iOS 11 and macOS High Sierra

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 22:33:47 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If I read that correctly, the answer to my question is "Yes", not
"No", but the contention is that the battery drain is negligible and -
assumedly - will not affect the phone's performance.

then you read it incorrectly.

the only difference in battery drain is in writing a slightly larger
file, taking a tiny fraction of a second longer, a difference so small
that the amount of additional power probably can't be measured, let
alone noticed by the user.

I find it absolutely fascinating the lengths you will go in arguing
that you are right when it's patently obvious that you are wrong. And,
when your own words prove you wrong.

they do not. as usual, you don't understand the issues.

And as usual it took a prolonged interrogation to extract the
information which you could have given at the outset.

i did give it at the outset.

You said "there's no reason why it would run down the battery with it
on or off" with no hint of an explanation. The absence of explanation
of your comment is why the thread has continued as it has.

You insist that I am "incorrect" when I allow that the battery drain
is "negligible" by insisting that, instead, "the difference is so
small (that it) can't be measured". What in the hell do you think
"negligible" means? Here's a clue from the dictionary: "Negligible:
so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering,
insignificant".

you said the answer to your question is yes. that is wrong. the answer
is no.

would you consider the battery of your camera to drain faster if you
set it to high compression jpeg (smallest file) versus high quality
jpeg (largest file)? because that's essentially the same thing.

But your iPad is not taking a continuous stream of photographs.

only because i don't use the camera in my ipad.

however, when the camera app is active, an ios device *is* taking a
continuous stream of photos, filling a buffer in memory, while the isp
analyzes them. if the user takes a photo, data is then written to
flash.

And does this have any impact on battery load?

do you worry about a difference in your vehicle's fuel economy when you
drive solo versus when you have 5 people in it? more weight means lower
fuel economy.

You insist that I am incorrect when I allow that it will not affect
the phone's performance by countering that it won't be noticed by the
user. In other words, it wouldn't affect the phone's performance.

performance has absolutely nothing to do with battery life. that's a
separate issue entirely. you are very, very confused.

No, you are. Battery life is part of performance.

nope. battery life has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
performance. zero. zip. nada.

There are many potential camera buyers who would not agree with you.

the performance of a device depends on whatever hardware specs it has,
not the charge level of the battery.

Not true, if the battery is flat.

there is *zero* impact to performance. none whatsoever. zip.

The question was asked if leaving the feature on will cause battery
drain, and requested a "yes" or "no" answer. You said "no", and then
went on to agree that it does. A correct answer from you would have
been "yes, but the drain is so negligible that it is a non-issue."

nope. the answer is no because nobody outside of an engineering lab
with exotic test equipment can find a difference, and even then,
probably not.

"A correct answer from you would have been "yes, but the drain is so
negligible that it is a non-issue.""

a correct answer is 'there is no difference, other than a theoretical
one for pinheads who want to argue'.

By that definition, you think there is a difference.

i only mentioned the write time difference because people like you try
to find an argument out of *anything*, had i not, you'd have said 'but
you didn't mention that it takes longer to write a larger file'.

You create arguments where there should be no argument by misstating
something and then digging in by claiming there was no misstatement.

it ain't me who is creating an argument.

Why then are you surrounded by arguments wherever you go? I know you
don't do it on purpose but ...

because certain people in this newsgroup have nothing better to do than
argue.

Usually trying to extract the meaning of what has been said.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:47:51 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 00:00:57 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 6/7/2017 10:33 PM, nospam wrote:


snip


nope. battery life has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
performance. zero. zip. nada.


Therefore the settings on my laptop must exist solely to keep the user
busy. The adjustments make it clear that faster performance decreases
the time between charges. I guess that's only a Windows thing.

Usually, when I use my laptop, I keep it plugged in. When using it on
battery-only, I haven't noticed any slow-down caused by low battery.
It's either go or no-go.

I expect you will notice a very considerable slow down when your
device has a very low battery.

I use Chrome, but Edge is recommended for Windows 10. It's claimed
that Edge uses less battery than Chrome if multiple tabs are opened. I
haven't seen that, but I rarely have very many tabs open at the same
time when using the laptop. I do when I'm using my desktop.



the performance of a device depends on whatever hardware specs it has,
not the charge level of the battery.


See the above.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 22:33:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Live Photos is where, when enabled, the iPhone takes a series of
full-resolution shots 1.5 seconds before and after you hit the
shutter
button.

What am I missing? I don't follow Apple news, but the above
indicates
that the camera function activates before the user of the device
knows
he's going to take a photo.

While it is in that mode it is recording everything all the time but
dumps everything older than 1.5 seconds. When you push the button it
attaches the end of currently saved 1.5 seconds to the beginning of
the next 1.5 seconds thereby giving you a 3 seconds shot.

