Apple install small batteries in their laptops, in order to make then thinner and lighter. They compensate by carefully optimizing the OS and their own apps for battery life, helped by having only a limited number of models to support. It works well for some use cases, but not for others. This test breaks it, and so will doing things that force the laptop to use more energy like high screen brightness* or high CPU/GPU load. It's important to communicate this to consumers, in case they think that good web browsing numbers mean they will also get good gaming time.
Bzzt! Wrong, Hater! Thanks for playing. Now GET OUT!
The REAL issue was, if you had bothered to read TFA, you would know that Apple found an INTERMITTENT BUG in Safari, that was, coincidentally, triggered by Disabling Safari's Browser Cache. This BUG caused Safari to sometimes fall into a LOOP, CONTINOUSLY RELOADING assets from the SAME Page, again and again. THAT is what caused the battery drain; NOT just reloading the pages per their test-script.
. to me it is obvious that the first Consumer Reports test was correct.
I would somewhat agree but if Apple was able to fix the bug so that the original configuration they used with the cache off also significantly improved then it isn't a problem with the test as much as a problem with the bug that Consumer Report accidentally found. I'm actually kindof surprised that Apple never tested with the cache off as this would seem like a common thing to test.
Obviously you don't understand that "settings an actual user would have enabled" is actually not what needs tested. I'd rather the tests be done with the first Consumer Reports configuration... because when I'm browsing the Internet I generally don't reload the same page 1000s of times... I browse different pages all the time, sure some % of those pages gets cached as resources, but... all streamed data (Music, Video, Networked Games) can't be cached...
and Streamed Content I'd argue is a much bigger % of people's traffic (volume wise (hits wise probably less so... but that is the nature of the beast))
So having a test that reloads the same page 1000s of times or one that actually uses the network (and even finds a bug in the browser)... to me it is obvious that the first Consumer Reports test was correct.
But what you are ignoring is the fact that it wasn't the page-reloads that CR was INTENDING; but rather, disabling the browser cache actually triggered a BUG in Safari that caused it to CONTINUOUSLY reload certain assets on a page that had already been loaded. THAT is what caused the battery drain.
If there's a setting to make the dynamic touchbar a static set of function keys I'm used to using, vs. having to wonder what buttons/functionality is there at any given point in time, that would be helpful as well.
I kind of think they are going to add that Option, if it is not there already. But right now, you can do it, at least sort of...
Why was this setting enabled in the first place? It sounds like the setting in question isn't on by default, nor should it be. Why would Consumer Reports have enabled it for their testing?
As much as I would like to blame CR for this, it comes down to practicality.
They "locally" host the webpages they download, in order to factor-out stuff like internet traffic from their tests (and possibly to be nice to the websites that they have "targeted"), and so, there is literally no other way they could force a "page reload" (which they do for ALL laptops being tested) without disabling the browser cache.
And, as Apple said, the real problem was that, when CR did that, it triggered an intermittent bug in Safari that caused repeated re-loading of information from the page, even AFTER it was already loaded, which WAS a "shouldn't happen" condition that sucked-down the battery.
Apple has fixed the problem. CR has done some preliminary re-testing, and feels confident that Apple's explanation and fix warrants a full re-test.
Apple are saying there is an obscure and intermittent bug that is triggered by that testing practice.
Presumably that bug can be fixed.
(As a total aside, in my daily use, I visit about ten websites more or less constantly -- I don't even mean social media. Caching very definitely is extending battery life for me. For those who use social media sites, or any webkit-based app, caching is helping enormously.)
It already HAS been fixed, and will be released in the next Sierra update (which is due out pretty much any day now).
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.
Read, then post:
Disabling the Cache did more than just cause Reloading each time. Apparently, it ALSO triggered an intermittent bug in Safari that caused REPEATED loading of "icons" from the page.
Apparently, THAT is what burned the battery. Very similar to a "runaway process", like I (and others) originally postulated.
So, you can safely remove that extra layer of tinfoil, Hater.
As opposed to the old, socketed version, that would have just been blown to pieces.
Unlikely, as the disk drive is about 2 square inches. With the new MBP, the storage is soldered on, so if there is damage to any of the motherboard, the whole system is junk. The only way to retrieve the data would be with some kind of special rig, or by desoldering the flash chips.
Actually, if the owner was using FileVault2, the data is likely toast in either case, I believe.
