nht

crowley said:

nht said:

hungover said:

Soli said:

hungover said:

They repeated the (non-cached) test a number of times, visiting the same local websites and got massively different results. And still they are at fault?

Regarding that, yes they are. When you go from 4.5 hours to 19.5 hours (nearly doubling Apple's statement of 10 hours under normal use) while doing a very specific test that only uses website page loads and does so with an developer setting disabled, then they should've considered there was something else going on.

And this isn't the first time CR has used poor methodology to test technology. There is no skullduggery on their part, they simply don't have the expertise needed to do a comprehensive test that can trusted, regardless of whether it's above or below a company's own battery life results.

Apple say that their own test comprises of them only visiting 25 "popular" sites over Wifi until the battery dies.

In order to ensure continuity I would imagine that Apple store those sites in a cache on their own local servers. And that those same caches are used year in, year out, to ensure that each new Mac is tested under the same stresses as the previous ones. 

If my assumption is correct (which I accept might not be the case) then the only difference is that Apple cache those sites on the Mac, CR don't. Neither test strikes me as being particularly complex or scientific though (and neither is particularly "real world" unless the "typical" user only ever visits the same 25 static websites).

You can't read?  Apple runs 3 tests, website, video and standby. Had CR not been lazy and ran a more comprehensive test they would have found strange results in 1 of the 3 tests and known it there was a bug.  They did know because of they tried Chrome and found consistently high battery life but ignored it to go with a sensationalist result they KNEW was wrong.

They didn't ignore it, they explicitly called it out, which is why you know about it.  However, Chrome is not the browser that ships with a MacBook Pro.

They ignored it when making their senstionalist and incorrect assertion that MBP battery life sucked.  They even stated they ignored it.

birko said:

cropr said:.

If there is one PC supplier that Tim Cook is watching it must be Dell.  The Dell XPS is probably the only real competitor of the Macbook Pro

I agree. The just announced XPS 2-in-1 is a great idea - unfortunately only announced running windows which means I will not be buying it. If they release a Linux version I seriously consider it for my next away from home machine.

1) If you don't know how to install Linux over windows then Linux is not the right solution for you.

2) The normal XPS 13 come in a developer edition with Ubuntu 16.04 LTS.  I don't know anyone that bought one...everyone I know bought the windows version so they had a dual boot option.  Often they do a coupon code discount and if you downgrade to Win 10 Home and apply the coupon it's the same price as the Ubuntu version so why not?

3) Touch screen support in Linux still sucks.  You probably want Elementary over the Ubuntu install Dell usually does.

hungover said:

Soli said:

hungover said:

They repeated the (non-cached) test a number of times, visiting the same local websites and got massively different results. And still they are at fault?

Regarding that, yes they are. When you go from 4.5 hours to 19.5 hours (nearly doubling Apple's statement of 10 hours under normal use) while doing a very specific test that only uses website page loads and does so with an developer setting disabled, then they should've considered there was something else going on.

And this isn't the first time CR has used poor methodology to test technology. There is no skullduggery on their part, they simply don't have the expertise needed to do a comprehensive test that can trusted, regardless of whether it's above or below a company's own battery life results.

Apple say that their own test comprises of them only visiting 25 "popular" sites over Wifi until the battery dies.

In order to ensure continuity I would imagine that Apple store those sites in a cache on their own local servers. And that those same caches are used year in, year out, to ensure that each new Mac is tested under the same stresses as the previous ones. 

If my assumption is correct (which I accept might not be the case) then the only difference is that Apple cache those sites on the Mac, CR don't. Neither test strikes me as being particularly complex or scientific though (and neither is particularly "real world" unless the "typical" user only ever visits the same 25 static websites).

You can't read?  Apple runs 3 tests, website, video and standby. Had CR not been lazy and ran a more comprehensive test they would have found strange results in 1 of the 3 tests and known it there was a bug.  They did know because of they tried Chrome and found consistently high battery life but ignored it to go with a sensationalist result they KNEW was wrong.

Finally, how many sites do you visit?  I doubt it's actually more than 25.  Hitting the top 25 most popular sites sequentially is a lot more realistic than what CR did.  As the sites change over the course of the test the cache gets updated just like it would in real life.  Not artificially forced to reload every time.

Your assumption is silly as they would not likely reuse the same "static" sites every year as the internet evolves with ever more complex standards, web frameworks and features. 

digital_guy said:

Looks like I'm the first to post on this thread after nearly 10 years. Impressive product that had a both a global and cultural impact, although I might argue that it wasn't really the iPhone that deserves all the credit. The introduction of the App Store in July 2008 was equally, if not perhaps more, important. What an incredible ride it's been.

Amusingly 10 years later AT&T still has me as a customer because of that grandfathered unlimited data clause.

Good to know I didn't say anything stupid 10 years ago and I wonder where some of the folks in this thread is today.  

It was also amusing to re-read Mel and Mr H feuding over AGPS after all these years.  And Wizard69...heh...

rmfpdx said:

Most people's garage has a door inside to the rest of the house. I won't be installing anything that allows someone use the internet to hack their way into my actual house.

It's pretty trivial to get into most garages.  That interior door should be treated as any other exterior door.