500 In article <p2mpds$ctg$1@dont-email.me>, rickman > slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone. > The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was > discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No? no, and the only article you should read is from apple itself, not random journalists, some of whom have an agenda. there's a lot of misinformation out there. the slowdown only occurs with peak demands, not baseline performance, and only with a battery that has degraded over time (which they all do) to where it can't supply enough current for those peak demands. the reason it's done is to avoid sudden shutdowns when the battery voltage drops too low when pushed too hard, which is *far* more annoying and also risks data loss and possible hardware damage. when apple made the change last year, customers noticed a significant *reduction* in sudden shutdowns. that's a good thing. if the battery is healthy or the phone isn't being pushed hard (e.g., email, web surfing, text messaging, etc.), it's *highly* unlikely that anyone will notice a difference. most of those tasks are *not* cpu-bound, with the device waiting on the user to tap something or other. keep in mind that all devices, including android, are susceptible to battery limitations, something the various articles neglect to mention. one of *many* posts on the topic: <https://forums.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-s4/322719-galaxy-s4-sh uts-down-randomly.html> Okay, I've had my phone for a few months now, and over the past week, it has been shutting itself down, even though there is plenty of battery left. It seems like when I'm "stressing" the phone alittle bit, I can reproduce the problem. For instance, it usually happens when I browse around and multitask - jumping from one app to another... Also, if i just load the game GTA III, which is somewhat heavy to run, it shuts off within 10 minutes, usually less. Also, I'm unable to reproduce the problem if I plug the phone to a power charger. batteries have limitations. the way to avoid shutdowns is to limit peak demands so that the voltage doesn't drop to where the phone shuts off. there's no getting around the laws of physics and battery chemistry. and there have been lawsuits too: <http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/05/26/amended-complaint-filed-ongoing- nexus-6p-early-shutdown-bootloop-lawsuit/> The Nexus 6P lawsuit we previously reported on twice in April has been recently amended, and the venue of the suit seems to have changed to northern California. The latest filings have expanded the total number of actions in the suit from 10 to 23, with claimants hailing from 11 different states. ... ...some Nexus 6P's have been experiencing bootloops, a situation in which the phone doesn't correctly start, but sits unresponsively on the startup animation. The other battery-related defect manifests itself as the phone suddenly shutting down long before the battery indicator would predict. |
| Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 05 03:48AM On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:26:24 +0000 (UTC), harry newton wrote: > URL: <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>] > In that video, the Apple Apologist Snit claims that iOS does have the > functionality that I proved long before it does not. *How is an adult supposed to deal with the Apple Apologist's odd behavior?* Even today, just now, moments ago, nospam, probably the most informed of all the Apple Apologists, just posted this, which is patently false, and, in light of the entire thread of proof - one has to wonder: a. Is nospam really that stupid (and the answer is clearly no - he's smart) b. Then why does he claim fabricated iOS functionality as if it exists? I don't know WHY the Apple Apologists aren't normal adults. But the fact is they lie as openly and as easily as if it's natural. Here's what nospam just posted: <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0/YYB2LmdTAAAJ> Verbatim quote from me: "It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time" Verbatim response from nospam: "yes they can and you've been told how. why do you keep lying?" *How is an adult supposed to deal with the Apple Apologist's odd behavior?* |
| Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 05 03:53AM >> One Apple Apologist trolled this video *over 400* times alone: > *How is an adult supposed to deal with the Apple Apologist's odd > behavior?* And now he's talking to himself with two different nyms... -- 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 |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Jan 04 09:32AM -0800 > Never do that. I've seen so many CRTs ruined by rejuving. Increasing heater voltage works better and stays good. Exactly what do you think rejuvenation entails? Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| Terry Schwartz <tschw10117@aol.com>: Jan 04 10:55AM -0800 > Exactly what do you think rejuvenation entails? > Peter Wieck > Melrose Park, PA Rejuvenation entails *temporarily* running the heater of a tube at a high voltage, the theory being it boils up the thorium from the cathode and exposes fresh surface. It does not entail leaving the filament at a higher voltage in operation. That was done with so-called CRT "brighteners" which were merely step-up auto-transformers. We've all seen those. They worked, for a while. But they did cause other picture problems, like saturation that made the contrast look eerie. Sometimes you could adjust some of that out. Any tube tester could be used to "rejuv" a tube or CRT. The process was well known in the shops. The key was always to leave the tube in the tester for some period of time after applying the 2X or 3X heater voltage for a minute or so (hopefully you didn't burn out the heater) and then seeing if the emissions dropped off unacceptably over the next hour. If emissions stayed up, the rejuv "took" and you were good. If not, maybe you sold a new tube. The problem with CRT rejuvenation was that the excess electron flow eroded the tiny aperture hole in the gun, causing blurry focus, smear, etc, on the face of the CRT. In lots of cases the customer didn't care, he did not want to spring for a new picture tube or new TV. I often got the job of replacing CRTs after the sets came back in when the rejuvenation didn't hold up, or the customer didn't like the result. I had a knack for doing convergence, which can be one of the most frustrating things to attempt. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment