iOS 11 and macOS High Sierra

On 06/07/2017 03:31 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:20:18 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


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.

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

You say as if you are refuting something. I did not say that the
phone's performance would be affected. You are arguing a point not
made.

*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. If an app sucks up battery use, the performance is
diminished. However, what I actually said, is that the app in
question does *not* affect performance.


You also haven't defined "Performance". If you were using the phone as a
music source, then "performance" might be the sound quality or volume.
If you were using it to watch video, "performance" might be the screen
picture quality. "Performance" might also mean the amount of use-time
between charges; which also opens another worm can- at what point do you
'have to' charge it? "Performance" might also mean the signal strength,
either transmit or receive.


--
Ken Hart

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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.

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

You say as if you are refuting something. I did not say that the
phone's performance would be affected. You are arguing a point not
made.

*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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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'.

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.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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.

No, a theoretical difference is a hypothetical difference in the mind
of the person offering the theory. A difference in the operation of a
device is a practical and real difference.

there is no real difference. it's nothing that can be measured.

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

You have made some remarkably inane statements in this newsgroup, but
this one exceeds most of them in inanity.

not at all.

as usual, you are *so* fixated on arguing you're missing the big
picture, no pun intended.

How can the user of the device use the power of the device by taking
time to turn off a feature? What effect does the motion of the user
have on using the device's power, and how does the time taken to do
that affect the power usage?

because the camera app would need to be running for 5-10 seconds longer
than it otherwise would have been while the user goes into settings to
disable the feature.

quitting the app 10 seconds sooner saves a *lot* more power than
worrying about writing an extra megabyte or whatever.

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

Yes, an operational feature of a device is a battery-powered function
if the device is battery-powered.

yep, and not relevant.


*everything* on a phone is a battery powered function.

Yep. You just agreed with me.

nope. i didn't say what you claim i did.

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.


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


See the above.




--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


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.

the *user* can alter the performance if the user chooses to do so.

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


See the above.

yep.

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Obviously live photo takes more battery power than not using it -
from the assumption that if you turn it off, the buffer isn't used
at all.

When the camera app is active, the camera sensor is being read
from and is being displayed live on the display. The iPhone 7 Plus
display is 2 megapixels, so obviously the entire camera sensor
image is not streamed as-is to the screen, it's a scaled-down
version. The buffer contains 3 seconds of 12 megapixel images. It
captures these at 15 fps, so you get a total of 45 12MP images
when taking one shot.

Obviously, buffering and saving 45 12MP images takes processing
power which in turn consumes battery (and storage space). I would
assume that this is very marginal though, and like I said, it
assumes that this buffer isn't always used even when the user
elects these images not to be saved, which it could be, if the
user has turned live photos OFF and the buffer is still there, the
camera app could do a quick analysis of the buffer to select the
least blurry photo for instance, which may have been four frames
before (or after) the user actually pressed the shutter button.

In that case, there would be no difference other than in storage
space.

I'm not claiming that leaving the feature on is a problem. It just
didn't seem logical to me that leaving the feature on does not
result in *some* battery drain. If the battery drain is minimal, and
doesn't affect the performance of the phone, then it's not a
problem.

Indeed

--
Sandman

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


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.

No, a theoretical difference is a hypothetical difference in the mind
of the person offering the theory. A difference in the operation of a
device is a practical and real difference.

there is no real difference. it's nothing that can be measured.

As expected, you didn't address my point that there is no "theoretical
difference". And, if there is a real difference it certainly *can* be
measured.

then why don't you explain exactly how to measure it.

this ought to be good.

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

You have made some remarkably inane statements in this newsgroup, but
this one exceeds most of them in inanity.

not at all.

as usual, you are *so* fixated on arguing you're missing the big
picture, no pun intended.

How can the user of the device use the power of the device by taking
time to turn off a feature? What effect does the motion of the user
have on using the device's power, and how does the time taken to do
that affect the power usage?

because the camera app would need to be running for 5-10 seconds longer
than it otherwise would have been while the user goes into settings to
disable the feature.

If it takes you 5-10 seconds to disable the feature, you must be
disabled in some way.

there you go with insults. it has nothing to do with me.

you're also missing the point (no surprise there) in that the app is
running longer than it otherwise would have been, regardless if it's 1
second or 1 minute.

even if it's only 1 second, you'd have to shoot a *****load* of photos
to offset it, since the difference in write time per file would be in
the microseconds range. you'd fill the capacity of the phone first.

And, you avoid the point that no power is used by turning off the
feature. The only "power" expended is the power of the person doing
it.

nonsense. add ios power optimization to the long list of things you
know nothing about.

It was an inane statement.

nope. it's exactly correct.

quitting the app 10 seconds sooner saves a *lot* more power than
worrying about writing an extra megabyte or whatever.

Quitting the app? Which app? Is it ever possible for you to mount a
coherent argument? You post endlessly, and at length, but seldom
with all the necessary words to explain whatever point you're making.

the camera app. duh. do try to keep up.

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

Yes, an operational feature of a device is a battery-powered function
if the device is battery-powered.

yep, and not relevant.


*everything* on a phone is a battery powered function.

Yep. You just agreed with me.

nope. i didn't say what you claim i did.

It's right there in front of you. Live photos is a battery-powered
function, as are all operations, yet you say I twisted your words to
get you to say that. If you didn't, you were wrong.

everything is battery powered (unless it's plugged in, of course, which
you are ignoring).

live photos on or off makes no difference, for reasons i already
explained, which you continue to ignore.

you are fixated on something entirely irrelevant just so you can argue
about a topic you know nothing about.

if you think that the extra few microseconds makes *any* difference
whatsoever, let alone can be measured, then you are too stupid for
words.

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 22:33:45 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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.

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

You say as if you are refuting something. I did not say that the
phone's performance would be affected. You are arguing a point not
made.

*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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens