info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas
81 views
Skip to first unread message
Aardvarks
Jul 30, 2016, 12:18:04 PM7/30/16
to
In your experience with *both* Android & iOS mobile devices, have you also
found the iOS devices severely lacking in WiFi sensitivity (resulting in
dropped connections when Android devices are still working fine)?
This is a question borne out of experience setting up WiFi for dozens of
local neighbors, some of whom use Apple ipads & iPhones, and others who use
Android mobile equipment.
Almost always, in my own personal experience in my own large home with
multiple iPads and Android phones, and in the large homes of my neighbors,
the Apple iPads and iPhones almost always have *far worse* WiFi reception
than do the Android phones.
Has this been your experience also?
If so, why do you think this is the case?
-------------------------------------------
NOTE: Jeff is honest to a fault, so, his opinion matters greatly.
found the iOS devices severely lacking in WiFi sensitivity (resulting in
dropped connections when Android devices are still working fine)?
This is a question borne out of experience setting up WiFi for dozens of
local neighbors, some of whom use Apple ipads & iPhones, and others who use
Android mobile equipment.
Almost always, in my own personal experience in my own large home with
multiple iPads and Android phones, and in the large homes of my neighbors,
the Apple iPads and iPhones almost always have *far worse* WiFi reception
than do the Android phones.
Has this been your experience also?
If so, why do you think this is the case?
-------------------------------------------
NOTE: Jeff is honest to a fault, so, his opinion matters greatly.
avag...@gmail.com
Jul 30, 2016, 6:32:27 PM7/30/16
to
Verizon Samsung 5 Android beats V MiFi PC Dell Inspiron 2013......
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 30, 2016, 8:50:06 PM7/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 16:18:02 -0000 (UTC), Aardvarks
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>In your experience with *both* Android & iOS mobile devices, have you also
>found the iOS devices severely lacking in WiFi sensitivity (resulting in
>dropped connections when Android devices are still working fine)?
Nope. About the same range. At least the same range within some
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>In your experience with *both* Android & iOS mobile devices, have you also
>found the iOS devices severely lacking in WiFi sensitivity (resulting in
>dropped connections when Android devices are still working fine)?
reasonable tolerance range, such as +/- 10% or so. Note that I
consider "range" to be somewhat equivalent to your "sensitivity" where
"sensitivity" is limited to receive only and does not involve the
antenna or environmental situations. Also note that anecdotal
evidence of a problem is not definitive as measurements such as
"range" and "sensitivity" tend to follow a bell curve.
>This is a question borne out of experience setting up WiFi for dozens of
>local neighbors, some of whom use Apple ipads & iPhones, and others who use
>Android mobile equipment.
and RF design. Well, maybe not totally. This is my play on the
iPhone 4 antenna grip problem in 2010:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
Steve Jobs was right that all phones have the antenna grip problem. He
just didn't mention that the iPhone 4 had it 10 times worse than the
others.
>Almost always, in my own personal experience in my own large home with
>multiple iPads and Android phones, and in the large homes of my neighbors,
>the Apple iPads and iPhones almost always have *far worse* WiFi reception
>than do the Android phones.
measuring? Using wi-fi receive signal strength from an app or
counting "bars" isn't worth much. These vary substantially between
devices and is affected by temperature.
>Has this been your experience also?
>If so, why do you think this is the case?
far worse than Android. Or course, for a nominal bribe, I can reverse
the situation.
>NOTE: Jeff is honest to a fault, so, his opinion matters greatly.
earthquakes from ruining my day.
In the past, I've offered you various ways of running a controlled
range (performance) test. The next time you get your hands on a test
device, try it. It's quite easy.
1. You will need a reasonably fast computah running iperf ver 2,
iperf3, or jperf. This turn the compoutah into an iperf server by
running just:
iperf -s
The computah should be connected via an ethernet cable to the users
router. Gigabit ethernet is nice for measuring maximum speeds, but
that's not what we're doing here.
2. Next, you'll need a iperf client on the phone or tablet. There
are iperf clients for most OS's. Note that iperf2 and iperf3 are
quite different and not really compatible. If the version is not
specified, it's probably iperf2.
Android:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.he.networktools&hl=en>
<http://networktools.he.net/>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.magicandroidapps.iperf&hl=en>
IOS:
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/he.net-network-tools/id858241710?mt=8>
<http://networktools.he.net/>
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/iperf-network-bandwidth-measurement/id951598770?mt=8>
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/iperf3-network-bandwidth-performance/id986846572?mt=8>
PC, OS/X, Linux, etc:
<https://iperf.fr/iperf-download.php>
Note that most Linux mutations ship with iperf2 and that iperf3 must
be installed. You can have both iperf and iperf3 installed at the
same time:
<https://iperf.fr/iperf-download.php#more-recent>
JAVA (runs on anything that groks Java and does pretty graphs):
<https://www.rarst.net/software/jperf/>
<https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf/files/>
JPerf is iperf2 not 3. Version 3 is for higher speed wireless. Don't
mix versions.
Tutorials on iperf and jperf:
<http://openmaniak.com/iperf.php>
<https://www.jamescoyle.net/how-to/574-testing-network-speed-with-iperf>
<https://www.jamescoyle.net/cheat-sheets/581-iperf-cheat-sheet>
I recommend the HE (Hurricane Electric) versions which will test
either IPv4 and IPv6.
YouTube video of a typical test:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qdKgHBO_Gc>
Some notes I made from a talk on iperf and jperf:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/FLUG-talk-2015-03-28/iperf3%20talk.htm>
3. Connect your test phone or tablet via wi-fi and just run a test to
see if it works. If you're running Jperf, you should see something
like this:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/FLUG-talk-2015-02-28/802.11gn%20direct.jpg>
Note that the max speed is about 60 Mbits/sec.
If you insert a wireless repeater in between the wireless router and
the client, you get this mess:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/FLUG-talk-2015-02-28/802.11gn%20through%20Netgear%20repeater.jpg>
Note the drastic drop in maximum speed. I'll save my rant against
mesh networks for another day.
4. Now comes the big trick. Temporarily change the speed of your
wireless router from "automatic" to a fixed speed and/or protocol. For
802.11g, that would be 54 Mbits/sec. For faster protocols, it can be
faster. If you have an 802.11ac wireless router, leave both 2.4 and
5GHz on. However, if you're testing with a lesser protocol, enable
only one frequency band at a time, so that you know which one you're
testing. I would initially do the test using 802.11g and 54Mbit/sec
because higher speeds and protocols allow for fallback, which will
produce odd results.
By fixing the speed and protocol, you're eliminating the ability of
the wireless router to slow down the wireless connection speed and
thus improve the range. As you walk away from the wireless router,
instead of a general slowdown, you'll see an abrupt drop in speed,
possibly followed by a disconnect. The typical 2.4GHz 802.11g system
will go about 10 meters before the speed drops abruptly. Measure and
record this distance along with the test conditions (devices,
frequency, protocol, fixed speed, etc).
You'll find indoor testing to vary substantially, mostly depending on
reflections and wireless router antenna positions. Outdoors works
better, but only if you don't have any interference. Try to pick an
empty channel (good luck with that).
5. If you're lazy and don't want to deal with servers and iperf, you
do something similar with just ping. You still have to set a fixed
speed and protocol, but you don't get the pretty graphs and data. Just
continuously ping the wireless router. At some point, the latency
will drastically increase, followed by 100% packet loss, and possibly
a disconnect. This is not as precise as iperf because you're not
saturating the pipe with traffic, but probably good enough.
6. That's all there is. The "range" of a device, which is a
measurement of the overall radio design, antenna, internal noise,
packaging, orientation sensitivity, etc quality, should give you a
clue as to relative quality of the various test devices. If
everything you test craps out at approximately the same range (using
the same speeds and protocols), then as far as I'm concerned, they're
all the same. However, if you see substantial variations, then you
can legitimately claim that Apple and Android devices are different.
7. Incidentally, you can also try it pointing iperf to a public
server instead of your own iperf server. Note that you'll be
measuring the speed of your internet connection, not the speed of the
wireless. I wouldn't do that for the range test.
Iperf public servers:
<https://iperf.fr/iperf-servers.php>
Also, if you want to be sick, try running iperf over a cellular data
connection.
Just do it. I didn't spend an hour writing all this so that you lean
back in your chair and deliver your "impressions" or "feelings". Such
things as range can and should be tested. If you need help, you know
where you can try to pry me out of my hole.
Good luck...
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
nospam
Jul 30, 2016, 9:54:57 PM7/30/16
to
In article <aleqpb932uap89en7...@4ax.com>, Jeff
it was comparable to other phones and in many cases, those other phones
were substantially worse, even dropping to no service, something the
iphone 4 didn't do.
palm pre drops to no service:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zft3-Lwh2bo>
droid incredible drops to no service:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zbQ3f7H0U>
droid 2 had serious issues:
<https://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/uh-oh-early-droid-2-units-having-sign
al-issues/>
The signal on one of the two units we received is all over the board,
dipping from full signal down to nearly none whilst sitting in the
same spot (and no, weąre not holding it wrong). Engadgetąs review
says that four out of four of their units show endlessly fluctuating
bar counts, and our buddy Rich Brome of Phonescoop says heąs having
bad luck with his, as well. Thats 6 review units, all showing signs
of signal woes. Not a good sign.
> Yes of course. Since I don't like Apple, every Apple is by definition
> far worse than Android. Or course, for a nominal bribe, I can reverse
> the situation.
that explains everything.
Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> >In your experience with *both* Android & iOS mobile devices, have you also
> >found the iOS devices severely lacking in WiFi sensitivity (resulting in
> >dropped connections when Android devices are still working fine)?
>
> Nope. About the same range. At least the same range within some
> reasonable tolerance range, such as +/- 10% or so. Note that I
> consider "range" to be somewhat equivalent to your "sensitivity" where
> "sensitivity" is limited to receive only and does not involve the
> antenna or environmental situations. Also note that anecdotal
> evidence of a problem is not definitive as measurements such as
> "range" and "sensitivity" tend to follow a bell curve.
>
> >This is a question borne out of experience setting up WiFi for dozens of
> >local neighbors, some of whom use Apple ipads & iPhones, and others who use
> >Android mobile equipment.