But, because Apple makes it drop-dead simple (no pun!) to create and maintain backups with Time Machine (or, if you prefer, something like rsync), and considering the low cost and small size of portable drives, anyone who (especially) travels with their MacBook and DOESN'T have a backup really does deserve exactly what they get.
Apple is basically the iPhone company these days and despite Tim Cooks protestations, it's clear that they have been neglecting the MacOS and desktop computing market.
I know it seems that way from the outside; because the mobile side of the industry is still relatively young, and thus it is much easier to show fairly substantial gains year-over-year for both hardware and software, versus the "traditional" desktop/laptop hardware and software, which at this point have been honed to a fairly fine edge. This gives the overall impression that Apple is focusing 90% of its development efforts in the mobile space; which is really not the case.
Does anybody here frequently watch Apple product launches? Then give it a try and watch the 10 minute video of Steve Jobs introducing the iPhone. I had never seen that video before. It's such a simple introduction and, nevertheless, with such personality and power... Of course it's just my opinion, but it has humor and it's daring... in a way that it makes the current Apple presentations feel like generic marketing. It's almost a lesson on charisma. Oh boy.
The one on the iPad is even slicker. Jobs does the demos sitting in a typical livingroom chair. Is there a better way to show the most typical use-case?
(Cr)apple products have only survived through the years because they convinced shallow, narcissistic, self important iDiots to buy them! (Cr)apple has always sold poorly designed, poorly made crap!The last quality product that they sold was the IIE! There have always products that were better, and less expensive than (Cr)apple's.
Without iDiots, (Cr)apple would have died out and been forgotten long ago!
except when you already had a collection of music organized and you import to itunes and it screws every manual win amp tag you already set up
So, who cares about WinAmp tags when you're using iTunes as your Librarian?
And if you're upset because it "reorganized" your files, well then, maybe you should have done a little studying before you just turned it loose on the only copy of your music library, eh? Because it doesn't HAVE to do that. You just TOLD it to.
A few years back, I caused a commotion. In an Apple Developers Meeting, I simply asked when LabView was returning to OSX, and when it would be available for this new iOS thingy. "Apple does not comment on these matters." was the response. Yet a couple of days later, I got a CD, sent anonymously through the Lab Mail, with pretty much everything included that I could wish for.
And so, true development of this Internet happily continues.
I was horrified by your comment regarding LabView on OS X, being old enough to remember LabView being Mac-only.
It looks like LabView Full and Professional are available for Mac. I assume that means OS X, right? So what were you talking about?
Gartner has always been known in the techie world as the king of mumbo jumbo. Their bullshit quadrants are only good to show to PHBs and customers alike.
Sounds like a typical opinion of someone who's personal opinion doesn't agree with an analysist's.
Predictions are not worth the toilet paper they are printed on.
Apple has suffered from a lack of progress ever since Jobs died. They are treading water... it took them 5 years to update the MacBook, and what we got was lackluster. 'Predicting' that they will succeed and Microsoft will falter is dubious.
The only real winner is Google, with Over 3/4 of the market for device operating systems.
Show me anyone's laptop which is fundamentally different now than it was in 2013.
Slashdot Mirror
Does Firefox have this bug out of the box? I only use Firefox and the battery on my mac only lasts 4 hours. Tested three times now.
Probably because the actual bug is in a Framework ALSO used by FireFox.
They did not update their review, they posted that they may.
They said that they were in the process of doing a thorough re-testing, and will update their review when complete.
Apple install small batteries in their laptops, in order to make then thinner and lighter. They compensate by carefully optimizing the OS and their own apps for battery life, helped by having only a limited number of models to support. It works well for some use cases, but not for others. This test breaks it, and so will doing things that force the laptop to use more energy like high screen brightness* or high CPU/GPU load. It's important to communicate this to consumers, in case they think that good web browsing numbers mean they will also get good gaming time.
Bzzt! Wrong, Hater! Thanks for playing. Now GET OUT!
The REAL issue was, if you had bothered to read TFA, you would know that Apple found an INTERMITTENT BUG in Safari, that was, coincidentally, triggered by Disabling Safari's Browser Cache. This BUG caused Safari to sometimes fall into a LOOP, CONTINOUSLY RELOADING assets from the SAME Page, again and again. THAT is what caused the battery drain; NOT just reloading the pages per their test-script.
. to me it is obvious that the first Consumer Reports test was correct.
