These patents are not really an implementation - which is what a patent is supposed to cover - this is just an idea for doing something, not the implementation of doing that thing. The patent is supposed to cover the way in which Apple implements this idea, not the idea itself.
Which it doesn't even do at the moment (according to the writer).
Read what he said: "My friend's i7-4801mq is worse — it could never stay at the advertised 3.6GHz for more than a few seconds before it burns up over 90 and starts to throttle."
That is precisely how turbo boost works, short bursts within thermal conditions. If the system was better cooled it could stay there for longer. My zbook and precision laptops have i7 4900 and 4910 chips respectively and the cooling is designed well enough that they can avoid hitting that thermal ceiling and last quite a bit of time in turbo boost mode, but certainly not for extended periods.
Explain it to the carriers and see if they'll change their policies.
If not, then Google chose the least-bad option from a consumer standpoint. They probably like the platform lock, but it doesn't change the fact that the carriers tied their hands to begin with.
Don't pretend they couldn't have achieved the same thing if Google Play Services was open source, that's just being a desperate apologist. It's closed purely for lock-in and nothing else.
I don't really care, the point is if you want updates there is certainly the option. Not all manufacturers are like that and you have the choice to go with the US carriers' subsidized plans, if you want updates and you choose that even after history has demonstrated quite clearly that it isn't going to happen then frankly that's your problem.
The niche really is the small group concerned about vulnerabilities that want updates, most people don't know or care so if you're in that small group then don't make stupid choices like this. There are heaps of posts on here (a site for nerds) about people buying AT&T and Verizon phones and complaining about not getting updates, at this point you should be well aware of this and choose something like the OnePlus One. It's cheaper, better quality than most and it gets updates... what's not to like?
If you turn on FileVault 2, the power-on and boot behavior of the system is also changed.
Ok, I haven't been able to find the information on that, but what I did see is that performance degradation is in the 20-30% range, which would dissuade most people from using it.
If you install a hacked Thunderbolt adapter and let it be connected during a firmware update, while you're logged in, you're screwed.
Yeah i'd imagine that would be a fairly easy thing to do, swap out a legitimate one for a hacked one, users would be wary about plugging in USB sticks but probably not so much about port adapters.
Not googles fault that device makers are too damned lazy to compile and deliver updated OS images to it's customers.
Oh come on they build the OS, they control the OHA and their OS accounts for the majority of the smartphone market. They have more than enough leverage that they could easily mandate this. Apple has proven this can be done, if carriers don't want the burden of updating their own per-device fork then they can do exactly what they do with iPhones and not modify the OS.
It's for experimenting with Android and I just whack my iPhone sim card in there and it all works fine. The problem you're discussing is a problem with the US way of carriers and subsidized phone plans. It doesn't have to be like that.
There were naturally more releases with shorter lives in the time when when the desktop computing market was rapidly evolving but even still the support length for Microsoft is so good that for the last about 25 years you get away with just 3 OS upgrades and remain supported the whole time. Whereas with smartphones - that includes Microsoft's smartphone offerings - you need to upgrade pretty much every year (if you even can) to stay supported.
Google is doing exactly this with 5.0. They're moving more android components in to the userspace so they can be updatable via the play store.
The problem with that is it moves crucial components from the open AOSP project into a closed-source, proprietary Google layer. So many of those "Android" applications become "Google Android" applications and if you don't have Google's version of Android they won't run.
everyone would previously have gone from Windows 3.1, to 95, to 95 OSR2, to 98, to 98 SE, to NT 4, to 2000, to ME, and then to XP.
No they didn't, NT 4 and 2000 were the workstation and server releases that ran parallel to 95 and ME. Nobody would do the upgrade cycle you are suggesting.
If anything people went from 3.1 to 95 (possibly to 98 if it was preinstalled on new hardware given the fast upgrade cycle at the time) to XP to now 8.1.
95 was supported 1995 to 2001 and XP was supported 2001 until 2014. You could have upgraded to every single release 3.1, 95, 98, Me, XP, Vista, 7, 8, if you really wanted to but thanks to the long support times of Microsoft OSes you didn't have to do that. Most people just upgraded because a new version came with their new hardware.