>
> I'll resist the temptation to offer my opinion of Apple engineering
> and RF design. Well, maybe not totally. This is my play on the
> iPhone 4 antenna grip problem in 2010:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
> Steve Jobs was right that all phones have the antenna grip problem. He
> just didn't mention that the iPhone 4 had it 10 times worse than the
> others.
the iphone 4 was not 10x worse.
>
> >In your experience with *both* Android & iOS mobile devices, have you also
> >found the iOS devices severely lacking in WiFi sensitivity (resulting in
> >dropped connections when Android devices are still working fine)?
>
> Nope. About the same range. At least the same range within some
> reasonable tolerance range, such as +/- 10% or so. Note that I
> consider "range" to be somewhat equivalent to your "sensitivity" where
> "sensitivity" is limited to receive only and does not involve the
> antenna or environmental situations. Also note that anecdotal
> evidence of a problem is not definitive as measurements such as
> "range" and "sensitivity" tend to follow a bell curve.
>
> >This is a question borne out of experience setting up WiFi for dozens of
> >local neighbors, some of whom use Apple ipads & iPhones, and others who use
> >Android mobile equipment.
>
> I'll resist the temptation to offer my opinion of Apple engineering
> and RF design. Well, maybe not totally. This is my play on the
> iPhone 4 antenna grip problem in 2010:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
> Steve Jobs was right that all phones have the antenna grip problem. He
> just didn't mention that the iPhone 4 had it 10 times worse than the
> others.
it was comparable to other phones and in many cases, those other phones
were substantially worse, even dropping to no service, something the
iphone 4 didn't do.
palm pre drops to no service:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zft3-Lwh2bo>
droid incredible drops to no service:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zbQ3f7H0U>
droid 2 had serious issues:
<https://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/uh-oh-early-droid-2-units-having-sign
al-issues/>
The signal on one of the two units we received is all over the board,
dipping from full signal down to nearly none whilst sitting in the
same spot (and no, weąre not holding it wrong). Engadgetąs review
says that four out of four of their units show endlessly fluctuating
bar counts, and our buddy Rich Brome of Phonescoop says heąs having
bad luck with his, as well. Thats 6 review units, all showing signs
of signal woes. Not a good sign.
> Yes of course. Since I don't like Apple, every Apple is by definition
> far worse than Android. Or course, for a nominal bribe, I can reverse
> the situation.
Jolly Roger
Jul 30, 2016, 10:16:15 PM7/30/16
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <aleqpb932uap89en7...@4ax.com>, Jeff
> Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> iPhone 4 antenna grip problem in 2010:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
>> Steve Jobs was right that all phones have the antenna grip problem. He
>> just didn't mention that the iPhone 4 had it 10 times worse than the
>> others.
>
> the iphone 4 was not 10x worse.
>
> it was comparable to other phones and in many cases, those other phones
> were substantially worse, even dropping to no service, something the
> iphone 4 didn't do.
>
> palm pre drops to no service:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zft3-Lwh2bo>
>
> droid incredible drops to no service:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zbQ3f7H0U>
>
> droid 2 had serious issues:
> <https://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/uh-oh-early-droid-2-units-having-sign
> al-issues/>
I remember those findings near the end of the whole Antenna Gate circus. It
> In article <aleqpb932uap89en7...@4ax.com>, Jeff
> Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> iPhone 4 antenna grip problem in 2010:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
>> Steve Jobs was right that all phones have the antenna grip problem. He
>> just didn't mention that the iPhone 4 had it 10 times worse than the
>> others.
>
> the iphone 4 was not 10x worse.
>
> it was comparable to other phones and in many cases, those other phones
> were substantially worse, even dropping to no service, something the
> iphone 4 didn't do.
>
> palm pre drops to no service:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zft3-Lwh2bo>
>
> droid incredible drops to no service:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zbQ3f7H0U>
>
> droid 2 had serious issues:
> <https://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/uh-oh-early-droid-2-units-having-sign
> al-issues/>
was comical seeing comparable phones also drop signal when "held wrong". I
recall the Apple trolls denying that reality back then too - just as they
apparently still are today. : D
--
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
Aardvarks
Jul 30, 2016, 10:59:26 PM7/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 17:49:59 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> About the same range. At least the same range within some
> reasonable tolerance range, such as +/- 10% or so.
Interesting. Very interesting, as I have Apple and Android devices, and my
> About the same range. At least the same range within some
> reasonable tolerance range, such as +/- 10% or so.
WISP has dealt with them, and almost *every* home that complains about piss
poor WiFi reception is an Apple home where I help out.
> Note that I
> consider "range" to be somewhat equivalent to your "sensitivity" where
> "sensitivity" is limited to receive only and does not involve the
> antenna or environmental situations.
> Also note that anecdotal
> evidence of a problem is not definitive as measurements such as
> "range" and "sensitivity" tend to follow a bell curve.
"that" test, even though they both fail miserably at having the same WiFi
reception as all four of my Android devices have.
> I'll resist the temptation to offer my opinion of Apple engineering
> and RF design. Well, maybe not totally. This is my play on the
> iPhone 4 antenna grip problem in 2010:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
> Steve Jobs was right that all phones have the antenna grip problem. He
> just didn't mention that the iPhone 4 had it 10 times worse than the
> others.
"The worst phone I tested dropped the rx signal 16 times (-12dB). The
iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB) to 288 times (-24.6dB) .
That's a 6 to 18 times worse signal drop for the iPhone 4. Little wonder it
drops calls. My guess(tm) is that something more than detuning the antenna
is happening. I suspect that the receiver front end might be slightly
regenerative, where touching the antenna kills the regeneration and the
associated sensitivity."
> How far worse? How did you measure "reception"? What were you
> measuring? Using wi-fi receive signal strength from an app or
> counting "bars" isn't worth much. These vary substantially between
> devices and is affected by temperature.
within a foot of the iOS devices when the Android devices would easily
connect home broadband router at the far fringes of the home, while the iOS
devices failed to make any connection.
I had to solve the problem by setting up a spare WRT54G router as a wired
extension (crawling under the house and cursing Apple the entire time), so,
the fact that the WiFi reception of the iOS devices sucks compared to that
of the Android devices caused me considerable effort.
In addition, as you know, I assist my small WISP in setting up customers
and troubleshooting when they have WiFi problems. Almost invariably, the
Apple-based customers are highly non technical, so, they call up with
problems that aren't really the WISP's prerogative, such as the fact they
can't connect to either his or their routers (he insists everyone have a
router so he gives them one if they don't have their own).
Almost always, if not always, I put their iDevices next to my Android
device to test WiFi connectivity and signal strength at the distance that
the customer complains.
Even though the tools available to sniff WiFi issues on iOS devices are
downright primitive, you "can" easily see that the Android devices
"connect" to the router at distance while the iOS devices are oblivious of
the router at the same distances.
Working in the other direction, I start with the iOS device in one hand,
and the Android device in the other hand, using the primitive iOS tools and
the more sophisticated (aka modern) Android sniffing tools, so that I can
see the BSSID and perceived signal strength (in case there are multiple
SSIDs of the same name, as I have in my own setup), and almost always, if
not always, the iOS devices *drop* the connection well before the Android
devices do (I generally walk outside until the Android device drops the
connection).
After having done this so many times, whenever we get a call, we ask if
they're using Apple equipment, and, if they are, we know what's going on.
> Yes of course. Since I don't like Apple, every Apple is by definition
> far worse than Android. Or course, for a nominal bribe, I can reverse
> the situation.
problem "I" have with Apple is that it's primitive in terms of being able
to do useful things, e.g., WiFi reception sniffers on iOS are primitive in
comparison to what's available on Android.
> Jeff lives on a fault. Being honest improves my karma, and prevents
> earthquakes from ruining my day.
else have their faults!
> In the past, I've offered you various ways of running a controlled
> range (performance) test. The next time you get your hands on a test
> device, try it. It's quite easy.
https://iperf.fr/iperf-download.php
> 1. You will need a reasonably fast computah running iperf ver 2,
> iperf3, or jperf. This turn the compoutah into an iperf server by
> running just:
> iperf -s
> The computah should be connected via an ethernet cable to the users
> router. Gigabit ethernet is nice for measuring maximum speeds, but
> that's not what we're doing here.
> 2. Next, you'll need a iperf client on the phone or tablet. There
> are iperf clients for most OS's. Note that iperf2 and iperf3 are
> quite different and not really compatible. If the version is not
> specified, it's probably iperf2.
>
> Android:
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.he.networktools&hl=en>
> <http://networktools.he.net/>
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.magicandroidapps.iperf&hl=en>
>
> IOS:
> <https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/he.net-network-tools/id858241710?mt=8>
> <http://networktools.he.net/>
> <https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/iperf-network-bandwidth-measurement/id951598770?mt=8>
> <https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/iperf3-network-bandwidth-performance/id986846572?mt=8>
>
> PC, OS/X, Linux, etc:
> <https://iperf.fr/iperf-download.php>
iPerf utility to check performance.
> Note that most Linux mutations ship with iperf2 and that iperf3 must
> be installed. You can have both iperf and iperf3 installed at the
> same time:
> <https://iperf.fr/iperf-download.php#more-recent>
> JAVA (runs on anything that groks Java and does pretty graphs):
> <https://www.rarst.net/software/jperf/>
> <https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf/files/>
> JPerf is iperf2 not 3. Version 3 is for higher speed wireless. Don't
> mix versions.
> Tutorials on iperf and jperf:
> <http://openmaniak.com/iperf.php>
> <https://www.jamescoyle.net/how-to/574-testing-network-speed-with-iperf>
> <https://www.jamescoyle.net/cheat-sheets/581-iperf-cheat-sheet>
>
> I recommend the HE (Hurricane Electric) versions which will test
> either IPv4 and IPv6.
>
> YouTube video of a typical test:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qdKgHBO_Gc>
Then he runs Android iperf -c to get 10.0.10.80 as the linux box.
Then he runs Android iperf for 60 seconds & gets 50Mbps throughput.
With iPerf, not only Android but even the primitive iOS phones can be
turned into powerful network-troubleshooting tools!
This is great information!
