Yesterday, Apple said they'd try to keep "long-term" performance
reasonable, which, since Apple's statements are no accident, clearly means Apple is impacting short-term performance (there's no other way anyway).
Never forget Apple is just about the most clever liar on this planet.
Just like Big Tobacco is.
We knew Apple would be rather clever in *exactly* how they couch this,If you know what the bug is how about you tell us the bug. The only bug
given there is no possibility of fixing it without reducing performance.
there is no possibility of fixing it without reducing performance.
You think you can just keep repeating this laughable lie and somehow
"win", but you only make yourself look like the complete and utter fool
you are. It's crystal clear you know next to nothing about software or
system development. You're a clown. And the only people you are fooling
with your little charade are other fools.
If you know what the bug is how about you tell us the bug.
The only bug
(well, design flaw) that could mean that clock speed would have to be decreased is if Apple designed the A17 as the iNetburst.
Which is possible
but from official Apple statements, it is unlikely and rather it is more likely that iOS 17 doesn't handle the new changes well. Possibly in Power Management or the Scheduler. But this is my speculation.
Linux 5.16 apparently had performance issues due to changes in the kernel regarding heterogeneous multiprocessing (big.LITTLE): https://www.theregister.com/2021/12/01/linux_5_16_alder_lake/
I'll assume this conversation will stay at the adult level, OK?
there aren't
usually many remediation to widespread overheating than simply decreasing performance (either of the apps causing the overheating, or the CPU speed).
I'll assume this conversation will stay at the adult level, OK?
How about you don't write like a condescending shithead, alright?
It does you no favors.
there aren't
usually many remediation to widespread overheating than simply decreasing
performance (either of the apps causing the overheating, or the CPU speed).
Wrong. Most temp issues are a result of software, not hardware.
You are stuck
in the 80s with round robin schedulers and the only way to lower temp being to lower clk or add more fans.
You do not apply to principle of charity to anything I say or anything anyone else says, assuming the worst possible interpretation. Plus, none of your replies actually addresses what I am saying. Behaving completely disinterested in having a technical discussion.
You do not apply to principle of charity to anything I say or anything anyone else says, assuming the worst possible interpretation. Plus, none of your replies actually addresses what I am saying. Behaving completely disinterested in having a technical discussion.
Note that Apple's lawyers and marketing are deeply involved in wording
A. "long-term" performance reduction (versus short-term impact?)
B. reduction of "top performance" (versus every-day performance?)
C. A17 Pro chip performance reduction (vs the bus or clock speed?)
etc.
None of those cleverly chosen weasel words were by accident, right?
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
You think you can just keep repeating this laughable lie and somehow
"win", but you only make yourself look like the complete and utter
fool you are. It's crystal clear you know next to nothing about
software or system development. You're a clown. And the only people
you are fooling with your little charade are other fools.
Such an adult conversation, Jolly Roger.
Fact is, while I quoted (and cited) Apple's exact weasel words
verbatim... A. There should not be a *long-term performance
reduction*
B. There should not be a *top performance reduction*
C. There won't be an *A17 Pro chip performance reduction* etc.
On Oct 3, 2023, Wally J wrote
(in article <ufitck$gka2$1@paganini.bofh.team>):
I'll assume this conversation will stay at the adult level, OK?
How about you don't write like a condescending shithead, alright? It
does you no favors.
there aren't usually many remediation to widespread overheating than
simply decreasing performance (either of the apps causing the
overheating, or the CPU speed).
Wrong. Most temp issues are a result of software, not hardware. You
are stuck in the 80s with round robin schedulers and the only way to
lower temp being to lower clk or add more fans.
You do not apply to principle of charity to anything I say or anything
anyone else says, assuming the worst possible interpretation. Plus,
none of your replies actually addresses what I am saying. Behaving
completely disinterested in having a technical discussion.
On 10/4/23 00:32, Wally J wrote:
Note that Apple's lawyers and marketing are deeply involved in wording
A. "long-term" performance reduction (versus short-term impact?)
B. reduction of "top performance" (versus every-day performance?)
C. A17 Pro chip performance reduction (vs the bus or clock speed?)
etc.
None of those cleverly chosen weasel words were by accident, right?
So, are they going to throttle but claim that top performance is
unaffected?
Apple never wrote "long-term performance reduction".
Those are *your*
words, and you are the true weasel here.
B. There should not be a *top performance reduction*
Apple never wrote "top performance reduction".
Those are *your* words,
and you are the true weasel here.
C. There won't be an *A17 Pro chip performance reduction* etc.
Apple never wrote "A17 Pro chip performance reduction". Those are *your* words, and you are the true weasel here.
Your trolling is weak, old fart.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
Apple never wrote "long-term performance reduction".
Ah, but they did. I already cited those exact words, Jolly Roger.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 299 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 51:42:38 |
Calls: | 6,690 |
Calls today: | 8 |
Files: | 12,225 |
Messages: | 5,344,715 |
Posted today: | 1 |