Even if they patched it for 4.3, there is approximately zero chance that it would be pushed out as an update by anyone.
Isn't this the whole point of Google Play Services? So that things like this can be patched without having to push the system update through the OEMs and carriers? Or are things like WebView not able to be put in GPS?
It still doesn't make sense. The intent of higher specs is for them to be beneficial. What's the point of a higher spec if it makes no difference?
The temperature it runs at isn't what makes the difference.
If what the writer says is correct there is a definite problem with the board at the software level.
No, it is that he doesn't understand Turbo Boost. That feature is to allow for the processor to run higher than normal for short periods of time, not 24/7.
Is it so hard to believe a company could have made a mistake?
No but given the details about the feature are specifically listed on Intel's website and the OP's post runs contrary to that I would say it is the OP that is wrong. It can be pushed for short periods of time but if you try to do that 24/7 it will be throttled.
Why is it that RMS is quick to call all proprietary software unjust, and yet gives a free pass to chipmakers for not publishing their masksets?
Because his focus is on software, which is the wrong spot to attack the problem. You should be starting at the bottom, not in the middle, otherwise you end up with the exact situation we have now. There is an open operating system running atop a mostly proprietary hardware setup with mostly proprietary driver interfaces to that hardware. Even now, decades after RMS started the free software movement, open drivers (which are the reason it got started in the first place) lag behind their proprietary counterparts in pretty much every category because it's trying to work with a proprietary hardware device.
The free software movement is still hammering away at the desktop trying to get adoption of an open OS on a closed platform and integration with closed devices even as it moves to being less relevant. As others have stated before there were opportunities to innovate in the smartphone, tablet and wearable categories but the fixation on the closed desktop has led to the creation of proprietary incumbents in these new spaces too. Open source won't gain widespread adoption as being innovative and disruptive until it actually comes up with something innovative and disruptive.
Right now it's confined to dev and admin tools that most users will never use or know about and perhaps that's enough but I think most free software activists have grander ambitions than that. If you grind away long enough you'll get that square peg in the round hole even though it won't be pretty, or you can move on and create something new, innovative, unique and truly disruptive and beneficial to people.
When you're running FileVault, if no one is logged in, the machine will refuse to communicate with ANY attached external device, over thunderbolt or USB or anything else, but for one "main" display and the keyboard and mouse.
No, this attack happens before FileVault starts running.
The mobile version is in a more constrained physical environment than the desktop so whilst it can be pushed further in the thermal envelope it is only for very short periods of time and it then needs to be throttled.
Yep. I would expect that HP EliteBook and Fujitsu Celcius series do not have problems in this area.
I have a HP zBook and while it is pretty impressive in this area it cannot run at turbo boost frequency for extended periods of time... but that is of course acceptable because that is not what turbo boost is for.
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.01 accelerates processor and graphics performance for peak loads, automatically allowing processor cores to run faster than the rated operating frequency if they’re operating below power, current, and temperature specification limits.
I believe he should contact the manufacturer and have them evaluate the BIOS. If the specs say the processor can run up to 125 C then it should only start getting throttled at about ~115 C.
Problem is that running it near the threshold for extended periods of time is going to significantly reduce the lifespan of the component, if the manufacturer has to warrant the system for say 3 years then obviously they are going to limit it to operating conditions such that it can achieve that lifespan if pushed to do it 24/7.
Yes the specs say the max temp is 125C but how long is it going to last if you do that?
Slashdot Mirror
You've invented the wave/nod.
The patent fad of "on a computer" has passed, now it's taking pre-existing things and doing them "at a computer", that's real innovation!
These patents are not really an implementation - which is what a patent is supposed to cover - this is just an idea for doing something, not the implementation of doing that thing. The patent is supposed to cover the way in which Apple implements this idea, not the idea itself.
Which it doesn't even do at the moment (according to the writer).
Read what he said:
"My friend's i7-4801mq is worse — it could never stay at the advertised 3.6GHz for more than a few seconds before it burns up over 90 and starts to throttle."
