We knew Apple would be rather clever in *exactly* how they couch this,
given there is no possibility of fixing it without reducing performance.

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).

Now, we find out that Apple is couching this as they're not going to reduce
the CPU's performance - which we expected - as they lower app performance.

"Apple did not provide any specific details about the bug
that it identified, but it said that it will not be reducing
the performance of the A17 Pro chip with its planned software update. "

The performance will decrease.
There's no other way.

But let's keep up to date on how Apple cleverly couches how they do that.

For example, Apple will differentiate between the CPU and the apps.
But even more clever, if Apple talks about "the bug", and "that one bug"
didn't cause them to reduce the CPU speeds - what about the other bugs?

How did Apple solve the myriad bugs - not just "the one bug" that caused
the defective iPhone 15 to overheat (which Apple only recently admitted)?

Never forget Apple is just about the most clever liar on this planet.
Just like Big Tobacco is.
--
The truth about Apple, just like the truth about Big Tobacco, is ugly.

On 10/3/23 15:25, Wally J wrote:
> 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).

They probably mean that having the CPU barely run will improve longevity
(not that it matters as much because it will be obsoleted pretty fast)

> Never forget Apple is just about the most clever liar on this planet.
> Just like Big Tobacco is.

Maximum charisma.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Oct 3, 2023, Wally J wrote
(in article <ufhtbu$ac28$1@paganini.bofh.team>):

> We knew Apple would be rather clever in *exactly* how they couch this,
> given there is no possibility of fixing it without reducing performance.
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/

On 2023-10-03, Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
> there is no possibility of fixing it without reducing performance.

Bullshit. It's been explained to you under all of your different nyms
that it's commonplace for software defects to cause excessive resource
usages, and fixing those bugs very often *increases* 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.

--
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

Dorper <usenet@dorper.me> wrote

> If you know what the bug is how about you tell us the bug.

I'll assume this conversation will stay at the adult level, OK?

You know two things when you make that facetious request, right?
1. Apple called it "the bug" at the same time Apple admitted to many
divergent issues that caused the defective iPhones to overheat.

2. Even as Apple has themselves called it "the bug", Apple has not
publicly said what they mean when they refer to "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.

Assuming we wish to stay at the adult level of conversation, there aren't
usually many remediation to widespread overheating than simply decreasing
performance (either of the apps causing the overheating, or the CPU speed).

So you can't all of a sudden be incredulous that it's in the cards.

The fact that the most common remediation is a reduction in performance
(and perhaps the _only_ possible software-only remediation by the way)
is well known to both Apple and to the user community that tests things.

Hence, it's not surprising Apple has mentioned that short term performance
will be impacted, and it's even less surprising that Apple was very clear
in saying that the reduction in performance will be to the apps themselves.

If we keep our adult hat on, by assessing closely Apple's clever public
statements, we can see how Apple is couching that performance reduction.

> 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.

Keeping our adult hats on, I agree with you that Apple is being extremely
circumspect about _where_ the "bugs" (there are many, this we must agree)
are - which - to me - indicates it's something very embarrassing indeed.

> 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/

In summary, if we keep our adult senses, Apple is clearly hiding the causes
of the many bugs - and - Apple is slowly leaking out how they will reduce
performance - first saying there will be little "long-term" performance
impact (emphasis on "long term") and now saying that the performance impact
won't be by reducing the speed of the processor (aka, throttling).

Let's just keep closely looking at the EXACT WORDING of Apple's statements.
Remember the "apology", for example - wasn't an apology after all, right?

Apple's apology blamed chemistry which nobody believed but the iKooks.
The fact is blaming batteries didn't stop Apple from losing myriad civil &
criminal lawsuits to the tune of over a billion in costs & penalties.

Rest assured, *Apple will blame* everyone but Apple for the design flaws.
But let's keep our adult hats on as to how *Apple will reduce performance*.

Time will tell.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apple+reduce+performance+overheating&va=n&t=ht&df=d&ia=news>

All we know for sure, from Apple's own statements are:
a. Lots of causes, presumably fixed in 17.0.3 (and also in 17.1)
b. Apple says these bug fixes won't have "long term" performance impact
c. Apple also said the performance reduction won't be in processor speed

We also know Apple said, very cleverly so, that "top performance"
won't be impacted - so keep your adult cognitive skills handy.
<https://bgr.com/tech/iphone-15-pro-maxs-overheating-problem-should-disappear-with-next-update-but-what-if-apple-doesnt-fix-it/>
"Apple also noted that it won't reduce the *top performance*
of the iPhone 15 Pro and 15 Pro Max via the update that
should fix overheating."

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?

However, that's all we really know from Apple, is that right?
Or do you know more than I do about what Apple themselves have admitted to?

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.

Each of the statements from Apple indicate a performance reduction.
They're just couching that performance reduction in very clever ways.

Now... having proven that (see previous cites), what do you offer, JR?
a. ?
b. ?
c. ?
--
My goal is to bring an adult conversation to the child-like Apple
newsgroups in terms of what Apple says versus what Apple actually does.

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.

Dorper <usenet@dorper.me> wrote

>> 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.

Asking you to simply act like an adult didn't last long with you, did it?

>> 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.

Remember, I had asked you to remain an adult, didn't I?
Why can't you comprehend then what any normal adult would have understood?

Nobody ever said the defects were in hardware; certainly I never said that.
If you can't comprehend simple sentences, then you've lost your adult hat.

I repeat since you don't seem to comprehend at the adult cognitive levels:
*Nobody said the defects were in hardware - everyone said they're bugs!*

Is that explicit enough for you to put your adult hat back on, Dorper?

