Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca>: Jan 11 11:44AM -0500 On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:46:34 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger >> NECESSARILLY mean ANYTHING. >While counterfeit parts "could" be the problem, do you really think that a >state-run test posted and published nationally, would fall prey to them? I'm discounting conterfeit parts as being the problemin these tests - just going back to your "trust" in "government mandated markings" from your previous thread. >logical that they would fall prey to a plethora of counterfeit parts, >especially since the parts were *supplied* by the manufacturers, I believe. >(We could fall prey to "ringers" though...) No, I'm just saying - again - that depending on the government mandated friction rating markings will NOT get you the best brake - which has been my thesis from the beginning and has been proven by TWO law enforcement vehicle tests you have provided to support your position. I'msorry, but your thesis does NOT stand the test of proof using the scientific method. You are an engineer. What does that tell you??? If it was just a case of FF pads on a dodge undeperforming the same pad on a Foprd, you could put it down to bake design - but that is not the case here., There is NO LOGICAL EXPLANATION other than the FACT that the markings are NOT a reliable predictor of brake performance - muchless quality. >the critical factors in brake friction materials, other than fit and >"reasonable" everything else (longevity, noise, dust, etc. in the Bell >Curve). I puit more weight on the other qualities,as they are readilly evident - while the friction grade of the material is not - as proven by the tests. >> does not attack the finish on my alloy rims or wheel covers. >Everyone wants that, so we all agree (except trolls like Fox's Mercantile). >But how do you know that from the numbers printed on the pad? You don't. Now another thing that affects HOT braking is the attachment of the lining to the shoe/pad. Does the "glue" adequately transmit the heat or act as an insulator?? Personally,I'm a BIG fan of rivetted linings and pads, rather than bonded. They are generally quieter,and in my experience exhibit less fade. They also generakky speaking have a smoother engagement. >> than adequate braking in real world conditions. >Why wouldn't fade be covered in the SAE J866 Chase Test, which tests their >friction coefficient at a variety of temperatures? Because the damned tests are either faulty or improerly performed (the material does not meet the spec) OR the method of mounting does not properly mitigate the heat. >the same vehicle under standard tests. >All I ask is how this can happen (where counterfeits are not logically the >reason). Failure of the testing/certification process to reflect real world conditions. Sorry, but you engineers devise the tests. There is definitely SOMETHING wrong with either the design of the test, the implementation of the test, (application) or the theory applied. Which is why I put very limited weight on the stamped/published friction ratings. They have been proven time and again to be pretty close to useless. Now, if you take a, for instance, BRakebond pad with ee, another of their pads with ef, and another eith ff - there MIGHT be a displayable progression between them - all other factors being the same (which they seldom are). Or you may find an ee or ef pad or shoe STILL outperforms an ff in the real world. There is a lot more involved in brake performance - particularly hot performance, than simple coefficent of friction. gassing from the friction material, and how it is vented, being one issue. Simply cross-cutting a pad, or chamfering the edge of the pad - while marginally reducing the active braking area CAN improve hot stop performance significantly. In this case, the test using a one square inch sample of pad material TOTALLY misses the mark - meaning the test design is faulty from the start. I'm no engineer - but I know that much!! When you combine government beaurocrats and engineers with no "real world" experience to implement ANY program, the chances of failure to perform get exponentially higher than tests performed under "real world" conditions. And as for not using EE friction materials - SOME of the cruisers used in thase testa use ef or ff material in the persuit special" vehicles, while civilian and even taxi (heavy duty) use may have EE from the factory. The whole CAFE situation, requiring the lightening of all components, has resulted in a generation of vehicles that are (or have been) SEVERELY underbraked - and this deficiency has been hidden by the universalimplementation of antilock brakes - the small brakes canNOT provide enough braking force to lock the wheels on dry pavement because, by and large, they do not have to. As long as the braking action of the brake assembly matches the friction betweenthe tires and the road, it is accepted. If I shut off the antilock function of my brakes, I want them to be capable of throwing the vehicle into a complete slide - on command - whether hot or cold. With the oversized brakes (same pads as stock) with ee friction material on my ranger- I CAN lock all 4 wheels - on command - with antilock dissabled. - so why would I insist on FF pads, which, by the results of the tests YOU provided, may very well underperform the "low grade" ee pads I have installed????? |
