wiggin

rotateleftbyte said:

Quote
If Apple updates its software in a way that the company claims will substantively change battery performance, we will conduct fresh tests," the original report said.

IF is the problem. CR could just as equally say, "Nope, we don't think Apple has done anything that will change our results. We stand by our results."

The CR tests should be repeatable by anyone who chooses to perform them. If their original 'test steps' didn't state that they'd disabled the browser cache then CR deserve to get an awful lot of flack.
Software and System testing is all about repeatability. AFAIK, the CR results were anything but that.

What would really be interesting is to repeat the test both with and without the cache disabled after Apple's bug fix is released. Remember, the article also stated that this also led Apple to discover a bug in their own code that made the results even worse. If CR's test script is set up to repeatedly load the same page as a simulation of random web browsing, then having the cache enabled would essentially be cheating in favor of better battery performance as the entire page would already be in the cache. Perhaps this test protocol, including disabling the cache, worked fine in past iterations of testing with other Macs, but when combined with this Apple bug it was no longer a valid test.

Clearly CR needs to update their testing protocol, but I'm not sure I'm ready to go so far as to say it was malicious as some here are suggesting. Keep in mind, there have been many other reports of questionable battery life reported by other sources. Perhaps this bug Apple discovered in their own code contributed to those other reported experiences as well. Apple has previously stated that there was no software issues related to battery life. This incident has proven that to be false.

And I hope this bug they are reportedly fixing also fixes the issue myself and others have reported with Sierra on earlier models (mine is a 2015 MBP). Something in Sierra is causing the discreet GPU to engage when it's not needed and was never engaged in previous OS versions. For example, opening the color picker in TextEdit activates the discreet GPU in Sierra, and it stays active until you exit TextEdit. Launching Quicken 2007 also engages the GPU in Sierra but not in any previous OS version. Quicken I could maybe accept as it's obviously older software that might not have the correct configuration. It was coded before there was automatic graphics switching in Mac laptops, but it did behave properly in OSes prior to Sierra. And that doesn't explain TextEdit which was released with Sierra.

fastasleep said:

freethinking said:

So a bit over a decade later they discover its best to remove the "time estimate", the fact that the new released product is receiving flak for poor battery life is just a unfortunate coincidence. </sarcasm>

While apple is sure to crank out ridiculous profits in the short term, they are really pulling out all stops to get rid of their pro user base.

While the time estimate is just a nice to have and its still available in the activity monitor, removing it at this point in time just seems like an admission that they fucked up and are sweeping under the rug on one of the many flaws of this new overpriced machine.

Pretty sure the main problems here are that lots of users now have a dGPU as they're more prevalent in these models and aren't used to active switching between the two, which makes a HUGE difference, and I'm guessing Intel's chip optimizations also fluctuate in power usage a lot between lower level use and turbo boosts.

That, and there's speculation a lot of these users are reporting their battery times while their systems are still getting optimized, i.e. Spotlight is running, libraries are syncing for the first time, Disk Optimization settings are uploading their Documents/Desktop folders, etc.

If nothing else, this forces users to actually measure real world battery times as oppose to glancing at the system's way-off estimates and muddying the issue.

Reposting from what I wrote in the AI article about the release of the OS update...

There is most certainly a software issue in Sierra which is at least contributing to the battery drain. Want proof? Perform the following....Reboot your computer so you are starting with a clean slate. Open Activity Monitor and go to the Energy tab to confirm that no application is using the discreet GPU. Open Text Edit. Again, confirm that nothing is using the discreet GPU. Now in Text Edit go to Format > Font > Show Colors.

Now explain why Text Edit is suddenly using the high-performance GPU (and thus causing a higher energy drain).

Another example is launching Quicken 2007. In no previous OS did it cause the discrete graphics chip to be used. In Sierra it does.

Something in Sierra appears to be causing the discreet graphics chip to engage far more frequently and for entirely unnecessary reasons. Neither Text Edit or Quicken should ever even remotely require the discreet GPU...and the didn't need it in previous OSes.