That is precisely how turbo boost works, short bursts within thermal conditions. If the system was better cooled it could stay there for longer. My zbook and precision laptops have i7 4900 and 4910 chips respectively and the cooling is designed well enough that they can avoid hitting that thermal ceiling and last quite a bit of time in turbo boost mode, but certainly not for extended periods.
Explain it to the carriers and see if they'll change their policies.
If not, then Google chose the least-bad option from a consumer standpoint. They probably like the platform lock, but it doesn't change the fact that the carriers tied their hands to begin with.
Don't pretend they couldn't have achieved the same thing if Google Play Services was open source, that's just being a desperate apologist. It's closed purely for lock-in and nothing else.
I don't really care, the point is if you want updates there is certainly the option. Not all manufacturers are like that and you have the choice to go with the US carriers' subsidized plans, if you want updates and you choose that even after history has demonstrated quite clearly that it isn't going to happen then frankly that's your problem.
The niche really is the small group concerned about vulnerabilities that want updates, most people don't know or care so if you're in that small group then don't make stupid choices like this. There are heaps of posts on here (a site for nerds) about people buying AT&T and Verizon phones and complaining about not getting updates, at this point you should be well aware of this and choose something like the OnePlus One. It's cheaper, better quality than most and it gets updates ... what's not to like?
Yeah, that's totally what it is.
Are you saying that Verizon has no say in updates and applying them?
No he's saying they don't have to, just like they don't with iPhones.
Google Isn't Apple.
So? What is so inherently different? Google's OS owns more of the smartphone market than Apple's does.
Google can release all the patches it wants, but until Verizon tests them all and makes it's own changes it will not ever push them to the device.
So update directly from Google's servers instead or do it via a PC.
The carriers by law mandated that only they can update and test the devices.
So installing CyanogenMod on your phone is illegal?
If you turn on FileVault 2, the power-on and boot behavior of the system is also changed.
Ok, I haven't been able to find the information on that, but what I did see is that performance degradation is in the 20-30% range, which would dissuade most people from using it.
If you install a hacked Thunderbolt adapter and let it be connected during a firmware update, while you're logged in, you're screwed.
Yeah i'd imagine that would be a fairly easy thing to do, swap out a legitimate one for a hacked one, users would be wary about plugging in USB sticks but probably not so much about port adapters.
The argument against Google here is that Android 4.3 is still widely used.Wenn, so is Windows XP.
But XP users can upgrade to 7 or 8, Android 4.3 users cannot upgrade.
Not googles fault that device makers are too damned lazy to compile and deliver updated OS images to it's customers.
Oh come on they build the OS, they control the OHA and their OS accounts for the majority of the smartphone market. They have more than enough leverage that they could easily mandate this. Apple has proven this can be done, if carriers don't want the burden of updating their own per-device fork then they can do exactly what they do with iPhones and not modify the OS.
Ok..so who made the phone?
OnePlus.
Who sold it to you?
OnePlus.
It's for experimenting with Android and I just whack my iPhone sim card in there and it all works fine. The problem you're discussing is a problem with the US way of carriers and subsidized phone plans. It doesn't have to be like that.
There were naturally more releases with shorter lives in the time when when the desktop computing market was rapidly evolving but even still the support length for Microsoft is so good that for the last about 25 years you get away with just 3 OS upgrades and remain supported the whole time. Whereas with smartphones - that includes Microsoft's smartphone offerings - you need to upgrade pretty much every year (if you even can) to stay supported.
Google is doing exactly this with 5.0. They're moving more android components in to the userspace so they can be updatable via the play store.
The problem with that is it moves crucial components from the open AOSP project into a closed-source, proprietary Google layer. So many of those "Android" applications become "Google Android" applications and if you don't have Google's version of Android they won't run.
everyone would previously have gone from Windows 3.1, to 95, to 95 OSR2, to 98, to 98 SE, to NT 4, to 2000, to ME, and then to XP.
No they didn't, NT 4 and 2000 were the workstation and server releases that ran parallel to 95 and ME. Nobody would do the upgrade cycle you are suggesting.
If anything people went from 3.1 to 95 (possibly to 98 if it was preinstalled on new hardware given the fast upgrade cycle at the time) to XP to now 8.1.