"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Jan 11 09:37AM -0800 Are you sure you are not a Jimmy Neutron sock-puppet? Hoping not, Please note the interpolations: On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 11:44:36 AM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote: > which has been my thesis from the beginning and has been proven by TWO > law enforcement vehicle tests you have provided to support your > position. Beware of the fallacy of false-premises. Information supplied from any source offered by Mr. Neutron must be taken as unproven. Historically, Neutron has not been above falsifying or 'enhancing' data to support his contentions. Often, he will fall back on the "But everyone knows..." argument. > lining to the shoe/pad. Does the "glue" adequately transmit the heat > or act as an insulator?? Personally,I'm a BIG fan of rivetted linings > and pads, rather than bonded. Riveted linings and pads have issues with the rivets. That they do not fail more often is more a function of time and wear life than an indication of superiority. Whereas thermosetting adhesives have gotten remarkably efficient and far better over the last 20 years to the point that they hold aircraft together these days. > They are generally quieter,and in my experience exhibit less fade. > They also generakky speaking have a smoother engagement. > >(Rhetorical question - as I know there's no way to know that.) De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum. > Sorry, but you engineers devise the tests. There is definitely > SOMETHING wrong with either the design of the test, the implementation > of the test, (application) or the theory applied. Probably not. Much more likely that there is something wrong with the interpretation of the test(s). And that is the fault of the interpreters, not the test or test designer. > Which is why I put very limited weight on the stamped/published > friction ratings. > They have been proven time and again to be pretty close to useless. By whom, to whom? Conclusions without proof. Repeated. Makes it the Bellman's Proof. > outperforms an ff in the real world. > There is a lot more involved in brake performance - particularly hot > performance, than simple coefficent of friction. No shit. > issue. Simply cross-cutting a pad, or chamfering the edge of the pad - > while marginally reducing the active braking area CAN improve hot stop > performance significantly. (Out)gassing from the friction material is pretty much eliminated within the first few hard stops. Have you ever read the directions that come with new brake shoes/pads? They speak directly to this. Ah, sorry. Real-world examples have no place in your wild theories. > world" experience to implement ANY program, the chances of failure to > perform get exponentially higher than tests performed under "real > world" conditions. You damned well know that is not how it happens. What with multi-million dollar settlements due to faulty design, software, materials, equipment and such, no brake manufacturer would let an unproven design out the door, much less be installed on (many) thousands of vehicles. And given that 'modern' brake technology has been around since the 1930s, you might re-consider such a statement. You will also note that "Government Tests" do no more than verify what has already been designed - they contribute nothing to the design whatsoever. > universalimplementation of antilock brakes - the small brakes canNOT > provide enough braking force to lock the wheels on dry pavement > because, by and large, they do not have to. Where is that supported? Once again, you have demonstrated that you have no clue about the real-world nature of brakes. The EASIEST thing for brakes to do is lock-up. This generates ZERO heat and ZERO wear on the liners/pads. Often much damage to the tires, but hardly any strain on the brakes. Before Anti-Lock brakes, threshold-breaking presented the hardest test (and required the most driver-skill) of any brake system. The tendency for the brake to actually lock was far greater than them fading or overheating. Mercedes Benz and Ate did a whole series of white-papers around their decision to put disc brakes on all four wheels. And exceedingly long threshold-braking tests were all part of the data gathered. > As long as the braking action of the brake assembly matches the > friction between the tires and the road, it is accepted. No. That is a statement without support or proof. "It is accepted". By whom, and what does that mean? > If I shut off the antilock function of my brakes, I want them to be > capable of throwing the vehicle into a complete slide - on command - > whether hot or cold. In any vehicle with an anti-lock system and well-maintained brakes - that is exactly what will happen. Again, physics favors locking over either fading or not holding at all. Of course, any system installed or maintained by Neutron will be ab initio suspect. And, perhaps this fault is the root of all this crap. > antilock dissabled. - so why would I insist on FF pads, which, by the > results of the tests YOU provided, may very well underperform the "low > grade" ee pads I have installed????? Differences in brake materials has have limited immediate consequences. What will change is longevity, pad wear, visual effects, rotor wear, noise, smell and other irrelevant consequences to the actual need: Stopping THIS vehicle NOW. Vehicle brake systems have come a long way since the 1960s. Such that a system on a 2018 Chevy Versa is infinitely better than that which was found on a 1963 600-series Mercedes. So many fallacies, so many misrepresentations, so many blind alleys. How do you manage to cram so much bad information into so little space? Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