> Some notes I made from a talk on iperf and jperf:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/FLUG-talk-2015-03-28/iperf3%20talk.htm>
compatibility with iOS and Android, Windows, and Linux.
> 3. Connect your test phone or tablet via wi-fi and just run a test to
> see if it works. If you're running Jperf, you should see something
> like this:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/FLUG-talk-2015-02-28/802.11gn%20direct.jpg>
> Note that the max speed is about 60 Mbits/sec.
Or are they different ports on the computer (1840, 1872, & 1860)?
> If you insert a wireless repeater in between the wireless router and
> the client, you get this mess:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/FLUG-talk-2015-02-28/802.11gn%20through%20Netgear%20repeater.jpg>
> Note the drastic drop in maximum speed. I'll save my rant against
> mesh networks for another day.
as you had explained, long (long) ago, that the extender is faster, in
effect, than the repeater - even though the repeater is easier to set up
(but not easily set up on a WRT54G v5 due to lack of memory).
> 4. Now comes the big trick. Temporarily change the speed of your
> wireless router from "automatic" to a fixed speed and/or protocol.
Netgear WNDR2400 router and the Linksys WRT54G router. I'm sure the speed
is currently set at defaults.
> For
> 802.11g, that would be 54 Mbits/sec. For faster protocols, it can be
> faster. If you have an 802.11ac wireless router, leave both 2.4 and
> 5GHz on. However, if you're testing with a lesser protocol, enable
> only one frequency band at a time, so that you know which one you're
> testing. I would initially do the test using 802.11g and 54Mbit/sec
> because higher speeds and protocols allow for fallback, which will
> produce odd results.
> By fixing the speed and protocol, you're eliminating the ability of
> the wireless router to slow down the wireless connection speed and
> thus improve the range.
> As you walk away from the wireless router,
> instead of a general slowdown, you'll see an abrupt drop in speed,
> possibly followed by a disconnect.
> The typical 2.4GHz 802.11g system
> will go about 10 meters before the speed drops abruptly. Measure and
> record this distance along with the test conditions (devices,
> frequency, protocol, fixed speed, etc).
My hypothesis is that the iOS devices will drop in half the distance that
the Android devices will drop - but that remains to be seen in the test.
> You'll find indoor testing to vary substantially, mostly depending on
> reflections and wireless router antenna positions. Outdoors works
> better, but only if you don't have any interference. Try to pick an
> empty channel (good luck with that).
Especially in the 5MHz range.
> 5. If you're lazy and don't want to deal with servers and iperf, you
> do something similar with just ping. You still have to set a fixed
> speed and protocol, but you don't get the pretty graphs and data. Just
> continuously ping the wireless router. At some point, the latency
> will drastically increase, followed by 100% packet loss, and possibly
> a disconnect. This is not as precise as iperf because you're not
> saturating the pipe with traffic, but probably good enough.
powerful tools, but it seems, on iOS, apparently there is a simple ping app
from MochaSoft:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/network-ping-lite/id289967115?mt=8
Android, as would be expected for a mature mobile operating system, has a
bunch of usable ping utilities, e.g., StreamSoft makes:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ua.com.streamsoft.pingtools&hl=en
> 6. That's all there is. The "range" of a device, which is a
> measurement of the overall radio design, antenna, internal noise,
> packaging, orientation sensitivity, etc quality, should give you a
> clue as to relative quality of the various test devices. If
> everything you test craps out at approximately the same range (using
> the same speeds and protocols), then as far as I'm concerned, they're
> all the same.
If the two devices under test crap out at the same time, then they're
equivalent. If the Android device craps out at twice the distance of the
iOS devices, then the hypothesis is supported.
Of course, I'd have to test multiple random devices to be sure of the data.
> However, if you see substantial variations, then you
> can legitimately claim that Apple and Android devices are different.
So, what remains is only a more rigid test, as you have proposed.
> 7. Incidentally, you can also try it pointing iperf to a public
> server instead of your own iperf server. Note that you'll be
> measuring the speed of your internet connection, not the speed of the
> wireless. I wouldn't do that for the range test.
> Iperf public servers:
> <https://iperf.fr/iperf-servers.php>
> Also, if you want to be sick, try running iperf over a cellular data
> connection.
> Just do it. I didn't spend an hour writing all this so that you lean
> back in your chair and deliver your "impressions" or "feelings". Such
> things as range can and should be tested. If you need help, you know
> where you can try to pry me out of my hole.
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 30, 2016, 11:44:03 PM7/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 21:54:55 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>the iphone 4 was not 10x worse.
Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I prefer
opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
and calculations. However, I'll accept your assertion for what it's
worth. However, I did make one mistake. The iphone wasn't 10 times
worse, but more like 6 to 18 times. Citing my web page:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
drop for the iPhone 4... "
One problem was that I didn't have access to an iphone 4 at the time
of the controversy. None of my friends would trust me to jailbreak
their phone just so I could get a signal strength reading in dBm
instead of "bars". So, I had to use the test results from the
Anantech article. A friend has an iPhone 4 that he's not using, so I
could probably repeat my test given sufficient inspiration.
>it was comparable to other phones and in many cases, those other phones
>were substantially worse, even dropping to no service, something the
>iphone 4 didn't do.
Yeah, that was cute. Initially, Verizon phones would stay connected
for quite a while after total loss of signal. I put a VZW iphone 4 in
a shielded box during a call, waited up to about 2 minutes, and was
able to resume the call uninterrupted. Nicely done by VZW. However,
AT&T was initially a different story. I did the same test with an
AT&T phone (not an iPhone) and found that it would disconnect after
only a few seconds. About a month later, after AT&T announced that
they had "upgraded" their network to match capabilities of the new
iPhone, it would also stay connected after 2 minutes of carrier loss.
I have an old VZW Palm Pre somewhere in the office. I'll try it on
Mon or Tues.
Interesting test. He's in a weak signal area. Grabbing the phone
drops the signal level enough to produce a loss of connection. That's
not surprising. It would be more interesting if he put the phone in
the Field Test Mode to see how much the signal drops. If the phone is
right at the bitter edge of disconnecting, and the signal drops a few
dB, I would expect it to umm.... disconnect. Note that all the phones
used in my test showed about a 9 dB drop in receive signal from a
death grip, which would produce exactly the same results in a weak
signal area as the Palm Pre.
This is almost as bad as the Pre test. Instead of being in a one bar
weak signal area, he's got 2 bars. I'm not so sure that the HTC Droid
Inedible (VZW only) has the antenna at the bottom. I tried to find it
on the iFixit teardown at:
<https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/HTC+Droid+Incredible+Teardown/42422>
and couldn't find it. Other users are also having problems:
"FIX HTC INCREDIBLE S RECEPTION ANTENNA ISSUES"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHIdl1qrdkc> (6:42)
Fast forward to 4:35 to see what he's done.
In other words, not the best phone or antenna system. Of course, the
author doesn't care about potential SAR problem.
>droid 2 had serious issues:
><https://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/uh-oh-early-droid-2-units-having-sign
>al-issues/>
> The signal on one of the two units we received is all over the board,
> dipping from full signal down to nearly none whilst sitting in the
> same spot (and no, weąre not holding it wrong). Engadgetąs review
> says that four out of four of their units show endlessly fluctuating
> bar counts, and our buddy Rich Brome of Phonescoop says heąs having
> bad luck with his, as well. Thats 6 review units, all showing signs
> of signal woes. Not a good sign.
That's just a crappy phone. It could be anything from bad design, bad
implementation, bad parts, bad metering, or just having a bad day. I
assume that this has something to do with your defense of Apple, but I
lack the wisdom to make the connection.
>> Yes of course. Since I don't like Apple, every Apple is by definition
>> far worse than Android. Or course, for a nominal bribe, I can reverse
>> the situation.
>that explains everything.
Even honesty has a price tag.
wrote:
>the iphone 4 was not 10x worse.
opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
and calculations. However, I'll accept your assertion for what it's
worth. However, I did make one mistake. The iphone wasn't 10 times
worse, but more like 6 to 18 times. Citing my web page:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
"The worst phone I tested dropped the rx signal 16 times
(-12dB). The iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB)
to 288 times (-24.6dB). That's a 6 to 18 times worse signal
(-12dB). The iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB)
drop for the iPhone 4... "
One problem was that I didn't have access to an iphone 4 at the time
of the controversy. None of my friends would trust me to jailbreak
their phone just so I could get a signal strength reading in dBm
instead of "bars". So, I had to use the test results from the
Anantech article. A friend has an iPhone 4 that he's not using, so I
could probably repeat my test given sufficient inspiration.
>it was comparable to other phones and in many cases, those other phones
>were substantially worse, even dropping to no service, something the
>iphone 4 didn't do.
for quite a while after total loss of signal. I put a VZW iphone 4 in
a shielded box during a call, waited up to about 2 minutes, and was
able to resume the call uninterrupted. Nicely done by VZW. However,
AT&T was initially a different story. I did the same test with an
AT&T phone (not an iPhone) and found that it would disconnect after
only a few seconds. About a month later, after AT&T announced that
they had "upgraded" their network to match capabilities of the new
iPhone, it would also stay connected after 2 minutes of carrier loss.
I have an old VZW Palm Pre somewhere in the office. I'll try it on
Mon or Tues.
Interesting test. He's in a weak signal area. Grabbing the phone
drops the signal level enough to produce a loss of connection. That's
not surprising. It would be more interesting if he put the phone in
the Field Test Mode to see how much the signal drops. If the phone is
right at the bitter edge of disconnecting, and the signal drops a few
dB, I would expect it to umm.... disconnect. Note that all the phones
used in my test showed about a 9 dB drop in receive signal from a
death grip, which would produce exactly the same results in a weak
signal area as the Palm Pre.
This is almost as bad as the Pre test. Instead of being in a one bar
weak signal area, he's got 2 bars. I'm not so sure that the HTC Droid
Inedible (VZW only) has the antenna at the bottom. I tried to find it
on the iFixit teardown at:
<https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/HTC+Droid+Incredible+Teardown/42422>
and couldn't find it. Other users are also having problems:
"FIX HTC INCREDIBLE S RECEPTION ANTENNA ISSUES"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHIdl1qrdkc> (6:42)
Fast forward to 4:35 to see what he's done.