I would somewhat agree but if Apple was able to fix the bug so that the original configuration they used with the cache off also significantly improved then it isn't a problem with the test as much as a problem with the bug that Consumer Report accidentally found. I'm actually kindof surprised that Apple never tested with the cache off as this would seem like a common thing to test.
INTERMITTENT bug.
Obviously you don't understand that "settings an actual user would have enabled" is actually not what needs tested. I'd rather the tests be done with the first Consumer Reports configuration... because when I'm browsing the Internet I generally don't reload the same page 1000s of times... I browse different pages all the time, sure some % of those pages gets cached as resources, but... all streamed data (Music, Video, Networked Games) can't be cached...
and Streamed Content I'd argue is a much bigger % of people's traffic (volume wise (hits wise probably less so... but that is the nature of the beast))
So having a test that reloads the same page 1000s of times or one that actually uses the network (and even finds a bug in the browser)... to me it is obvious that the first Consumer Reports test was correct.
But what you are ignoring is the fact that it wasn't the page-reloads that CR was INTENDING; but rather, disabling the browser cache actually triggered a BUG in Safari that caused it to CONTINUOUSLY reload certain assets on a page that had already been loaded. THAT is what caused the battery drain.
MacOS isn't so bug free, the setting of turning off the caching triggered a icon reload error. Next time Apple test your software better.
Spoken like a person who has never written more than 10 lines of code. Ever.
If there's a setting to make the dynamic touchbar a static set of function keys I'm used to using, vs. having to wonder what buttons/functionality is there at any given point in time, that would be helpful as well.
I kind of think they are going to add that Option, if it is not there already. But right now, you can do it, at least sort of...
How many Mac users develop web sites?
You're truly an idiot. Go away.
Why was this setting enabled in the first place? It sounds like the setting in question isn't on by default, nor should it be. Why would Consumer Reports have enabled it for their testing?
As much as I would like to blame CR for this, it comes down to practicality.
They "locally" host the webpages they download, in order to factor-out stuff like internet traffic from their tests (and possibly to be nice to the websites that they have "targeted"), and so, there is literally no other way they could force a "page reload" (which they do for ALL laptops being tested) without disabling the browser cache.
And, as Apple said, the real problem was that, when CR did that, it triggered an intermittent bug in Safari that caused repeated re-loading of information from the page, even AFTER it was already loaded, which WAS a "shouldn't happen" condition that sucked-down the battery.
Apple has fixed the problem. CR has done some preliminary re-testing, and feels confident that Apple's explanation and fix warrants a full re-test.
Good for them!
Apple are saying there is an obscure and intermittent bug that is triggered by that testing practice.
Presumably that bug can be fixed.
(As a total aside, in my daily use, I visit about ten websites more or less constantly -- I don't even mean social media. Caching very definitely is extending battery life for me. For those who use social media sites, or any webkit-based app, caching is helping enormously.)
It already HAS been fixed, and will be released in the next Sierra update (which is due out pretty much any day now).
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.
Read, then post:
Disabling the Cache did more than just cause Reloading each time. Apparently, it ALSO triggered an intermittent bug in Safari that caused REPEATED loading of "icons" from the page.
Apparently, THAT is what burned the battery. Very similar to a "runaway process", like I (and others) originally postulated.
So, you can safely remove that extra layer of tinfoil, Hater.
As opposed to the old, socketed version, that would have just been blown to pieces.
Unlikely, as the disk drive is about 2 square inches. With the new MBP, the storage is soldered on, so if there is damage to any of the motherboard, the whole system is junk. The only way to retrieve the data would be with some kind of special rig, or by desoldering the flash chips.
Actually, if the owner was using FileVault2, the data is likely toast in either case, I believe.
But, because Apple makes it drop-dead simple (no pun!) to create and maintain backups with Time Machine (or, if you prefer, something like rsync), and considering the low cost and small size of portable drives, anyone who (especially) travels with their MacBook and DOESN'T have a backup really does deserve exactly what they get.
Apple is basically the iPhone company these days and despite Tim Cooks protestations, it's clear that they have been neglecting the MacOS and desktop computing market.
I know it seems that way from the outside; because the mobile side of the industry is still relatively young, and thus it is much easier to show fairly substantial gains year-over-year for both hardware and software, versus the "traditional" desktop/laptop hardware and software, which at this point have been honed to a fairly fine edge. This gives the overall impression that Apple is focusing 90% of its development efforts in the mobile space; which is really not the case.