Gotcha. I didn't know there was a mode, or setting, involved. I
didn't recognize "Live Photos" as being a mode or setting, but I
should have.

Seems like it would run down the battery if one wasn't careful to
turn
off Live Photos when not expecting to use it.

there's no reason why it would run down the battery with it on or off.

So you are saying that "Live View" is not a battery-powered function?
A lit screen is not lit by battery?

what a way to twist things.

i never said anything remotely close to that. have you had a few too
many tonight?

You said "there's no reason why it would run down the battery with it
on or off." That at least implies that either turning on live view
does not draw additional power from the battery or that even when
turned off it continues to draw power from the battery.

tony's original claim was that with live photos on, it would run down
the battery.

i said that's false. there is no difference whether it's on or off.

There must be some difference, surely?

the only difference is the resulting file is a little bigger, which
takes perhaps an extra few microseconds to write to flash.

the difference is *so* small that it's really just theoretical.

taking the time to turn off live photos will use up more power than
anything that would have been saved by having smaller files.

tony, needing to argue about *something*, twisted what i said into live
photos being a battery powered function, as is having the display
'lit'.

if anything is lit, it's tony.

*everything* on a phone is a battery powered function. he also got the
name of the feature wrong, calling it live view.

I thought it was a valid question from someone who knew nothing about
thr function. Your answer was merely a longer version of your usual
'no' and did nothing to satisfy Tony's intelligent curiosity.

he didn't ask a question. he said it seemed like it would, i said it
wouldn't and then asked why he would think that.

He wrote "Seems like it would run down the battery if one wasn't
careful to turn off Live Photos when not expecting to use it." which I
took as rhetorical question itching for an explanation.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 6/7/2017 4:22 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:

Apple has just announced its existence.
Let¹s see what the reality of HomePod¹s full capability is in December
after the developers have had their way with it, and it goes on sale.

True, but the Echo has years on the HomePod and any other like-device.
It will likely take some time before the HomePod "catches up" and keep
in mind that while it is trying to catch up, the Echos's capabilities
will continue to grow.
it's going to be quite a while until echo will have the same sound
quality, if it ever does.

Who's disputing that?


they're targeting different use cases. nothing wrong with that.

many people will have both.

I can see many people having both but if optimal sound quality is not a
requirement, the Echo might well be a better choice at the moment.

On 6/7/2017 7:57 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Whisky-dave" wrote

| "You don't have to know what any of that is; just
| know that it sounds incredible"
|
| Gotta love a company whose head of marketing talks
| to the customers like they're idiots.
|
| Why not the motoring industry does it.
| Do you have to know exactly how your ABS works in yuor care

I think the equlivalent analogy would be,
"Do you need to know your car has ABS brakes
in order to appreciate that it drives smoothly?"
If I'm buying a car, I'd like to know those
specs. But actually, many car salesmen are like
the Apple marketing man: They want to get you
to drive the thing and fall in love with the ride
before they talk details. "All you gotta know is
that this car is fun! Price? Functionality? Don't
worry yourself about those confusing details."

A person's requirements make the difference. A car that is fun to drive
but not very practical can still be a purchase choice depending on a
person's wants/needs. Where I am moving to, I met a person who has an
Alfa Romeo 4C. Not a very practical/functional car. But it's fun to
drive. He uses it as a second car, his other car is a practical sedan.
A person who may buy a HomePod may want it for just a few functions in
addition to using it to play music, which is obvious that it will do
better than all other devices like it right now. If they are already an
Apple user, that may be more reason to buy a HomePod.

In article , PAS wrote:

Apple has just announced its existence.
Let1s see what the reality of HomePod1s full capability is in December
after the developers have had their way with it, and it goes on sale.

True, but the Echo has years on the HomePod and any other like-device.
It will likely take some time before the HomePod "catches up" and keep
in mind that while it is trying to catch up, the Echos's capabilities
will continue to grow.
it's going to be quite a while until echo will have the same sound
quality, if it ever does.

Who's disputing that?

the point is that it's one of it's key differentiating features.

they're targeting different use cases. nothing wrong with that.

many people will have both.

I can see many people having both but if optimal sound quality is not a
requirement, the Echo might well be a better choice at the moment.

you're assuming the homepod is an echo competitor. it's much more of a
sonos competitor than an echo competitor.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

*you* mentioned performance, which has absolutely nothing to do with
the discussion.

Of course performance is integral to a discussion about battery drain
apps on a phone.

performance has nothing to do with battery drain. nothing at all.

So a flat battery doesn't affect performance?

no more than the on/off button does.

you're *really* grasping for straws.