In other words, not the best phone or antenna system. Of course, the
author doesn't care about potential SAR problem.
>droid 2 had serious issues:
><https://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/uh-oh-early-droid-2-units-having-sign
>al-issues/>
> The signal on one of the two units we received is all over the board,
> dipping from full signal down to nearly none whilst sitting in the
> same spot (and no, weąre not holding it wrong). Engadgetąs review
> says that four out of four of their units show endlessly fluctuating
> bar counts, and our buddy Rich Brome of Phonescoop says heąs having
> bad luck with his, as well. Thats 6 review units, all showing signs
> of signal woes. Not a good sign.
implementation, bad parts, bad metering, or just having a bad day. I
assume that this has something to do with your defense of Apple, but I
lack the wisdom to make the connection.
>> Yes of course. Since I don't like Apple, every Apple is by definition
>> far worse than Android. Or course, for a nominal bribe, I can reverse
>> the situation.
>that explains everything.
Message has been deleted
nospam
Jul 31, 2016, 1:52:17 PM7/31/16
to
In article <sbqqpbhi3udu1fqdh...@4ax.com>, Jeff
well as it did. people don't buy crappy phones.
there were fewer dropped calls with the iphone 4 than the previous
iphone 3gs.
at the time, the iphone 4 was the best selling iphone to date and sold
quite well for the few years it was offered for sale.
once the whole antennagate bullshit blew over, nobody even thought
about it.
it was yet another manufactured problem which was concocted by gawker
media for the traffic, just like the iphone 6 bendgate and hairgate
nonsense.
what comes around goes around, and now gawker media is bankrupt.
haters gotta hate.
> One problem was that I didn't have access to an iphone 4 at the time
> of the controversy. None of my friends would trust me to jailbreak
> their phone just so I could get a signal strength reading in dBm
> instead of "bars". So, I had to use the test results from the
> Anantech article. A friend has an iPhone 4 that he's not using, so I
> could probably repeat my test given sufficient inspiration.
no need to jailbreak to get dbm
>
> >> Yes of course. Since I don't like Apple, every Apple is by definition
> >> far worse than Android. Or course, for a nominal bribe, I can reverse
> >> the situation.
>
> >that explains everything.
>
> Even honesty has a price tag.
you've admitted your anti-apple bias which makes what you say not
honest.
Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> >the iphone 4 was not 10x worse.
>
> Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I prefer
> opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
> and calculations. However, I'll accept your assertion for what it's
> worth. However, I did make one mistake. The iphone wasn't 10 times
> worse, but more like 6 to 18 times. Citing my web page:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
> "The worst phone I tested dropped the rx signal 16 times
> (-12dB). The iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB)
> to 288 times (-24.6dB). That's a 6 to 18 times worse signal
> drop for the iPhone 4... "
if the iphone was 18x worse, it would not have sold anywhere near as
>
> >the iphone 4 was not 10x worse.
>
> Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I prefer
> opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
> and calculations. However, I'll accept your assertion for what it's
> worth. However, I did make one mistake. The iphone wasn't 10 times
> worse, but more like 6 to 18 times. Citing my web page:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
> "The worst phone I tested dropped the rx signal 16 times
> (-12dB). The iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB)
> to 288 times (-24.6dB). That's a 6 to 18 times worse signal
> drop for the iPhone 4... "
well as it did. people don't buy crappy phones.
there were fewer dropped calls with the iphone 4 than the previous
iphone 3gs.
at the time, the iphone 4 was the best selling iphone to date and sold
quite well for the few years it was offered for sale.
once the whole antennagate bullshit blew over, nobody even thought
about it.
it was yet another manufactured problem which was concocted by gawker
media for the traffic, just like the iphone 6 bendgate and hairgate
nonsense.
what comes around goes around, and now gawker media is bankrupt.
haters gotta hate.
> One problem was that I didn't have access to an iphone 4 at the time
> of the controversy. None of my friends would trust me to jailbreak
> their phone just so I could get a signal strength reading in dBm
> instead of "bars". So, I had to use the test results from the
> Anantech article. A friend has an iPhone 4 that he's not using, so I
> could probably repeat my test given sufficient inspiration.
>
> >> Yes of course. Since I don't like Apple, every Apple is by definition
> >> far worse than Android. Or course, for a nominal bribe, I can reverse
> >> the situation.
>
> >that explains everything.
>
> Even honesty has a price tag.
honest.
Aardvarks
Jul 31, 2016, 6:26:46 PM7/31/16
to
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 20:44:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I prefer
> opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
> and calculations.
Jeff,
> Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I prefer
> opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
> and calculations.
This nospam guy is actually one of the smarter ones here, along with Rod
Speed and the smartest guy here, who is David Empson. The problem though,
with nospam, is that his only playbook is verbatim what Apple Marketing
feeds him. He has no other repertoire.
> Note that all the phones
> used in my test showed about a 9 dB drop in receive signal from a
> death grip
1/2 times 1/2 the signal strength, which is 0.125 the original signal
strength (or around 1/8th the original signal strength if I did the math
correctly).
> That's just a crappy phone. It could be anything from bad design, bad
> implementation, bad parts, bad metering, or just having a bad day. I
> assume that this has something to do with your defense of Apple, but I
> lack the wisdom to make the connection.
Marketing thinks. Thousands of times, he finds the absolute worst example
he can find in Android land, to compare with Apple.
For example, he tries to compare $50 Android phones to $800 Apple phones,
and then says that the Android phones stink. Or, he picks the absolutely
most expensive Android phone he can find on the planet, to compare with the
iPhone, and says conclusively that iPhones cost exactly the same as Android
phones.
In fact, I have a recent thread where I compare PERFORMANCE of a $300
Android phone to the iPhone 6, and he pooh poos that because I didn't use
the absolutely most expensive Android phones on the planet to make my
performance tests.
At first you wonder why he thinks like Apple Marketing, but then you just
get used to it once you understand that:
a. He buys only on cachet (so anything bad about Apple is a threat)
b. He buys based on fear (so anything outside the walled garden is scary)
c. He can only think of the single solution Apple Marketing gives him
Once you realize *everything* he says is imbued by those three tenets, then
you realize why he sounds exactly like Apple Marketing sounds.
> Even honesty has a price tag.
he will *never* be honest with you.
If you (or I) have a favorable datum about Android versus iOS, we speak it
out, and weigh it proportionately. Nospam is the consummate Apple marketing
guy. He is so afraid of facts, that he will *never* speak anything out
against Apple, even though he surely must be aware of the huge flaws.
At first I couldn't understand his duplicity. I thought it was stupidity.
But he's duplicitous because of the three things I said:
a. He's *protecting* his purchase decision (at all costs!)
b. He's *protecting* against anything *outside* the walled garden
c. He's *protecting* against the one-button-mouse mentality that Apple
Marketing has and always has had.
So nospam will *never* see both sides of the coin.
Never.
And even if he did - he'd never admit it.
On the other hand, you:
a. Buy by price:performance so performance is just a set of numbers which
is nothing to fear
b. Buy what works for you with the equipment you use, and not necessarily
only one brand of equipment
c. Try every solution that makes sense, and not just the
single-button-mouse solution that one manufacturers' marketing team
specifies
Until you understand these three things, you'll never understand why nospam
writes what he writes (nor most of the other Apple Aficianados).
a. They care only about style
b. They are fearful of anything not told to them by Apple Marketing
c. They can only think of one-button-mouse style solutions proposed by
Apple Marketing (which only work inside the walled garden).
Anything outside those three areas, they "just give up".
In fact, they're so used to "just giving up", that it's not funny in that
is so different than your mental makeup.
nospam
Jul 31, 2016, 6:58:10 PM7/31/16
to
In article <nnltv2$7if$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
i've never tried to compare a $50 android phone with an $800 iphone,
ever.
what i said was that similar specs have comparable prices, and they do.
phones with similar specs to an iphone are something like a samsung
galaxy s7 or note 5.
you're also ignoring that apple and google have different business
models, something you refuse to acknowledge, let alone even begin to
understand.
you're also ignoring all of the android phones that are *more*
expensive than the iphone.
the initial price doesn't make matter a whole lot anyway because people
will pay far more than the difference in price in a couple of months of
service fees.
you're a troll, who spews nothing but hate.
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> > That's just a crappy phone. It could be anything from bad design, bad
> > implementation, bad parts, bad metering, or just having a bad day. I
> > assume that this has something to do with your defense of Apple, but I
> > lack the wisdom to make the connection.
>
> Jeff - you have to understand that nospam thinks *exactly* like Apple
> Marketing thinks. Thousands of times, he finds the absolute worst example
> he can find in Android land, to compare with Apple.
>
> For example, he tries to compare $50 Android phones to $800 Apple phones,
> and then says that the Android phones stink. Or, he picks the absolutely
> most expensive Android phone he can find on the planet, to compare with the
> iPhone, and says conclusively that iPhones cost exactly the same as Android
> phones.
more of your lies and ignorant trolling.
> > That's just a crappy phone. It could be anything from bad design, bad
> > implementation, bad parts, bad metering, or just having a bad day. I
> > assume that this has something to do with your defense of Apple, but I
> > lack the wisdom to make the connection.
>
> Jeff - you have to understand that nospam thinks *exactly* like Apple
> Marketing thinks. Thousands of times, he finds the absolute worst example
> he can find in Android land, to compare with Apple.
>
> For example, he tries to compare $50 Android phones to $800 Apple phones,
> and then says that the Android phones stink. Or, he picks the absolutely
> most expensive Android phone he can find on the planet, to compare with the
> iPhone, and says conclusively that iPhones cost exactly the same as Android
> phones.
i've never tried to compare a $50 android phone with an $800 iphone,
ever.
what i said was that similar specs have comparable prices, and they do.
phones with similar specs to an iphone are something like a samsung
galaxy s7 or note 5.
you're also ignoring that apple and google have different business
models, something you refuse to acknowledge, let alone even begin to
understand.
you're also ignoring all of the android phones that are *more*
expensive than the iphone.
the initial price doesn't make matter a whole lot anyway because people
will pay far more than the difference in price in a couple of months of
service fees.
you're a troll, who spews nothing but hate.
