Let the games begin!
in [Wireless Internet]
|
From: Todd Allcock on 6 Jul 2010 17:30 At 06 Jul 2010 07:56:52 -0700 nospam wrote: > In article <i0vefj$mro$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, George > <george(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > You really need to do some fact checking before making a declaration > > like that. > > i have. you need to stop listening to soundbites. > > > Go and review how the current algorithm for displaying the > > bars works. Apology accepted > > 'the' current algorithm? there is no single one. Aren't you the one that linked to the Anandtech article earlier in the thread? Anand seemed to show the "algorithm" of the signal meter quite clearly: the bars are linked to the RSSI (like on most phones) and switched at - 91,-101, -103, -107, and -113 dbm. That's a pretty lousy meter, analagous to a car with a 15 gallon tank that shows "F" for the first 14 gallons, then reads 3/4, 1/2, 1/4, and "E" all over the last gallon. (Having said that, on most cars I've owned, the first "half" tank is much larger than the last "half!") As I mentioned before, my HTC-built Sony has an awful meter as well- Apple certainly doesn't have an exclusive there. Playing in and around a dead spot yesterday, I found my Sony changes bars at -90, -95, -100, - 103, and -106. FWIW, the most signal I could lose by touching/holding/squeezing/fondling the Sony was -11. However, given the weird curve of the meter, that could theoretically cause a drop from five bars to two, if I dropped from -89 to -100. Look for my damning series of YouTube videos coming soon! ;) Now we can argue "intent" all day, but we'd all just be guessing. Arguing the meter "algorithms" on both phones are primarily designed to show "full strength" as much as possible, and, as such, are all but useless to the end-user as indication of relative signal strength, would certainly be a valid one, though. The thing I find more interesting from Anandtech (in a conspiratorial way) is the 10-second update speed (or lack thereof) for the meter. My HTCs update every 3-seconds (despite the included Field Test app having a resolution of 1-second.) So not only is the iPhone meter 'rigged' to show "great" signal almost always, it's also rigged to hide signal drops for roughly as long as it takes you to pick up, dial the phone, and shut off the display with the proximity sensor! ;) Conspiracy theories aside, by all reports, the iPhone 4 seems to work in practice as well as other smartphones, so this issue alone wouldn't prevent me from buying one. If the crummy cellular radio in the iPhone 2G didn't stop it from selling like hotcakes, the crummy antenna in this one won't either. And, frankly, the whole "Awww, shucks, we've just been programming the iPhone meters wrong all along..." press release from Apple served no purpose other than to make us wonder if they're merely incompetent, or lying through their collective teeth. I'm not sure which one is preferable! ;) [a.c.verizon xposting removed]
From: nospam on 6 Jul 2010 17:52 In article <5gNYn.9781$0A5.7770(a)newsfe22.iad>, Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > Now we can argue "intent" all day, but we'd all just be guessing. guessing never stopped anyone :) > Arguing the meter "algorithms" on both phones are primarily designed to > show "full strength" as much as possible, and, as such, are all but > useless to the end-user as indication of relative signal strength, would > certainly be a valid one, though. the bars don't really mean much. either the call drops or it doesn't. > And, frankly, the whole "Awww, shucks, we've just been programming the > iPhone meters wrong all along..." press release from Apple served no > purpose other than to make us wonder if they're merely incompetent, or > lying through their collective teeth. I'm not sure which one is > preferable! ;) that was one of the more stupid things they've said.
From: Todd Allcock on 6 Jul 2010 17:35 At 06 Jul 2010 12:51:52 -0700 nospam wrote: > In article <o0u636185pukl669208jrn4ou70p2129ou(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD > <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: > > Another example is media, iTunes doesn't backup media at all, so as a > > rule if you wipe your device you lose all the media on the device > > (although iTunes will restore what it placed on the device, > > the media is already backed up. what's on the iphone is a copy. > > > but if you > > load music manually rather than synchronizing your entire library, you > > get to restore what you want manually) > > true. that's what manual sync means :) Where's the backup option for that? That one has bit me in the rump every upgrade, since iTunes refuses to "remember" what has been manually synced, and Overdrive library audiobooks won't load on an iPod/iPhone unless you switch to manual mode.
From: DevilsPGD on 6 Jul 2010 18:50 In message <060720101251521182%nospam(a)nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> was claimed to have wrote: >In article <o0u636185pukl669208jrn4ou70p2129ou(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD ><Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: > >> iPhones actually don't back up everything. Most things are backed up by >> default though. > >nearly everything. Oh, also except Contacts, Calendars and Mail if you use server based storage mechanisms. IMAP and Exchange/ActiveSync are examples, if you wipe your device and restore the configuration is there but your data is downloaded from the server not from iTunes. This brings us neatly back to this threads' discussion, the only difference between and iPhone and the Sidekick here is that the Sidekick wiped lost contacts/calendar data after a reboot, with the iPhone you have to kick it a bit harder to lose your local data, but either way it's not backed up locally. (this isn't a bad thing either, device-side backups are the wrong place to do backups in a cloud architecture) >> Another example is media, iTunes doesn't backup media at all, so as a >> rule if you wipe your device you lose all the media on the device >> (although iTunes will restore what it placed on the device, > >the media is already backed up. what's on the iphone is a copy. It might be. I might have loaded the music from another computer entirely and what's on the iPhone might not be a copy. >> but if you >> load music manually rather than synchronizing your entire library, you >> get to restore what you want manually) > >true. that's what manual sync means :) Manually choosing what to load means "don't backup"? That's an odd translation.
From: nospam on 6 Jul 2010 18:56
In article <jac736h6d010lbem0jgb4h5maal9k6vjo4(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: > >> iPhones actually don't back up everything. Most things are backed up by > >> default though. > > > >nearly everything. > > Oh, also except Contacts, Calendars and Mail if you use server based > storage mechanisms. IMAP and Exchange/ActiveSync are examples, if you > wipe your device and restore the configuration is there but your data is > downloaded from the server not from iTunes. that's backing up and restoring to a server. nothing is lost unless that server goes away. > This brings us neatly back to this threads' discussion, the only > difference between and iPhone and the Sidekick here is that the Sidekick > wiped lost contacts/calendar data after a reboot, with the iPhone you > have to kick it a bit harder to lose your local data, but either way > it's not backed up locally. quite a bit harder. > >> but if you > >> load music manually rather than synchronizing your entire library, you > >> get to restore what you want manually) > > > >true. that's what manual sync means :) > > Manually choosing what to load means "don't backup"? That's an odd > translation. it's officially called 'manually manage music and videos.' if you are manually managing it, itunes assumes you're taking the necessary precautions. it's not the default setting either, so someone who enables it is assumed to know what they're doing. the music is still on the computer, the only thing that's lost is the list of what's copied to the iphone. you'd need to recreate the selection of songs. |