I don't think so. Most camera reviews include a reference to battery
life. When trying to choose between cameras battery life is not an
aspect of performance which can be ignored. Nor should it be now.

battery life is certainly a factor to consider, but it has nothing
whatsoever to do with performance.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


And as usual it took a prolonged interrogation to extract the
information which you could have given at the outset.

i did give it at the outset.

You said "there's no reason why it would run down the battery with it
on or off" with no hint of an explanation. The absence of explanation
of your comment is why the thread has continued as it has.

nobody asked for an explanation.


You insist that I am "incorrect" when I allow that the battery drain
is "negligible" by insisting that, instead, "the difference is so
small (that it) can't be measured". What in the hell do you think
"negligible" means? Here's a clue from the dictionary: "Negligible:
so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering,
insignificant".

you said the answer to your question is yes. that is wrong. the answer
is no.

would you consider the battery of your camera to drain faster if you
set it to high compression jpeg (smallest file) versus high quality
jpeg (largest file)? because that's essentially the same thing.

But your iPad is not taking a continuous stream of photographs.

only because i don't use the camera in my ipad.

however, when the camera app is active, an ios device *is* taking a
continuous stream of photos, filling a buffer in memory, while the isp
analyzes them. if the user takes a photo, data is then written to
flash.

And does this have any impact on battery load?

of course it does. using the camera app uses more power than not using
it because several subsystems are active.


You insist that I am incorrect when I allow that it will not affect
the phone's performance by countering that it won't be noticed by the
user. In other words, it wouldn't affect the phone's performance.

performance has absolutely nothing to do with battery life. that's a
separate issue entirely. you are very, very confused.

No, you are. Battery life is part of performance.

nope. battery life has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
performance. zero. zip. nada.

There are many potential camera buyers who would not agree with you.

then they are ignorant.

the performance of a device depends on whatever hardware specs it has,
not the charge level of the battery.

Not true, if the battery is flat.

straw man.

there is *zero* impact to performance. none whatsoever. zip.

The question was asked if leaving the feature on will cause battery
drain, and requested a "yes" or "no" answer. You said "no", and then
went on to agree that it does. A correct answer from you would have
been "yes, but the drain is so negligible that it is a non-issue."

nope. the answer is no because nobody outside of an engineering lab
with exotic test equipment can find a difference, and even then,
probably not.

"A correct answer from you would have been "yes, but the drain is so
negligible that it is a non-issue.""

a correct answer is 'there is no difference, other than a theoretical
one for pinheads who want to argue'.

By that definition, you think there is a difference.

the difference is imperceptible.

do you think about the additional power used when posting to usenet?

your modem is routing more packets than it otherwise would have if you
simply lurked, which requires more power.

do you think you can measure the difference in power consumption a
single usenet post incurs?

*that* is the level of absurdity that this has become.

i only mentioned the write time difference because people like you try
to find an argument out of *anything*, had i not, you'd have said 'but
you didn't mention that it takes longer to write a larger file'.

You create arguments where there should be no argument by misstating
something and then digging in by claiming there was no misstatement.

it ain't me who is creating an argument.

Why then are you surrounded by arguments wherever you go? I know you
don't do it on purpose but ...

because certain people in this newsgroup have nothing better to do than
argue.

Usually trying to extract the meaning of what has been said.

simple questions work well.
insulting me does not.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

*you* mentioned performance, which has absolutely nothing to do with
the discussion.

Of course performance is integral to a discussion about battery drain
apps on a phone.

performance has nothing to do with battery drain. nothing at all.

So a flat battery doesn't affect performance?

No it doesn't as performance isn't measured with a flat battery any more than
the 0-60 time of a car is measured without fuel in the tank.

correct.

nope. the only difference is you'll have to recharge sooner if you use
a battery draining app.

Why recharge? According to you, battery drain doesn't affect
performance, so just let it keep draining.

Like you don't fill a car up with fuel you just keep driving.

The only trouble with this analogy is that cars do perfom better with less
fuel in the tank due to wieght considerations

very slightly.

I don't think this applies to charge in batteries though.

it doesn't.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I thought it was a valid question from someone who knew nothing about
thr function. Your answer was merely a longer version of your usual
'no' and did nothing to satisfy Tony's intelligent curiosity.

he didn't ask a question. he said it seemed like it would, i said it
wouldn't and then asked why he would think that.

He wrote "Seems like it would run down the battery if one wasn't
careful to turn off Live Photos when not expecting to use it." which I
took as rhetorical question itching for an explanation.

i took it as a person who made an incorrect assumption due to lack of
knowledge about the topic, something said person does with shocking
regularity.