Jolly Roger
Jul 31, 2016, 7:17:38 PM7/31/16
to
> This nospam guy is actually...
> The problem though, with nospam, is...
> Jeff - you have to understand that nospam...
> The funny thing about nospam, Jeff, is...
> Nospam is the consummate Apple marketing...
> So nospam will *never* see...
"I'm not obsessed or anything"... : )
> The problem though, with nospam, is...
> Jeff - you have to understand that nospam...
> The funny thing about nospam, Jeff, is...
> Nospam is the consummate Apple marketing...
> So nospam will *never* see...
"I'm not obsessed or anything"... : )
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 31, 2016, 7:41:32 PM7/31/16
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 13:52:14 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <sbqqpbhi3udu1fqdh...@4ax.com>, Jeff
>Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I prefer
>> opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
>> and calculations. However, I'll accept your assertion for what it's
>> worth. However, I did make one mistake. The iphone wasn't 10 times
>> worse, but more like 6 to 18 times. Citing my web page:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
>> "The worst phone I tested dropped the rx signal 16 times
>> (-12dB). The iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB)
>> to 288 times (-24.6dB). That's a 6 to 18 times worse signal
>> drop for the iPhone 4... "
>
>if the iphone was 18x worse, it would not have sold anywhere near as
>well as it did. people don't buy crappy phones.
Without the rubber cover, which is now epidemic, the iPhone 4 was 6 to
18 times worse in signal loss compared to various cell phones. With
the rubber cover, it's about the same as most other smartphones. At
the time when I ran the test, rubber covers for the newly released
iPhone 4 were not available. I can repeat the test if I can borrow an
iPhone 4 from a friend. So can you. It's quite easy but there are a
few tricks. Bug me if you want details.
>there were fewer dropped calls with the iphone 4 than the previous
>iphone 3gs.
True for AT&T because, as I previously indicated, AT&T would
disconnect if the carrier was lost for only a few seconds. That was
later increased which hid any disconnects caused by carrier loss. You
can test how it works with any cell phone. Make a call and then put
the phone inside a shielded box (microwave oven will do) for varying
amounts of time. Last time I did this on VZW, I could disappear for a
bit less than 2 minutes, and continue my call from where I left off.
I just tried it on VZW at home. I called my house phone from my
ancient LG VX8300 cell phone. I then put it inside the microwave
oven. After 2 minutes, I was still connected. However, I'm not sure
if the signal went to zero. I could see that the phone showed zero
bars through the oven door, but the VX8300 will still work showing
zero bars. I'll see if I can find a weaker signal location and a
better shielded box later in the week.
It's easy enough for you to try the same thing. Note that it doesn't
matter what phone you use. You're testing how the cell site responds
to a loss of carrier. Any phone will suffice.
>at the time, the iphone 4 was the best selling iphone to date and sold
>quite well for the few years it was offered for sale.
Yep, and sales is of paramount importance. Everything else, including
quality, repairability, product life, and even price are of secondary
importance. If it sells, it must be good (for the company).
>once the whole antennagate bullshit blew over, nobody even thought
>about it.
I thought about it. I really hate to agree with you, but the
antennagate thing had nothing to do with Apple. Apple's only
contribution was designing a phone that highlighted a bad setting by
AT&T in their cell sites. The problem disappeared when the rubber
bumper made the iPhone 4 act more like other phones of the period, and
when AT&T tweaked their settings. As an added bonus, Apple also
tweaked the relationship between receive signal level and the number
of bars indicated. Later, they graciously allowed users to see the
actual numbers in dBm. Prior to that, jailbreaking was required. You
can read about how it was necessary to get into the field test mode in
order to see numbers at:
<http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2>
>it was yet another manufactured problem which was concocted by gawker
>media for the traffic, just like the iphone 6 bendgate and hairgate
>nonsense.
Those problems were not concocted or in any way fabricated for the
occasion. They were quite real. Whether they were significant or
worth fixing is a very different story.
These days, product lifetimes are sufficiently short that the next
generation of product is already in the pipeline when the previous
product is introduced. In some product areas (i.e. disk storage and
SSD's), there can be as many a 3 generations in the pipeline at the
same time. That means there's absolutely no incentive to fix the
current product when the next generation will be released shortly. If
there are any real problems, current owners are simply told to wait
for the next generation to be released, which will surely have those
problems solved. The reality is often quite different.
>what comes around goes around, and now gawker media is bankrupt.
Hardly. There are plenty of problems still left to solve. For
example, how about product life and servicability?
<http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fix-out-product-repairs-get-tougher-new-age-obsolescence-n614916>
Did you know that your Apple products are designed for a 5 year
product life?
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624>
Ever wonder what Apple does with cell phones that have been returned
for repair?
<http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-shreds-old-iphones-to-prevent-real-parts-ending-up-in-fakes-2016-2>
>haters gotta hate.
That's only a problem when one hates something specific, like Apple.
It's not considered a problem if one hates everything equally. Don't
worry. I have plenty of bad things to say about Google and Android.
>no need to jailbreak to get dbm
At the time (2010), it was necessary to jailbreak an iphone in order
to obtain signal strength numbers. The field test mode was also
initially disabled in the iphone 4. Read the Anantech article
mentioned above for a memory refresh.
>you've admitted your anti-apple bias which makes what you say not
>honest.
Excuse me? Since when does hating something lead to dishonesty? I
might hate a vendors products, possibly for good reason, and offer my
opinion on the matter if asked, but I certainly would not poison my
position by lying about what's wrong with their products. I might
also not like a vendor due to political, social, economic, or personal
reasons that have nothing to do with their products. From what I've
disclosed, you would not be able to determine if it's one of those, or
whether it's a quality, service, price, performance, design, or
usability problem that I might have with Apple. Assumption really is
the mother of all such screwups.
Taking your statement at face value, are only people that offer
favorable opinions of Apple allowed to comment because they're
presumably the only ones that are honest? Perhaps you might want to
rephrase your statement.
Drivel: I found my old iPhone 3G and decided to see if it still
works. I charged up the battery, turned it on, and it complained that
it could not make a secure connection. Fine, that's Apple for set the
date and time. Once I did that, I was deluged with about 4 years of
gmail stored on the Google server. That was followed by about 200
reminders and appointments, each of which had to be individually
acknowledged. When I checked for updates, it proclaimed that
everything was up to date. Not too bad for an old phone.
wrote:
>In article <sbqqpbhi3udu1fqdh...@4ax.com>, Jeff
>Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I prefer
>> opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
>> and calculations. However, I'll accept your assertion for what it's
>> worth. However, I did make one mistake. The iphone wasn't 10 times
>> worse, but more like 6 to 18 times. Citing my web page:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
>> "The worst phone I tested dropped the rx signal 16 times
>> (-12dB). The iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB)
>> to 288 times (-24.6dB). That's a 6 to 18 times worse signal
>> drop for the iPhone 4... "
>
>if the iphone was 18x worse, it would not have sold anywhere near as
>well as it did. people don't buy crappy phones.
18 times worse in signal loss compared to various cell phones. With
the rubber cover, it's about the same as most other smartphones. At
the time when I ran the test, rubber covers for the newly released
iPhone 4 were not available. I can repeat the test if I can borrow an
iPhone 4 from a friend. So can you. It's quite easy but there are a
few tricks. Bug me if you want details.
>there were fewer dropped calls with the iphone 4 than the previous
>iphone 3gs.
disconnect if the carrier was lost for only a few seconds. That was
later increased which hid any disconnects caused by carrier loss. You
can test how it works with any cell phone. Make a call and then put
the phone inside a shielded box (microwave oven will do) for varying
amounts of time. Last time I did this on VZW, I could disappear for a
bit less than 2 minutes, and continue my call from where I left off.
I just tried it on VZW at home. I called my house phone from my
ancient LG VX8300 cell phone. I then put it inside the microwave
oven. After 2 minutes, I was still connected. However, I'm not sure
if the signal went to zero. I could see that the phone showed zero
bars through the oven door, but the VX8300 will still work showing
zero bars. I'll see if I can find a weaker signal location and a
better shielded box later in the week.
It's easy enough for you to try the same thing. Note that it doesn't
matter what phone you use. You're testing how the cell site responds
to a loss of carrier. Any phone will suffice.
>at the time, the iphone 4 was the best selling iphone to date and sold
>quite well for the few years it was offered for sale.
quality, repairability, product life, and even price are of secondary
importance. If it sells, it must be good (for the company).
>once the whole antennagate bullshit blew over, nobody even thought
>about it.
antennagate thing had nothing to do with Apple. Apple's only
contribution was designing a phone that highlighted a bad setting by
AT&T in their cell sites. The problem disappeared when the rubber
bumper made the iPhone 4 act more like other phones of the period, and
when AT&T tweaked their settings. As an added bonus, Apple also
tweaked the relationship between receive signal level and the number
of bars indicated. Later, they graciously allowed users to see the
actual numbers in dBm. Prior to that, jailbreaking was required. You
can read about how it was necessary to get into the field test mode in
order to see numbers at:
<http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2>
>it was yet another manufactured problem which was concocted by gawker
>media for the traffic, just like the iphone 6 bendgate and hairgate
>nonsense.
occasion. They were quite real. Whether they were significant or
worth fixing is a very different story.
These days, product lifetimes are sufficiently short that the next
generation of product is already in the pipeline when the previous
product is introduced. In some product areas (i.e. disk storage and
SSD's), there can be as many a 3 generations in the pipeline at the
same time. That means there's absolutely no incentive to fix the
current product when the next generation will be released shortly. If
there are any real problems, current owners are simply told to wait
for the next generation to be released, which will surely have those
problems solved. The reality is often quite different.
>what comes around goes around, and now gawker media is bankrupt.
example, how about product life and servicability?
<http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fix-out-product-repairs-get-tougher-new-age-obsolescence-n614916>
Did you know that your Apple products are designed for a 5 year
product life?
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624>
Ever wonder what Apple does with cell phones that have been returned
for repair?
<http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-shreds-old-iphones-to-prevent-real-parts-ending-up-in-fakes-2016-2>
>haters gotta hate.
That's only a problem when one hates something specific, like Apple.
It's not considered a problem if one hates everything equally. Don't
worry. I have plenty of bad things to say about Google and Android.
