XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Your Name wrote:

Unfortuantely the M2 may be causing issues with SSD speeds.

Worse...

If the M2 has the same debilitating hardware flaws as the M1 does (and it's looking very much like it has them), then the M2 is essentially worthless.

Nobody but a fool wants a CPU that contains multiple known exploitable unfixable built-in hardware flaws.

It's like when Apple designed a "fast" SOC that required _secret_
throttling because the power delivery design was sophomorically inept.

Who wants that M2 crap but a fool who only believes in advertising BS.
--
An adult owns the ability to separate advertising from the facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

nospam wrote:

yep, due to supply constraints. it's also the base level config, where
speed isn't that important.

Even being aware the M1/M2 series of chips are essentially worthless
designs due to likely known multiple exploitable unfixable hardware
flaws...

I skimmed the real-world performance article from Your Name just now...
<https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/27/m2-macbook-pro-256gb-ssd-real-world-tests/>
"The ‌M2‌ MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM was slower
than the ‌M1‌ MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM across
multiple usage tests involving Photoshop, Lightroom,
Final Cut Pro, multitasking, and file transfers.

The ‌M2‌ MacBook Pro's read speeds appear to be around
*50 percent slower*, while the write speeds appear
to be around *30 percent slower*."

Essentially they surmised that Apple cheaped out on the memory.
"Max Tech attributes this performance difference to Apple's choice
of NAND flash storage. In the ‌M2‌ MacBook Pro, there is a single
256GB NAND flash storage chip, while the ‌M1‌ MacBook Pro has
two NAND chips that are likely 128GB each."
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information,
and to flesh out the article that Your Name kindly pointed out on metrics.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2022-06-28 15:48, Andy Burnelli wrote:

nospam wrote:

yep, due to supply constraints. it's also the base level config, where
speed isn't that important.

Even being aware the M1/M2 series of chips are essentially worthless
designs due to likely known multiple exploitable unfixable hardware
flaws...

What does "likely known multiple" mean, exactly?

I skimmed the real-world performance article from Your Name just now... <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/27/m2-macbook-pro-256gb-ssd-real-world-tests/>

 "The ‌M2‌ MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM was slower   than the
‌M1‌ MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM across   multiple usage tests involving Photoshop, Lightroom,   Final Cut Pro, multitasking, and file transfers.

 The ‌M2‌ MacBook Pro's read speeds appear to be around  *50 percent slower*, while the write speeds appear  to be around *30 percent slower*."

Essentially they surmised that Apple cheaped out on the memory.
"Max Tech attributes this performance difference to Apple's choice
 of NAND flash storage. In the ‌M2‌ MacBook Pro, there is a single
 256GB NAND flash storage chip, while the ‌M1‌ MacBook Pro has  two NAND chips that are likely 128GB each."

And?

Is the performance terrible?

It's a choice.

Not ever computer ships with the fastest everything.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2022-06-28 15:37, Andy Burnelli wrote:

Your Name wrote:

Unfortuantely the M2 may be causing issues with SSD speeds.

Worse...
If the M2 has the same debilitating hardware flaws as the M1 does (and it's looking very much like it has them), then the M2 is essentially worthless.

The same completely NON-debilitating flaw is in every ARM processor, Arlen.

Nobody but a fool wants a CPU that contains multiple known exploitable unfixable built-in hardware flaws.

It's like when Apple designed a "fast" SOC that required _secret_
throttling because the power delivery design was sophomorically inept.

Who wants that M2 crap but a fool who only believes in advertising BS.

It's great the way you both want to deny that Apple designed their Apple Silicon chips...

...and yet blame them for flaws which your previous claim would demand
are not theirs.

:-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2022-06-29 08:17, Andy Burnelli wrote:

nospam wrote:

It looks like a simple case of using a single channel SSD system in
one particular configuration.

yep, due to supply constraints. it's also the base level config, where >>>> speed isn't that important.

Speed is *always* *very important*.

no it isn't.

casual use (e.g., email, web surfing) will not come anywhere close to
the limit of a single channel ssd, let alone dual.

Let's not forget,

That you'll deflect from whatever the subject is being discussed?

security is also almost _always_ very important too.
It's no longer shocking how the ignorant iKooks are unaware the T2, A14, M1 and most likely M2 designs contain known multiple exploitable and yet completely unfixable hardware flaws which mean any device made with them is essentially worthless in terms of security.