95 was supported 1995 to 2001 and XP was supported 2001 until 2014. You could have upgraded to every single release 3.1, 95, 98, Me, XP, Vista, 7, 8, if you really wanted to but thanks to the long support times of Microsoft OSes you didn't have to do that. Most people just upgraded because a new version came with their new hardware.
Even if they patched it for 4.3, there is approximately zero chance that it would be pushed out as an update by anyone.
Isn't this the whole point of Google Play Services? So that things like this can be patched without having to push the system update through the OEMs and carriers? Or are things like WebView not able to be put in GPS?
It still doesn't make sense. The intent of higher specs is for them to be beneficial. What's the point of a higher spec if it makes no difference?
The temperature it runs at isn't what makes the difference.
If what the writer says is correct there is a definite problem with the board at the software level.
No, it is that he doesn't understand Turbo Boost. That feature is to allow for the processor to run higher than normal for short periods of time, not 24/7.
Is it so hard to believe a company could have made a mistake?
No but given the details about the feature are specifically listed on Intel's website and the OP's post runs contrary to that I would say it is the OP that is wrong. It can be pushed for short periods of time but if you try to do that 24/7 it will be throttled.
Why is it that RMS is quick to call all proprietary software unjust, and yet gives a free pass to chipmakers for not publishing their masksets?
Because his focus is on software, which is the wrong spot to attack the problem. You should be starting at the bottom, not in the middle, otherwise you end up with the exact situation we have now. There is an open operating system running atop a mostly proprietary hardware setup with mostly proprietary driver interfaces to that hardware. Even now, decades after RMS started the free software movement, open drivers (which are the reason it got started in the first place) lag behind their proprietary counterparts in pretty much every category because it's trying to work with a proprietary hardware device.
The free software movement is still hammering away at the desktop trying to get adoption of an open OS on a closed platform and integration with closed devices even as it moves to being less relevant. As others have stated before there were opportunities to innovate in the smartphone, tablet and wearable categories but the fixation on the closed desktop has led to the creation of proprietary incumbents in these new spaces too. Open source won't gain widespread adoption as being innovative and disruptive until it actually comes up with something innovative and disruptive.
Right now it's confined to dev and admin tools that most users will never use or know about and perhaps that's enough but I think most free software activists have grander ambitions than that. If you grind away long enough you'll get that square peg in the round hole even though it won't be pretty, or you can move on and create something new, innovative, unique and truly disruptive and beneficial to people.
When you're running FileVault, if no one is logged in, the machine will refuse to communicate with ANY attached external device, over thunderbolt or USB or anything else, but for one "main" display and the keyboard and mouse.
No, this attack happens before FileVault starts running.
The mobile version is in a more constrained physical environment than the desktop so whilst it can be pushed further in the thermal envelope it is only for very short periods of time and it then needs to be throttled.
As noted it's as simple as enabling it.
How does filevault protect you from this? Filevault is fine once the OS is loaded but this attack occurs long before that.
Or crowdsource it on the internet of things.
Yep. I would expect that HP EliteBook and Fujitsu Celcius series do not have problems in this area.
I have a HP zBook and while it is pretty impressive in this area it cannot run at turbo boost frequency for extended periods of time ... but that is of course acceptable because that is not what turbo boost is for.
Yes it's pretty clearly outlined on the website:
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.01 accelerates processor and graphics performance for peak loads, automatically allowing processor cores to run faster than the rated operating frequency if they’re operating below power, current, and temperature specification limits.
Note: Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its TDP configuration and data sheet specified power for short durations to maximize performance.
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html
And keeping them below those temperature specification limits 24/7 with maximum load is not something that is achievable in a laptop.
I believe he should contact the manufacturer and have them evaluate the BIOS. If the specs say the processor can run up to 125 C then it should only start getting throttled at about ~115 C.
Problem is that running it near the threshold for extended periods of time is going to significantly reduce the lifespan of the component, if the manufacturer has to warrant the system for say 3 years then obviously they are going to limit it to operating conditions such that it can achieve that lifespan if pushed to do it 24/7.
Yes the specs say the max temp is 125C but how long is it going to last if you do that?