>no need to jailbreak to get dbm
to obtain signal strength numbers. The field test mode was also
initially disabled in the iphone 4. Read the Anantech article
mentioned above for a memory refresh.
>you've admitted your anti-apple bias which makes what you say not
>honest.
might hate a vendors products, possibly for good reason, and offer my
opinion on the matter if asked, but I certainly would not poison my
position by lying about what's wrong with their products. I might
also not like a vendor due to political, social, economic, or personal
reasons that have nothing to do with their products. From what I've
disclosed, you would not be able to determine if it's one of those, or
whether it's a quality, service, price, performance, design, or
usability problem that I might have with Apple. Assumption really is
the mother of all such screwups.
Taking your statement at face value, are only people that offer
favorable opinions of Apple allowed to comment because they're
presumably the only ones that are honest? Perhaps you might want to
rephrase your statement.
Drivel: I found my old iPhone 3G and decided to see if it still
works. I charged up the battery, turned it on, and it complained that
it could not make a secure connection. Fine, that's Apple for set the
date and time. Once I did that, I was deluged with about 4 years of
gmail stored on the Google server. That was followed by about 200
reminders and appointments, each of which had to be individually
acknowledged. When I checked for updates, it proclaimed that
everything was up to date. Not too bad for an old phone.
nospam
Jul 31, 2016, 8:23:45 PM7/31/16
to
In article <m9vspbp0hvep8nokt...@4ax.com>, Jeff
> With
> the rubber cover, it's about the same as most other smartphones. At
> the time when I ran the test, rubber covers for the newly released
> iPhone 4 were not available.
they were available.
> I can repeat the test if I can borrow an
> iPhone 4 from a friend. So can you. It's quite easy but there are a
> few tricks. Bug me if you want details.
i don't need to borrow one since i still have mine.
i had *no* problems whatsoever with reception and no tangible
difference between it and the 3gs it replaced.
> >there were fewer dropped calls with the iphone 4 than the previous
> >iphone 3gs.
>
> True for AT&T because, as I previously indicated, AT&T would
> disconnect if the carrier was lost for only a few seconds. That was
> later increased which hid any disconnects caused by carrier loss. You
> can test how it works with any cell phone. Make a call and then put
> the phone inside a shielded box (microwave oven will do) for varying
> amounts of time. Last time I did this on VZW, I could disappear for a
> bit less than 2 minutes, and continue my call from where I left off.
bullshit. no cell carrier keeps a call connected that long without any
connection.
> I just tried it on VZW at home. I called my house phone from my
> ancient LG VX8300 cell phone. I then put it inside the microwave
> oven. After 2 minutes, I was still connected. However, I'm not sure
> if the signal went to zero. I could see that the phone showed zero
> bars through the oven door, but the VX8300 will still work showing
> zero bars. I'll see if I can find a weaker signal location and a
> better shielded box later in the week.
put it on defrost cycle.
> It's easy enough for you to try the same thing. Note that it doesn't
> matter what phone you use. You're testing how the cell site responds
> to a loss of carrier. Any phone will suffice.
i prefer real world tests in normal use.
my iphone 4 was not significantly different than any other phone i
have, whether it's other iphones, android and old school flippers, and
that's in both city and fringe areas.
> >at the time, the iphone 4 was the best selling iphone to date and sold
> >quite well for the few years it was offered for sale.
>
> Yep, and sales is of paramount importance. Everything else, including
> quality, repairability, product life, and even price are of secondary
> importance. If it sells, it must be good (for the company).
all of those are contributing factors to sales.
if the product was shit quality, unreliable, etc. it would't sell well.
people generally want quality stuff.
the reality is that the iphone 4 was very reliable, other than the home
button for early production runs, something that was easily fixed and
later modified at the factory to be more reliable.
> >once the whole antennagate bullshit blew over, nobody even thought
> >about it.
>
> I thought about it. I really hate to agree with you, but the
> antennagate thing had nothing to do with Apple. Apple's only
> contribution was designing a phone that highlighted a bad setting by
> AT&T in their cell sites. The problem disappeared when the rubber
> bumper made the iPhone 4 act more like other phones of the period, and
> when AT&T tweaked their settings. As an added bonus, Apple also
> tweaked the relationship between receive signal level and the number
> of bars indicated. Later, they graciously allowed users to see the
> actual numbers in dBm. Prior to that, jailbreaking was required. You
> can read about how it was necessary to get into the field test mode in
> order to see numbers at:
> <http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2>
jailbreaking was not required to put earlier iphones into field test
mode.
apple removed that in the iphone 4 and then put it *back*.
> >it was yet another manufactured problem which was concocted by gawker
> >media for the traffic, just like the iphone 6 bendgate and hairgate
> >nonsense.
>
> Those problems were not concocted or in any way fabricated for the
> occasion. They were quite real. Whether they were significant or
> worth fixing is a very different story.
the problem was concocted.
'holding it wrong' is something that affects every single phone, but
gawker media, who had just had its ass handed to it for buying a stolen
iphone 4, decided to attack apple and get its revenge.
> These days, product lifetimes are sufficiently short that the next
> generation of product is already in the pipeline when the previous
> product is introduced. In some product areas (i.e. disk storage and
> SSD's), there can be as many a 3 generations in the pipeline at the
> same time. That means there's absolutely no incentive to fix the
> current product when the next generation will be released shortly. If
> there are any real problems, current owners are simply told to wait
> for the next generation to be released, which will surely have those
> problems solved. The reality is often quite different.
apple often makes changes *during* product lifecycles.
> >what comes around goes around, and now gawker media is bankrupt.
>
> Hardly. There are plenty of problems still left to solve. For
> example, how about product life and servicability?
>
> <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fix-out-product-repairs-get-tougher-new-a
> ge-obsolescence-n614916>
> Did you know that your Apple products are designed for a 5 year
> product life?
they aren't.
in fact, i have a 12 year old mac mini running 24/7 as a low end server
and just put an ssd in it because the hard drive was over 10 years old.
> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624>
that doesn't mean they're designed for 5 year life.
it means apple stops supporting products after 5 years, or 7 years as
required in california, where you are.
every company cuts off support after a while, often *less* than that.
look at what android phone makers do, who drop support within a year or
two.
> Ever wonder what Apple does with cell phones that have been returned
> for repair?
> <http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-shreds-old-iphones-to-prevent-real-parts-
> ending-up-in-fakes-2016-2>
don't believe everything you read.
apple recycles phones and even designed and built a robot named liam to
do it.
<http://mashable.com/2016/03/21/apple-liam-recycling-robot/>
Liam is programmed to carefully disassemble the many pieces of
returned iPhones, such as SIM card trays, screws, batteries and
cameras, by removing components bit by bit so theyšll all be easier
to recycle. Traditional tech recycling methods involve a shredder
with magnets that makes it hard to separate parts in a pure way
(youšll often get scrap materials commingled with other pieces).
Liam separates the insides of an iPhone with robotic precision so,
for example, pieces of glass and plastic wonšt be mixed in with
copper. Ultimately, these components can be sold to recycling vendors
that focus on specific materials, such as nickel, aluminum, copper,
cobalt and tungsten (a conflict mineral), and turn them into
something else that can be reused, rather than dumped in a landfill.
Some of these materials take decades to decompose and leak toxic
materials into the ground along the way.
> >haters gotta hate.
>
> That's only a problem when one hates something specific, like Apple.
> It's not considered a problem if one hates everything equally. Don't
> worry. I have plenty of bad things to say about Google and Android.
yet you don't.
> >no need to jailbreak to get dbm
>
> At the time (2010), it was necessary to jailbreak an iphone in order
> to obtain signal strength numbers. The field test mode was also
> initially disabled in the iphone 4. Read the Anantech article
> mentioned above for a memory refresh.
they removed it in the iphone 4 and then put it back in the next
update, which was a couple of weeks later, if that (i'd have to check
the dates).
prior to the iphone 4 it was there.
> >you've admitted your anti-apple bias which makes what you say not
> >honest.
>
> Excuse me? Since when does hating something lead to dishonesty?
it means what you say is heavily biased.
> I might hate a vendors products, possibly for good reason, and offer my
> opinion on the matter if asked, but I certainly would not poison my
> position by lying about what's wrong with their products. I might
> also not like a vendor due to political, social, economic, or personal
> reasons that have nothing to do with their products. From what I've
> disclosed, you would not be able to determine if it's one of those, or
> whether it's a quality, service, price, performance, design, or
> usability problem that I might have with Apple. Assumption really is
> the mother of all such screwups.
except that you do lie about them, as you did above.
> Taking your statement at face value, are only people that offer
> favorable opinions of Apple allowed to comment because they're
> presumably the only ones that are honest? Perhaps you might want to
> rephrase your statement.
i never said that at all.
every product has good and bad points. nothing is perfect. pick the
best tool for the job.
anyone who repeatedly cites the bad things about one company and
ignores when other companies do the very same thing (or worse) is
dishonest.
> Drivel: I found my old iPhone 3G and decided to see if it still
> works. I charged up the battery, turned it on, and it complained that
> it could not make a secure connection. Fine, that's Apple for set the
> date and time. Once I did that, I was deluged with about 4 years of
> gmail stored on the Google server. That was followed by about 200
> reminders and appointments, each of which had to be individually
> acknowledged. When I checked for updates, it proclaimed that
> everything was up to date. Not too bad for an old phone.
so much for designing for 5 years.
Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >> Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I prefer
> >> opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
> >> and calculations. However, I'll accept your assertion for what it's
> >> worth. However, I did make one mistake. The iphone wasn't 10 times
> >> worse, but more like 6 to 18 times. Citing my web page:
> >> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
> >> "The worst phone I tested dropped the rx signal 16 times
> >> (-12dB). The iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB)
> >> to 288 times (-24.6dB). That's a 6 to 18 times worse signal
> >> drop for the iPhone 4... "
> >
> >if the iphone was 18x worse, it would not have sold anywhere near as
> >well as it did. people don't buy crappy phones.