Mad Roger <rogermadd@yahoo.com>: Jan 11 08:09PM On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:44:01 -0500, Clare Snyder wrote: > I'm discounting conterfeit parts as being the problemin these tests - > just going back to your "trust" in "government mandated markings" from > your previous thread. I agree with you that it's unlikely that the police in Michigan were testing counterfeit parts, especially as they apparently received the friction material directly from the manufacturer, according to their summary paper. > which has been my thesis from the beginning and has been proven by TWO > law enforcement vehicle tests you have provided to support your > position. I'm not disagreeing with your contention that the EE pads, in those police tests, somehow worked better than the FF pads, even though E is a friction coefficient only marginally higher than steel on steel. I'm only asking why. > I'msorry, but your thesis does NOT stand the test of proof using the > scientific method. You are an engineer. What does that tell you??? I'm an electrical engineer; so I believe in friction, but if the lower friction coefficient pads are working better than the higher friction coefficient pads, the precise understanding of that is out of my league. That's why I asked here, where I was hoping the s.e.r intelligentsia might help us rationalize a reason that stands the test of logical analysis. > the case here., There is NO LOGICAL EXPLANATION other than the FACT > that the markings are NOT a reliable predictor of brake performance - > muchless quality. I agreed with your assessment, and I even quoted the Michigan police cruiser test warning saying that the markings don't necessarily conform to real-world practice. I'm only asking here WHY an E coefficient pad (which is basically no pad at all) performed better than an F coefficient pad (which has an appreciably higher cold & hot friction coefficient)? > I puit more weight on the other qualities,as they are readilly evident > - while the friction grade of the material is not - as proven by the > tests. I'm going to have to somewhat reluctantly agree with you, unless we get a good reason, that no pad at all (i.e., just metal on metal) is "just as good" and "maybe even better" than a high friction coefficient pad. Pretty much that says "all pads work", does it not? >>But how do you know that from the numbers printed on the pad? > You don't. Again, I'm going to have to somewhat reluctantly agree with you, from a logical standpoint, that if essentially no pad at all (i.e., an E coefficient pad which has a coefficient of friction marginally better than steel on steel) is better or about as good as having a pad, then almost nothing printed on the side of the pad is going to make any difference. > lining to the shoe/pad. Does the "glue" adequately transmit the heat > or act as an insulator?? Personally,I'm a BIG fan of rivetted linings > and pads, rather than bonded. It seems there *must* be other *major* factors in braking performance, other than the friction rating of the pads themselves. That's a hard logical pill to swallow, for me, which is why I asked here, hoping the s.e.r folks can enlighten us as to why. > Failure of the testing/certification process to reflect real world > conditions. Well, the friction coefficient is a "real world" measurement. It just doesn't seem to matter in braking performance, based on that police cruiser test I unearthed. That's too bad, because it means you can't compare pads easily other than to note the material, type, and manufacturer, which the DOT CODES printed on each pad and shoe do tell you. So at least we can tell three pads with three different marketing strategies (e.g, Axxis, PBR, & Metal Masters) are the exact *same* pad, and we can tell when a pad is rebranded (I think Centric only does rebranded pads, for example, but I'd have to check the numbers to be sure). That indicates there is some utility in the mandated information that is printed on the side of each pad. But it's just sad that the friction coefficient means so little to a friction material! > Sorry, but you engineers devise the tests. There is definitely > SOMETHING wrong with either the design of the test, the implementation > of the test, (application) or the theory applied. Friction is friction. It's a mathematical beast. I don't think the SAE J866 Chase Tests lie about the friction of a 1" square piece of the friction material. They just don't predict real-world performance, it seems. (As noted in the Police Cruiser report.) > Which is why I put very limited weight on the stamped/published > friction ratings. Again, I must reluctantly agree with you, as hard a pill as it is to swallow, that friction coefficients are NOT an important factor in the performance of brake friction materials. Sigh. I just want to know WHY? > They have been proven time and again to be pretty close to useless. Well, as I said, the *numbers* printed on the side of every pad/shoe sold in the USA are *useful* in that they tell you the manufacturer, the material, and, the friction rating - so even if we discount the friction rating, it's nice to know when you can tell that two pads sold and marketed at two different prices, are