So TSMC designs flawed processors, does it?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

nospam wrote:

It looks like a simple case of using a single channel SSD system in one >>>> particular configuration.

yep, due to supply constraints. it's also the base level config, where
speed isn't that important.

Speed is *always* *very important*.

no it isn't.

casual use (e.g., email, web surfing) will not come anywhere close to
the limit of a single channel ssd, let alone dual.

Let's not forget, security is also almost _always_ very important too.

It's no longer shocking how the ignorant iKooks are unaware the T2, A14, M1
and most likely M2 designs contain known multiple exploitable and yet completely unfixable hardware flaws which mean any device made with them is essentially worthless in terms of security.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

nospam wrote:

a substantial portion of buyers for the macbook pro 13" are corporate
sales, who buy the least expensive configuration and do not need the additional speed, which is already faster than what they had before.

Given the T2, A14, M1 & most likely also the M2 (as it uses the same architecture) are _already known_ to be permanently unfixably flawed...

I wonder why any self respecting "corporate" account would buy any machine
with a CPU already known to be exploitable...

Where anyone with the means to exploit the flaws will have _root_ access.
--
Apple has never designed a best-in-class SOC in its entire existence.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

In article <t9i8bs$26c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

Given that I am permanently unfixably flawed...

ftfy

Where anyone with the means to exploit the flaws will have _root_ access.

root access is very limited on mac and ios, so even in the unlikely
event someone cracks root, they can't do much.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2022-06-29 12:15, Andy Burnelli wrote:

nospam wrote:

a substantial portion of buyers for the macbook pro 13" are corporate
sales, who buy the least expensive configuration and do not need the
additional speed, which is already faster than what they had before.

Given the T2, A14, M1 & most likely also the M2 (as it uses the same architecture) are _already known_ to be permanently unfixably flawed...
I wonder why any self respecting "corporate" account would buy any machine with a CPU already known to be exploitable...
Where anyone with the means to exploit the flaws will have _root_ access.

You mean TSMC designed flawed chips?

--
Apple has never designed a best-in-class SOC in its entire existence.

Apple designs the absolute best-in-class smartphone and tablet processors.

Period.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2022-06-29, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2022-06-29 12:15, Andy Burnelli wrote:

nospam wrote:

a substantial portion of buyers for the macbook pro 13" are
corporate sales, who buy the least expensive configuration and do
not need the additional speed, which is already faster than what
they had before.

Given the T2, A14, M1 & most likely also the M2 (as it uses the same
architecture) are _already known_ to be permanently unfixably
flawed... I wonder why any self respecting "corporate" account would
buy any machine with a CPU already known to be exploitable... Where
anyone with the means to exploit the flaws will have _root_ access.

You mean TSMC designed flawed chips?

What the dip shit troll desperately wants everyone to ignore is that the vulnerabilities he drones on about ad naseam were fixed long ago. For
instance:

CVE-2018-4344: A memory corruption issue was addressed with improved
memory handling. This issue is *fixed* and affected versions prior to iOS
12, macOS Mojave 10.14, tvOS 12, watchOS 5.

CVE-2019-8605: A use after free issue was addressed with improved memory management. This issue is *fixed* in iOS 12.3, macOS Mojave 10.14.5,
tvOS 12.3, watchOS 5.2.1. A malicious application may be able to execute arbitrary code with system privileges.

CVE-2020-3837: A memory corruption issue was addressed with improved
memory handling. This issue is *fixed* in iOS 13.3.1 and iPadOS 13.3.1,
macOS Catalina 10.15.3, tvOS 13.3.1, watchOS 6.1.2. An application may
be able to execute arbitrary code with kernel privileges.

CVE-2020-9907: A memory corruption issue was addressed by removing the vulnerable code. This issue is *fixed* in iOS 13.6 and iPadOS 13.6, tvOS 13.4.8. An application may be able to execute arbitrary code with kernel privileges.

CVE-2021-30883: A memory corruption issue was addressed with improved
memory handling. This issue is *fixed* in iOS 15.0.2 and iPadOS 15.0.2,
macOS Monterey 12.0.1, iOS 14.8.1 and iPadOS 14.8.1, tvOS 15.1, watchOS
8.1, macOS Big Sur 11.6.1. An application may be able to execute
arbitrary code with kernel privileges. Apple is aware of a report that
this issue may have been actively exploited.