Now they're making substantial changes and feature improvements on a bi-annual basis.
Ah, so like Intels Tick-tock then? It's been a very long period of substantial changes, are we going to switch to feature improvements soon?
Windows 10 needs a lot of feature improvements to get anywhere near usable, and even more for users to become productive.
But didn't you see? They're introducing another sweeping UI change with Transparecncy and Blur!!!
Yeah, that'll fix EVERYTHING. You'll see...
Also, an untrue post.
Apple made the LaserWriter after the Apple IIe, and it was a quality product.
Or did they just slap a label on something with a Canon engine in it? I'm not certain.
Nonetheless, the LaserWriter was a quality product.
Oh, and don't forget the LaserWriter 16/600 PS. That thing was a BEAST!
"conduct high-tech manufacturing of finished data center cabinets for other data centers"
Stores forty-two 1u servers in a stylish brushed aluminum housing. Introducing the New Apple iRack Pro.
The XRack!!!
Does anybody here frequently watch Apple product launches? Then give it a try and watch the 10 minute video of Steve Jobs introducing the iPhone. I had never seen that video before. It's such a simple introduction and, nevertheless, with such personality and power... Of course it's just my opinion, but it has humor and it's daring... in a way that it makes the current Apple presentations feel like generic marketing. It's almost a lesson on charisma. Oh boy.
The one on the iPad is even slicker. Jobs does the demos sitting in a typical livingroom chair. Is there a better way to show the most typical use-case?
(Cr)apple products have only survived through the years because they convinced shallow, narcissistic, self important iDiots to buy them! (Cr)apple has always sold poorly designed, poorly made crap!The last quality product that they sold was the IIE! There have always products that were better, and less expensive than (Cr)apple's.
Without iDiots, (Cr)apple would have died out and been forgotten long ago!
What an intelligent, erudite post.
except when you already had a collection of music organized and you import to itunes and it screws every manual win amp tag you already set up
So, who cares about WinAmp tags when you're using iTunes as your Librarian?
And if you're upset because it "reorganized" your files, well then, maybe you should have done a little studying before you just turned it loose on the only copy of your music library, eh? Because it doesn't HAVE to do that. You just TOLD it to.
If it ever gets out of beta (i.e. once its owners are able to install whatever software they want to) it could be something.
Do try to keep up there, Hater.
Anyone has been free to Install ANYTHING on their iOS Device since iOS 8:
Here's about the 20th Post I have made on this Subject. That one is from just a couple of days ago.
Maybe ONE of you can take a clue from the clue box...
The product wasn't transformative. The marketing was transformative and the timing was exceptional.
The business strategy, though, of making you pay for a product you don't own, was ingenious. Long live the walled garden.
Take a look at phone designs before and after the iPhone. When you can see a clear "before" and "after", it's a transformative product.
Exactly.
Who's talking about rooting? You can still install any unapproved application on Android without rooting. On iOS you are stuck in a walled garden.
Getting REALLY Tired of this.
Your comment hasn't been true for iOS since iOS 8, several YEARS ago now.
See my UMPTEENTH post on this Subject, this one from just a few days ago.
Will you Haters ever learn?
A few years back, I caused a commotion. In an Apple Developers Meeting, I simply asked when LabView was returning to OSX, and when it would be available for this new iOS thingy. "Apple does not comment on these matters." was the response. Yet a couple of days later, I got a CD, sent anonymously through the Lab Mail, with pretty much everything included that I could wish for. And so, true development of this Internet happily continues.
I was horrified by your comment regarding LabView on OS X, being old enough to remember LabView being Mac-only.
It looks like LabView Full and Professional are available for Mac. I assume that means OS X, right? So what were you talking about?
Gartner has always been known in the techie world as the king of mumbo jumbo. Their bullshit quadrants are only good to show to PHBs and customers alike.
Sounds like a typical opinion of someone who's personal opinion doesn't agree with an analysist's.
Predictions are not worth the toilet paper they are printed on.
Apple has suffered from a lack of progress ever since Jobs died. They are treading water... it took them 5 years to update the MacBook, and what we got was lackluster. 'Predicting' that they will succeed and Microsoft will falter is dubious.
The only real winner is Google, with Over 3/4 of the market for device operating systems.
Show me anyone's laptop which is fundamentally different now than it was in 2013.