the same pad. > progression between them - all other factors being the same (which > they seldom are). Or you may find an ee or ef pad or shoe STILL > outperforms an ff in the real world. I'm gonna have to reluctantly agree with you, yet again. I don't ever dispute fact. > There is a lot more involved in brake performance - particularly hot > performance, than simple coefficent of friction. It must be the case that friction isn't a *primary* determinant of brake performance, hard a pill as that is to swallow. > In this case, the test using a one square inch sample of pad material > TOTALLY misses the mark - meaning the test design is faulty from the > start. You'd think the SAE would know how to design a friction test though... > used in thase testa use ef or ff material in the > persuit special" vehicles, while civilian and even taxi (heavy duty) > use may have EE from the factory. I know. I know. You don't have to rub it in. I apologize for chastening you for using EE pads and shoes. I still think my Toyota OEM shoes are FF so I'm gonna get FF. Can you summarize again the short list of brands you'd recommend? I want to do the work for the owner this weekend. Thanks. |
Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 11 06:14PM On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:18:14 -0500, rickman wrote: > problem when they designed the phone they would have used a larger battery > with a higher maximum current. Then as it wore it would still power the > phone at 100% capacity past the end of the warranty period. Rickman, I must caution you about nospam. He's vastly *different* from the other half-dozen or so fundamentalist Apple Apologists *Jolly Roger, Lewis, BKonRamp, Savageduck*, etc. While nospam has the same fact-free belief system that characterizes an Apple Apologist, he's far smarter than the rest. And better informed. He's apparently just as poorly educated, but he's smart nonetheless. So he actually *might* be college educated even, but I think not. Nontheless, nospam is duplicitously clever (like James Comey) with facts in a way that is intended to frustrate a logical person out of his mind. I've consistently said he'd make a great defense lawyer, and I'd even want to hire him as my defense lawyer, but he'd make for a lousy prosecutor because he brings up innuendo and magical possibility of "who done it", but he never proves a word he says with facts. The other half-dozen Apple Apologists actually *believe* what they write, but nospam doesn't believe a word of what he writes. He's far too clever, and you can tell by the exact words he uses, which are clever contortions of actual facts. The rest of the Apple Apologists are merely ignorant fundamentalists - but nospam actually provides value - but you have to grasp that value out of his contortions like an archeologist grasped the true story out of an archeological dig in a rubbish heap. The value of nospam is that you know he knows the truth when you read his clever distortions of it. He drives logical people nuts, until they realize he does it on purpose. He's a classic Orwellian doublespeak artist, who will flatly and repeatedly deny that 1+1=2, seemingly without a single twinge of guilt. Just watch. |
Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Jan 11 12:20PM -0600 On 1/11/18 11:28 AM, Harry Newton wrote: > whenever confronted with items that shake their belief system? > To wit, I have multiple higher degrees, and I don't have a vagina. > :) I am not Snit you fucking moron. Fuck you and your alleged degrees. -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Jan 11 12:21PM -0600 On 1/11/18 11:28 AM, Harry Newton wrote: >> constantly. >> Although I'm touched that you find it necessary to attack me. > You are Snit. What part of "I'm not snit" do you fail to grasp? -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Jan 11 10:22AM -0800 Neutron, Ricky sittin' in a tree. K I S S I N G First comes love, then comes marriage Thank the stars, no baby carriage. Rick's wet thumb & wetting his pants, Doing the hula, hula dance! |
Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Jan 11 12:22PM -0600 On 1/11/18 12:14 PM, Harry Newton wrote: > Snit - try to add technical on-topic value for once in your life. > Let's see, from your very next post, whether you're even *capable* of > adding on-topic technical value to this thread. You haven't added any since the beginning. And I'm NOT Snit Get that through your thick skull. -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 11 06:35PM >> prematurely in order to avoid warranty replacements", the onus is on >> you. So go right ahead and prove that's the case, if you can. > The user experience is *definitely* impacted when the phones shut down. The feature in question prevents spontaneous shutdowns of devices with dying batteries and extends runtime. > Blah blah blah blah Get back to us when you have factual information to share rather than useless blogger opinion pieces. -- 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 |
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 11 06:35PM > On 10 Jan 2018 18:13:53 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: >> You don't even own an iPhone. > Even if we There's no "we", I wasn't talking to you. -- 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 |