Here... I'll drop the problem set down to the cognitive level you express.
a. Apple fucked up (again)
b. Apple forgot to test the iPhone (again)
c. Apple is currently blaming everyone but Apple (again)

All those statements, lowered to your expressed level of cognition, are
simply facts that everyone knows. What we're trying to assess here, if we
remain at the adult level of cognition that is, is how Apple is going to
fix the bugs.

Apple has no choice but to reduce the performance of the defective iPhones.
The only question here is _how_ is Apple going to reduce that performance.

> 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.

I think you fail to comprehend the fundamental adult point of this thread.
*It's Apple - not me - who is telling us how they'll reduce performance.*

All the cues are coming from Apple.
Not from me.

I'm just citing what Apple has said they will do to reduce the performance.

Why are you Apple aficionados so deathly afraid of the truth about Apple?
A. Apple said themselves there are multiple divergent software bugs
B. Apple said themselves they will strive to retain "long term" performance
C. Apple said themselves they will strive to retain "top" performance
D. Strongly saying there won't be a A17 Pro "chip performance" reduction

Note all the weasel words that an actual adult would know the meaning of.
1. Apple's obvious embarrassment regarding "the bug" versus very many bugs
2. "long-term performance" versus short-term performance
3. "top performance" versus the performance the rest of the time
4. "chip performance" versus WTF? Bus speed? Clock Speed? What?

> 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.

It's you who has failed to comprehend the adult nature of this discussion.

*The technical discussion here is what do Apple's own cited words mean?*

Apple said how they would _not_ reduce the performance of the defective
iPhones; but the question Apple did not answer yet is how they will.

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?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2023-10-04 03:07, Dorper wrote:
> 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're not going where it's going, therefore you are wrong.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-10-04, Dorper <usenet@dorper.me> wrote:
> 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.

This has been explained to him (under his various filter-skirting nyms)
ad nauseam. The reason he *refuses* to acknowledge it is because he
cannot admit he might be wrong about his baseless assertion that the
heating issues are a hardware defect. Like a child caught in a lie, all
he can bring himself to do is double down on his lie.

> 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.

For all of his claims of superiority, he's just a weak-minded troll.

--
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

On 2023-10-04, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
> 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?

Nope. But you two feel free to continue your little dream-building
exercise. You're just looking like fools to anyone who knows better.

--
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

On 2023-10-04, Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> 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*

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.

--
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

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.
However, I'll note that your _first_ response to all facts about Apple
products that you hate - is - to deny that any facts can exist.

So that's step 1 of your 7-step process of denying all Apple facts.
(I know what you'll do in step 2 since I know you better than you do.)

> Those are *your*
> words, and you are the true weasel here.

Normally you use the insulting as your last step, Jolly Roger.
So you skipped six steps in your desperation to deny all facts about Apple
products.

I know you iKooks better than you do.
You _hate_ all facts about Apple products.

But you don't own the adult cognitive skills to realize that fact.
Yet.

>
>> B. There should not be a *top performance reduction*
>
> Apple never wrote "top performance reduction".

Again, I cited where Apple said that.
You being ignorant of the facts doesn't change that they're facts.

You will deny _every_ fact about Apple products that you don't like.
So it's merely step 1 in your process of avoiding all facts about Apple.

> Those are *your* words,
> and you are the true weasel here.

Nope. Apple said them. They're a matter of public record.
You just don't _like_ what Apple said, Jolly Roger.

Just like you don't like that Apple said they only fully support one
release. For years you've lied about Apple's support Jolly Roger.

You hate me because I tell you facts about Apple that you hate.
So be it.

>> 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.

Yet again, those are verbatim cut-and-paste from the Apple statement.
What you _hate_, Jolly Roger, is all facts about Apple products.

Your _first_ step in "protecting" yourself from facts is to deny that any
facts exist about Apple products. That's what you're doing here, JR.

So be it.
You only have 7 responses to all facts about Apple that you hate.

You used up two of them already.
1. You deny all facts about Apple can exist.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. You try to make facts disappear by insulting the bearer of facts.

> Your trolling is weak, old fart.

You call all facts you hate about Apple, "trolling", JR.
Do you know why you do that?

I do.

You hate me, Jolly Roger... *because you fear me*.
You fear that I present facts about Apple products that you hate.

You fear all facts about Apple products, Jolly Roger. Don't you.

So be it.

You fear anyone who informs you of the truth about Apple products.

Your entire goal in life - is to remain ignorant of the truth.
By me bringing the truth to you - I ruin your pleasant life.

So be it.

My goal is to bring an adult conversation to these child-like Apple
newsgroups in terms of the truth behind what Apple says & what they do.

What's no longer shocking is how deathly afraid low-IQ uneducated ignorant
religious-zealot iKooks are of the simple truths about Apple products.

a. Apple fucked up with the defective iPhone 15 product line;
b. Apple forgot to test the defective iPhone 15 product line;
c. When Apple was forced to test the defective iPhone 15 product line,
Apple found multiple and rather embarrassingly diverse causative bugs.

Worse... Apple has blamed everyone but Apple for the defective iPhones.

That's the truth, right?
*Why are you so deathly _afraid_ of those simple truths, Jolly Roger?*

What is going to be interesting, for adults to ponder, is how Apple reduced
performance since we know Apple's lawyers have already couched that fact.

A. Apple publicly said they'll try to limit the *long-term* impact;
B. Apple said they'll try to not limit the *top performance* impact;
C. And Apple said there won't be an *A17 Pro chip performance* reduction.

That's the truth, right?
*Why are you so deathly _afraid_ of these simple truths, Jolly Roger?
--
My goal is to bring an adult conversation to these child-like Apple
newsgroups in terms of the truth behind what Apple says & what they do.

On 2023-10-04 13:31, Wally J wrote:
> 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.

Without any source...