CVE-2021-30983: A buffer overflow issue was addressed with improved
memory handling. This issue is *fixed* in iOS 15.2 and iPadOS 15.2. An application may be able to execute arbitrary code with kernel
privileges.

As you can see, Apple has already patched these vulnerabilities - many
of them long ago. For anyone keeping track, current iPhones run iOS
15.5:

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212788>

Apple has never designed a best-in-class SOC in its entire existence.

Apple designs the absolute best-in-class smartphone and tablet
processors.

Period.

Yup. Jealous loser is just jealous, which is why he spends inordinate
amounts of time hanging out in Apple news groups telling silly lies and
trying to disrupt any productive conversations. He's hopelessly obsessed
with Apple, and despises anyone who happens to like their products. He
lives a very sad and lonely life.

--
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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2022-06-29 18:24, Andy Burnelli wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote:

As you can see, Apple has already patched these vulnerabilities

*It's no longer shocking how _ignorant_ these iKooks are* that these vulnerabilities are _unpatchable_ since they're in the hardware level.

Apple T2 & Apple A10 *UNPATCHABLE* flaws <https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/05/apples-mac-t2-chip-has-an-unfixable-vulnerability-that-could-allow-root-access>

 Since the T2 chip is based on an Apple A10 processor,  it's vulnerable
to the same checkm8 exploit that affects
 iOS-based devices. Attackers can easily circumvent activation  lock
and carry out other malicious attacks gaining full control.

But according to your earlier claims, that means TSMC is at fault, right?

You have claimed that Apple didn't design those processors, right?

Apple M1/M2 & Apple A14 *UNPATCHABLE* flaws <https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/10/apple-m1-unpatchable-flaw/> <https://www.digit.in/news/general/apples-m1-and-a14-chips-have-an-unfixable-security-flaw-that-you-need-not-worry-about-59579.html>

Apple's M1 & A14 chips have an unpatchable hardware vulnerability
in PAC allowing attackers full control of the device under certain circumstances. MIT said it has not yet tested the attack on Apple's unreleased M2 chip, which also supports PAC.

Apple is incapable of designing a chip _without_ security flaws.

According to you, Apple doesn't design its processors at all.

Quite the contradiction, don't you think?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

nospam wrote:

ftfy

These low-IQ iKooks instantly devolve into kindergarten responses in the
face of facts that they were previously completely ignorant of existing.
--
The reason iKooks can't formulate an adult response to facts is that their entire strongly held belief systems about Apple are based on ignorance.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.system

Chris wrote:

It's the wheels that give the extra performance.

It's not lost on the _adults_ that the low-IQ iKooks never have an adult response to the facts that iKooks were previously completely ignorant of.

The fact these ill-educated iKooks are completely oblivious of is that the
M1 and M2 chips (with PAC architecture) are known to be hopelessly flawed.

A product with the T2, A10, M1, M2, or A14 is almost worthless as a result (from a security standpoint since they can _not_ ever be properly secured).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Jolly Roger wrote:

As you can see, Apple has already patched these vulnerabilities

*It's no longer shocking how _ignorant_ these iKooks are* that these vulnerabilities are _unpatchable_ since they're in the hardware level.

Apple T2 & Apple A10 *UNPATCHABLE* flaws
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/05/apples-mac-t2-chip-has-an-unfixable-vulnerability-that-could-allow-root-access>
Since the T2 chip is based on an Apple A10 processor,
it's vulnerable to the same checkm8 exploit that affects
iOS-based devices. Attackers can easily circumvent activation
lock and carry out other malicious attacks gaining full control.

Apple M1/M2 & Apple A14 *UNPATCHABLE* flaws
<https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/10/apple-m1-unpatchable-flaw/>
<https://www.digit.in/news/general/apples-m1-and-a14-chips-have-an-unfixable-security-flaw-that-you-need-not-worry-about-59579.html>
Apple's M1 & A14 chips have an unpatchable hardware vulnerability
in PAC allowing attackers full control of the device under certain
circumstances. MIT said it has not yet tested the attack on
Apple's unreleased M2 chip, which also supports PAC.

Apple is incapable of designing a chip _without_ security flaws.
--
The iKooks are always shocked that facts exist about Apple products,
where these facts always seem to conflict with the iKooks' belief system.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)