>
> Without the rubber cover, which is now epidemic, the iPhone 4 was 6 to
> 18 times worse in signal loss compared to various cell phones.
nope
> >> Well, you're certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I prefer
> >> opinions based on repeatable tests, measurements, numerical results,
> >> and calculations. However, I'll accept your assertion for what it's
> >> worth. However, I did make one mistake. The iphone wasn't 10 times
> >> worse, but more like 6 to 18 times. Citing my web page:
> >> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
> >> "The worst phone I tested dropped the rx signal 16 times
> >> (-12dB). The iPhone 4 rx signal dropped 100 times (-20dB)
> >> to 288 times (-24.6dB). That's a 6 to 18 times worse signal
> >> drop for the iPhone 4... "
> >
> >if the iphone was 18x worse, it would not have sold anywhere near as
> >well as it did. people don't buy crappy phones.
>
> Without the rubber cover, which is now epidemic, the iPhone 4 was 6 to
> 18 times worse in signal loss compared to various cell phones.
> With
> the rubber cover, it's about the same as most other smartphones. At
> the time when I ran the test, rubber covers for the newly released
> iPhone 4 were not available.
> I can repeat the test if I can borrow an
> iPhone 4 from a friend. So can you. It's quite easy but there are a
> few tricks. Bug me if you want details.
i had *no* problems whatsoever with reception and no tangible
difference between it and the 3gs it replaced.
> >there were fewer dropped calls with the iphone 4 than the previous
> >iphone 3gs.
>
> True for AT&T because, as I previously indicated, AT&T would
> disconnect if the carrier was lost for only a few seconds. That was
> later increased which hid any disconnects caused by carrier loss. You
> can test how it works with any cell phone. Make a call and then put
> the phone inside a shielded box (microwave oven will do) for varying
> amounts of time. Last time I did this on VZW, I could disappear for a
> bit less than 2 minutes, and continue my call from where I left off.
connection.
> I just tried it on VZW at home. I called my house phone from my
> ancient LG VX8300 cell phone. I then put it inside the microwave
> oven. After 2 minutes, I was still connected. However, I'm not sure
> if the signal went to zero. I could see that the phone showed zero
> bars through the oven door, but the VX8300 will still work showing
> zero bars. I'll see if I can find a weaker signal location and a
> better shielded box later in the week.
> It's easy enough for you to try the same thing. Note that it doesn't
> matter what phone you use. You're testing how the cell site responds
> to a loss of carrier. Any phone will suffice.
my iphone 4 was not significantly different than any other phone i
have, whether it's other iphones, android and old school flippers, and
that's in both city and fringe areas.
> >at the time, the iphone 4 was the best selling iphone to date and sold
> >quite well for the few years it was offered for sale.
>
> Yep, and sales is of paramount importance. Everything else, including
> quality, repairability, product life, and even price are of secondary
> importance. If it sells, it must be good (for the company).
if the product was shit quality, unreliable, etc. it would't sell well.
people generally want quality stuff.
the reality is that the iphone 4 was very reliable, other than the home
button for early production runs, something that was easily fixed and
later modified at the factory to be more reliable.
> >once the whole antennagate bullshit blew over, nobody even thought
> >about it.
>
> I thought about it. I really hate to agree with you, but the
> antennagate thing had nothing to do with Apple. Apple's only
> contribution was designing a phone that highlighted a bad setting by
> AT&T in their cell sites. The problem disappeared when the rubber
> bumper made the iPhone 4 act more like other phones of the period, and
> when AT&T tweaked their settings. As an added bonus, Apple also
> tweaked the relationship between receive signal level and the number
> of bars indicated. Later, they graciously allowed users to see the
> actual numbers in dBm. Prior to that, jailbreaking was required. You
> can read about how it was necessary to get into the field test mode in
> order to see numbers at:
> <http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2>
mode.
apple removed that in the iphone 4 and then put it *back*.
> >it was yet another manufactured problem which was concocted by gawker
> >media for the traffic, just like the iphone 6 bendgate and hairgate
> >nonsense.
>
> Those problems were not concocted or in any way fabricated for the
> occasion. They were quite real. Whether they were significant or
> worth fixing is a very different story.
'holding it wrong' is something that affects every single phone, but
gawker media, who had just had its ass handed to it for buying a stolen
iphone 4, decided to attack apple and get its revenge.
> These days, product lifetimes are sufficiently short that the next
> generation of product is already in the pipeline when the previous
> product is introduced. In some product areas (i.e. disk storage and
> SSD's), there can be as many a 3 generations in the pipeline at the
> same time. That means there's absolutely no incentive to fix the
> current product when the next generation will be released shortly. If
> there are any real problems, current owners are simply told to wait
> for the next generation to be released, which will surely have those
> problems solved. The reality is often quite different.
> >what comes around goes around, and now gawker media is bankrupt.
>
> Hardly. There are plenty of problems still left to solve. For
> example, how about product life and servicability?
>
> <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fix-out-product-repairs-get-tougher-new-a
> ge-obsolescence-n614916>
> Did you know that your Apple products are designed for a 5 year
> product life?
in fact, i have a 12 year old mac mini running 24/7 as a low end server
and just put an ssd in it because the hard drive was over 10 years old.
> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624>
that doesn't mean they're designed for 5 year life.
it means apple stops supporting products after 5 years, or 7 years as
required in california, where you are.
every company cuts off support after a while, often *less* than that.
look at what android phone makers do, who drop support within a year or
two.
> Ever wonder what Apple does with cell phones that have been returned
> for repair?
> <http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-shreds-old-iphones-to-prevent-real-parts-
> ending-up-in-fakes-2016-2>
apple recycles phones and even designed and built a robot named liam to
do it.
<http://mashable.com/2016/03/21/apple-liam-recycling-robot/>
Liam is programmed to carefully disassemble the many pieces of
returned iPhones, such as SIM card trays, screws, batteries and
cameras, by removing components bit by bit so theyšll all be easier
to recycle. Traditional tech recycling methods involve a shredder
with magnets that makes it hard to separate parts in a pure way
(youšll often get scrap materials commingled with other pieces).
Liam separates the insides of an iPhone with robotic precision so,
for example, pieces of glass and plastic wonšt be mixed in with
copper. Ultimately, these components can be sold to recycling vendors
that focus on specific materials, such as nickel, aluminum, copper,
cobalt and tungsten (a conflict mineral), and turn them into
something else that can be reused, rather than dumped in a landfill.
Some of these materials take decades to decompose and leak toxic
materials into the ground along the way.
> >haters gotta hate.
>
> That's only a problem when one hates something specific, like Apple.
> It's not considered a problem if one hates everything equally. Don't
> worry. I have plenty of bad things to say about Google and Android.
> >no need to jailbreak to get dbm
>
> At the time (2010), it was necessary to jailbreak an iphone in order
> to obtain signal strength numbers. The field test mode was also
> initially disabled in the iphone 4. Read the Anantech article
> mentioned above for a memory refresh.
update, which was a couple of weeks later, if that (i'd have to check
the dates).
prior to the iphone 4 it was there.
> >you've admitted your anti-apple bias which makes what you say not
> >honest.
>
> Excuse me? Since when does hating something lead to dishonesty?
> I might hate a vendors products, possibly for good reason, and offer my
> opinion on the matter if asked, but I certainly would not poison my
> position by lying about what's wrong with their products. I might
> also not like a vendor due to political, social, economic, or personal
> reasons that have nothing to do with their products. From what I've
> disclosed, you would not be able to determine if it's one of those, or
> whether it's a quality, service, price, performance, design, or
> usability problem that I might have with Apple. Assumption really is
> the mother of all such screwups.
> Taking your statement at face value, are only people that offer
> favorable opinions of Apple allowed to comment because they're
> presumably the only ones that are honest? Perhaps you might want to
> rephrase your statement.
every product has good and bad points. nothing is perfect. pick the
best tool for the job.
anyone who repeatedly cites the bad things about one company and
ignores when other companies do the very same thing (or worse) is
dishonest.
> Drivel: I found my old iPhone 3G and decided to see if it still
> works. I charged up the battery, turned it on, and it complained that
> it could not make a secure connection. Fine, that's Apple for set the
> date and time. Once I did that, I was deluged with about 4 years of
> gmail stored on the Google server. That was followed by about 200
> reminders and appointments, each of which had to be individually
> acknowledged. When I checked for updates, it proclaimed that
> everything was up to date. Not too bad for an old phone.
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 31, 2016, 8:23:54 PM7/31/16
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Aardvarks
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>This nospam guy is actually one of the smarter ones here, along with Rod
>Speed and the smartest guy here, who is David Empson. The problem though,
>with nospam, is that his only playbook is verbatim what Apple Marketing
>feeds him. He has no other repertoire.
I don't care. I don't pass judgment upon the writers of usenet
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>This nospam guy is actually one of the smarter ones here, along with Rod
>Speed and the smartest guy here, who is David Empson. The problem though,
>with nospam, is that his only playbook is verbatim what Apple Marketing
>feeds him. He has no other repertoire.
articles, only on the content of their articles. The author could be
evil incarnate, and I would still take their comments seriously. I
also value their opinions based solely on their ability to
substantiate them. In other words, no numbers, no tests, or no
references, and it goes to recycling.
>The funny thing about nospam, Jeff, is that you can be honest with him, but
>he will *never* be honest with you.
>On the other hand, you:
>a. Buy by price:performance so performance is just a set of numbers which
>is nothing to fear
customers, but for myself, I buy used, refurbished, and recycled
hardware. Most of my computers were machines replaced by my customers
in an upgrade. Almost nothing I own was purchased new. Performance
(numbers) is way down the list because it is cheaper to tolerate
mediocrity and do battle with the bleeding edge of technology.
>b. Buy what works for you with the equipment you use, and not necessarily
>only one brand of equipment
companies have produced defective products and probably will continue
to do so erratically. There's also quite a bit of private labeling of
other companies products. I do tend to favor manufacturers with which
I have a working relationship, or know someone on the inside, as that
makes it easier to deal with surprises and problems.
>c. Try every solution that makes sense, and not just the
>single-button-mouse solution that one manufacturers' marketing team
>specifies
configuring devices, wizards, and one-button connect features
attractive. For myself, they just get in the way of diving into the
menus and making it do what I want. While not a single button
solution, I really like the Chromebook philosophy of letting Google do
everything. I can literally setup a Chromebook in minutes, and have
it ready to use without the hassles of endless updates, virus scans,
malware scans, bloatware, etc. Customers want easy and so do I
(because we're all fundamentally lazy).