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 11 06:35PM > On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:02:42 -0500, nospam wrote: >> the batteries work perfectly fine in normal everyday use. > Which is why the iPhones suddenly shut down in use. False. -- 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 |
Harold Newton <harold@example.com>: Jan 11 06:47PM On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:49:25 -0500, nospam wrote: > except that most of the time, it won't improve anything because the > existing battery is perfectly fine. While the other half-dozen Apple Apologists actually believe the Orwellian doublething that 1+1=3, you simply say it without believing what you say. You're too smart to believe that a battery that *needed* the CPU to be secretly, permanently, and drastically throttled to less than half it's performance (which Apple euphemistically calls "peak performance") is "perfectly fine". <https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/11/16878412/iphone-slowdown-battery-replacement-wait-times-6-plus-supply-shortage> "In other words, Apple decided on behalf of its customers that they'd prefer an iPhone that performed worse for the same amount of time, than an iPhone that performed just as well for a shorter amount of time. It's a decision that does nothing to dispel the characterization of Apple as a company that does what it can to push customers into buying new phones." |
harry newton <harry@at.invalid>: Jan 11 06:47PM He who is Jolly Roger said on 11 Jan 2018 17:53:09 GMT: > Blogger opinion pieces aren+IBk-t facts. Try harder. <https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/11/16878412/iphone-slowdown-battery-replacement-wait-times-6-plus-supply-shortage> "In other words, Apple decided on behalf of its customers that they'd prefer an iPhone that performed worse for the same amount of time, than an iPhone that performed just as well for a shorter amount of time. It's a decision that does nothing to dispel the characterization of Apple as a company that does what it can to push customers into buying new phones." |
Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 11 06:49PM On 11 Jan 2018 18:35:16 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > The feature in question prevents spontaneous shutdowns of devices with > dying batteries and extends runtime. "In other words, Apple decided on behalf of its customers that they'd prefer an iPhone that performed worse for the same amount of time, than an iPhone that performed just as well for a shorter amount of time. It's a decision that does nothing to dispel the characterization of Apple as a company that does what it can to push customers into buying new phones." <https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/11/16878412/iphone-slowdown-battery-replacement-wait-times-6-plus-supply-shortage> |
Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 11 06:50PM On 11 Jan 2018 18:35:18 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> the batteries work perfectly fine in normal everyday use. >> Which is why the iPhones suddenly shut down in use. > False. "In other words, Apple decided on behalf of its customers that they'd prefer an iPhone that performed worse for the same amount of time, than an iPhone that performed just as well for a shorter amount of time. It's a decision that does nothing to dispel the characterization of Apple as a company that does what it can to push customers into buying new phones." <https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/11/16878412/iphone-slowdown-battery-replacement-wait-times-6-plus-supply-shortage> |
Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 11 06:51PM On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:54:28 -0500, nospam wrote: > state of charge is not the issue. it's aging to where it can't supply > peak loads anymore, even if it's at full soc. For SMS, "peak loads" is Apple's Orwellian doublespeak for permanently halving the CPU's possible performance. |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Jan 11 01:53PM -0500 In article <p389em$nnm$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Harry Newton > The user experience is *definitely* impacted when the phones shut down. which is why apple has taken steps to avoid that from happening. |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Jan 11 01:53PM -0500 In article <p389eo$nnm$3@gioia.aioe.org>, Harry Newton > There are ways to check if Apple secretly throttled the CPU on your phone. none that end users can run. |
Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 11 06:56PM On 10 Jan 2018 07:25:24 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: >> You misunderstand > Nah. You just suck ass as a human being. I'm actually a very nice guy. I just happen to be very well educated, logical, and intelligent. Hence, we won't likely get along well. |
Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 11 07:02PM On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:06:34 -0500, nospam wrote: > there isn't anything to fix. Rickman, I was trying to hint to you that nospam is *different* than the other half dozen fundamentalist Apple Apologists. *Jolly Roger, Lewis, nospam, BKonRamp, Savageduck, Hemidactylus, etc.* He actually doesn't believe a thing he says (because he knows the facts and actually understands them, unlike the other Apple Apologists). Always keep in mind that, while all half dozen of the die-hard Apple Apologists have a belief system which is vulnerable to facts, nospam actually *knows* his facts. He simply has a propensity to flaty outright deny them. Why? You tell me why. Here's what he does all the time: rickman: Your equation of 1+1=3 is wrong; so it needs to be fixed. nopsam: There isn't anything to fix. |
Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 11 07:07PM On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:35:46 -0800, sms wrote: > That would needlessly reduce performance in most use. A lot of devices > are now designed with thermal sensors that allow a performance level > that cannot be sustained for long periods of time under certain conditions. Bear in mind that 'reduced performance' (aka permanently halving the CPU speeds) is the solution that Apple came up with (secretly, of course)... "Apple said it introduced this behavior last year, for the iPhone 6, 6S, and SE, as a way to prevent random shutdowns" of year old phones. <https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/12/28/16825288/htc-motorola-dont-slow-processor-speeds-old-batteries-apple> Bearing in mind the Orwellian doublespeak of "peak performance" really means halving the CPU speeds... "In other words, Apple decided on behalf of its customers that they'd prefer an iPhone that performed worse for the same amount of time, than an iPhone that performed just as well for a shorter amount of time. It's a decision that does nothing to dispel the characterization of Apple as a company that does what it can to push customers into buying new phones." <https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/11/16878412/iphone-slowdown-battery-replacement-wait-times-6-plus-supply-shortage> |
Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 11 07:17PM On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:26:45 -0800, sms wrote: > the battery. > 3. Give the user the option of a "battery-saver" mode that would reduce > performance in order to increase the operating time. For rickman, sms is NOT an Apple Apologist, so you can have a normal adult conversation with him. To sms, the fact that the very many sudden and unexpected shutdowns in the first year of use blindsided Apple merely indicates that Apple made an eggregious design mistake that they missed in their testing procedures. "Apple could have also avoided this issue by designing phones with bigger batteries that don't degrade as quickly." https://gizmodo.com/now-the-senate-wants-answers-about-apples-iphone-thrott-1821975549 So, the better choice, IMHO, would have been for Apple to rectify the design mistake, which may be as simple as using larger batteries for all we know. "Apple could have designed phones that didn't need these guardrails just a year after their release." <https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/12/28/16825288/htc-motorola-dont-slow-processor-speeds-old-batteries-apple> |
BK@Onramp.net: Jan 11 01:20PM -0600 On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:13:16 -0700, Snit >> Could you repeat this message? I only have three of them. :-) >He is merely responding to Harry's lies, which are repeated far more than >just three times. I was just pulling his chain. |
Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 11 07:38PM On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:53:45 -0500, nospam wrote: >> There are ways to check if Apple secretly throttled the CPU on your phone. > none that end users can run. You're funny because you love to contort facts, and we know you absolutely *love* to quote *benchmarks* (especially cross-platform benchmarks) when it suits your purpose. Plus you know about the app CPU dasher X, which reputedly reports what you call "peak cpu" speeds, which is like huge speedbumps put on a highway to slow down your maximum CPU speed to less than half what is possible. <https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cpu-dasherx/id1168527539?mt=8> There are a few ways to check to see if Apple halved the performance of your iPhone after just a year of use: How to check if Apple is throttling your iPhone <http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-check-if-apple-slowing-down-your-iphone-2018-1> <http://dsniggas.net/2018/01/04/have-a-slow-iphone-how-to-check-if-apple-is-throttling-your-iphone/> <http://www.applegazette.com/iphone/apple-throttling-iphone-can-check/> Here+IBk-s a list of the average Geekbench scores for each iPhone model: iPhone 6/6 Plus +IBQ- 1400 iPhone 6S/6S Plus +IBQ- 2300 iPhone SE +IBQ- 2400 iPhone 7/7 Plus +IBQ- 3400 <https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-slowing-down-iphone-fix-221529035.html> You *love* to quote benchmarks, especially when they suit your need. What's your aversion to benchmarks now, when they don't suit your fixed belief system? |
Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 11 07:44PM On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:53:44 -0500, nospam wrote: >> The user experience is *definitely* impacted when the phones shut down. > which is why apple has taken steps to avoid that from happening. Indeed they did! :) "Apple intentionally pushed iOS updates, including but not limited to iOS 10 and 11 and their variants, despite knowing that the updates imposed performance demands that the phones' hardware could not meet, throttled the phones' performance, and otherwise negatively impacted the performance and utility of the phones," <http://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-throttling-class-actions-pile-up-as-apple-hit-with-32nd-lawsuit/> |
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 2 topics"
Post a Comment