>Anything outside those three areas, they "just give up".
failure insurance. Out of warranty repairs are very expensive. Flat
rate exchange instead of repair is all about inspiring a premature
upgrade. Some parts are unobtainable. When I fix a PC or PC laptop,
I can get cheap parts from the cannibals on eBay. I can do the same
with Apple parts, but not for current model products.
Incidentally, in Dec 2009, I did a price comparison between various
Apple products and the closest equivalent Dell products:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mac-vs-PC.xls>
The 13" MacBook was a bargain at the time, but all the other Apple
products were about twice the price of Dell. Prices do not include
shipping, Applecare, or Dell extended service contracts. I haven't
checked, but I think the situation is much the same today.
>In fact, they're so used to "just giving up", that it's not funny in that
>is so different than your mental makeup.
since Apple products are nearly perfect, whatever is wrong must be
something they had done. Although I don't do much work on Apple
products, the few that drift into my office generally start out by
asking if it was anything that they had done wrong to cause the
problem. There's a related problem where users are afraid to ask for
help because they assume that Apple makes things so easy, that if they
have a problem doing something, it must be their inability to
understand, rather than something Apple did wrong.
Apple... making easy things easier, and difficult things impossible.
nospam
Jul 31, 2016, 8:36:59 PM7/31/16
to
In article <e73tpbhgk9sr1qrp6...@4ax.com>, Jeff
for instance, there's nothing comes close to the retina imac 5k.
dell sells a similar 5k display *without* a computer for roughly what
apple sells the entire imac, which now has a wide-gamut display. not
only that, but it's expected to be updated in about a month or so.
Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> Incidentally, in Dec 2009, I did a price comparison between various
> Apple products and the closest equivalent Dell products:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mac-vs-PC.xls>
> The 13" MacBook was a bargain at the time, but all the other Apple
> products were about twice the price of Dell. Prices do not include
> shipping, Applecare, or Dell extended service contracts. I haven't
> checked, but I think the situation is much the same today.
in some cases, apple is much cheaper.
>
> Incidentally, in Dec 2009, I did a price comparison between various
> Apple products and the closest equivalent Dell products:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mac-vs-PC.xls>
> The 13" MacBook was a bargain at the time, but all the other Apple
> products were about twice the price of Dell. Prices do not include
> shipping, Applecare, or Dell extended service contracts. I haven't
> checked, but I think the situation is much the same today.
for instance, there's nothing comes close to the retina imac 5k.
dell sells a similar 5k display *without* a computer for roughly what
apple sells the entire imac, which now has a wide-gamut display. not
only that, but it's expected to be updated in about a month or so.
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 31, 2016, 9:52:11 PM7/31/16
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 20:36:58 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <e73tpbhgk9sr1qrp6...@4ax.com>, Jeff
>Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Incidentally, in Dec 2009, I did a price comparison between various
>> Apple products and the closest equivalent Dell products:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mac-vs-PC.xls>
>> The 13" MacBook was a bargain at the time, but all the other Apple
>> products were about twice the price of Dell. Prices do not include
>> shipping, Applecare, or Dell extended service contracts. I haven't
>> checked, but I think the situation is much the same today.
>in some cases, apple is much cheaper.
With all due respect, your unsubstantiated opinion does not do much
for me. An example of equivalent PC and Apple products would be more
useful than your astute pontification. Also, you seem to have an
aversion to supplying numbers. A few of these would also improve your
credibility.
It was quite difficult to do the Dec 2009 comparison. I was
recovering at home from surgery and was still somewhat drugged. It
took me all day to nail down the details. Even so, there are
differences between the Dell and Apple products in CPU speeds, memory
types, Firewire ports, and included accessories such as the mouse and
keyboard, which are options on Apple products but generally included
with Dell products. Even with these differences, the ratio was still
about 1:2, except for the 13" MacBook.
>for instance, there's nothing comes close to the retina imac 5k.
>dell sells a similar 5k display *without* a computer for roughly what
>apple sells the entire imac, which now has a wide-gamut display. not
>only that, but it's expected to be updated in about a month or so.
Is it really necessary that I have to do all the research? All that's
necessary is for you to include a URL pointing to the two computers
and displays with prices. Ok, I'll do the grunt work this time for
you and see if you're right.
I presume you mean the Apple 27" Retina 5K iMac computer.
<http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/>
The screen is 5120 x 2880.
B&H has it for $1,900.
<http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1190403-REG/apple_mk472ll_a_27_imac_with_retina.html>
I'll also assume that you're referring to the Dell XPS 27 Touch
All-In-One Desktop:
<http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-27-2720-aio?stp=1>
The screen is 2560 X 1440 or 1/4th that of the Apple display.
Prices vary from $1,700 to $2,700.
So, you're correct that Apple is indeed cheaper than Dell for roughly
equivalent computers and with a better built-in monitor. Apparently,
some things have changed at Apple in the last 7 years. I'll try to be
more careful when making price comparisons in the future. I'll
probably update the spreadsheet as time permits.
Of course, this has nothing to do with any alleged wi-fi range
differences between Apple and Android products, which was the original
topic of this discussion.
wrote:
>In article <e73tpbhgk9sr1qrp6...@4ax.com>, Jeff
>Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Incidentally, in Dec 2009, I did a price comparison between various
>> Apple products and the closest equivalent Dell products:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mac-vs-PC.xls>
>> The 13" MacBook was a bargain at the time, but all the other Apple
>> products were about twice the price of Dell. Prices do not include
>> shipping, Applecare, or Dell extended service contracts. I haven't
>> checked, but I think the situation is much the same today.
>in some cases, apple is much cheaper.
for me. An example of equivalent PC and Apple products would be more
useful than your astute pontification. Also, you seem to have an
aversion to supplying numbers. A few of these would also improve your
credibility.
It was quite difficult to do the Dec 2009 comparison. I was
recovering at home from surgery and was still somewhat drugged. It
took me all day to nail down the details. Even so, there are
differences between the Dell and Apple products in CPU speeds, memory
types, Firewire ports, and included accessories such as the mouse and
keyboard, which are options on Apple products but generally included
with Dell products. Even with these differences, the ratio was still
about 1:2, except for the 13" MacBook.
>for instance, there's nothing comes close to the retina imac 5k.
>dell sells a similar 5k display *without* a computer for roughly what
>apple sells the entire imac, which now has a wide-gamut display. not
>only that, but it's expected to be updated in about a month or so.
necessary is for you to include a URL pointing to the two computers
and displays with prices. Ok, I'll do the grunt work this time for
you and see if you're right.
I presume you mean the Apple 27" Retina 5K iMac computer.
<http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/>
The screen is 5120 x 2880.
B&H has it for $1,900.
<http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1190403-REG/apple_mk472ll_a_27_imac_with_retina.html>
I'll also assume that you're referring to the Dell XPS 27 Touch
All-In-One Desktop:
<http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-27-2720-aio?stp=1>
The screen is 2560 X 1440 or 1/4th that of the Apple display.
Prices vary from $1,700 to $2,700.
So, you're correct that Apple is indeed cheaper than Dell for roughly
equivalent computers and with a better built-in monitor. Apparently,
some things have changed at Apple in the last 7 years. I'll try to be
more careful when making price comparisons in the future. I'll
probably update the spreadsheet as time permits.
Of course, this has nothing to do with any alleged wi-fi range
differences between Apple and Android products, which was the original
topic of this discussion.
nospam
Jul 31, 2016, 10:18:15 PM7/31/16
to
In article <449tpbpvbu5civ5o7...@4ax.com>, Jeff
> An example of equivalent PC and Apple products would be more
> useful than your astute pontification.
useful to whom and for what task?
for some tasks, apple is the *only* choice. for others, windows is the
only choice. for most tasks, things are fairly close, but mac users are
generally more productive.
> Also, you seem to have an
> aversion to supplying numbers. A few of these would also improve your
> credibility.
i did supply numbers.
> It was quite difficult to do the Dec 2009 comparison. I was
> recovering at home from surgery and was still somewhat drugged. It
> took me all day to nail down the details. Even so, there are
> differences between the Dell and Apple products in CPU speeds, memory
> types, Firewire ports, and included accessories such as the mouse and
> keyboard, which are options on Apple products but generally included
> with Dell products. Even with these differences, the ratio was still
> about 1:2, except for the 13" MacBook.
you neglected a few differences, such as that mac os x is equivalent to
windows ultimate, not home.
> >for instance, there's nothing comes close to the retina imac 5k.
> >dell sells a similar 5k display *without* a computer for roughly what
> >apple sells the entire imac, which now has a wide-gamut display. not
> >only that, but it's expected to be updated in about a month or so.
>
> Is it really necessary that I have to do all the research? All that's
> necessary is for you to include a URL pointing to the two computers
> and displays with prices. Ok, I'll do the grunt work this time for
> you and see if you're right.
i assumed someone familiar with product pricing would know the status
quo.
> I presume you mean the Apple 27" Retina 5K iMac computer.
> <http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/>
> The screen is 5120 x 2880.
> B&H has it for $1,900.
>
> <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1190403-REG/apple_mk472ll_a_27_imac_wit
> h_retina.html>
that's the middle model, but you can always configure to order.
$1799 for the base model:
<http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac>
and as i said, the imac is due for an update, expected in a month or
so, which means the above specs are about to change.
> I'll also assume that you're referring to the Dell XPS 27 Touch
> All-In-One Desktop:
> <http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-27-2720-aio?stp=1>
> The screen is 2560 X 1440 or 1/4th that of the Apple display.
> Prices vary from $1,700 to $2,700.
you assume wrong.
i specifically said the dell 5k display, which has the same 5120 x 2880
resolution and is $2k msrp:
<http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&c
s=04&sku=up275k3>
that display was originally $2500, but then apple came out with the
imac 5k and dell had to cut its price.
street price is $1500ish these days, except that's only the display.
you still need a computer that can drive that 5k display, which means a
dual video card and dual cables because one single displayport
currently can't support 5k.
> So, you're correct that Apple is indeed cheaper than Dell for roughly
> equivalent computers and with a better built-in monitor. Apparently,
> some things have changed at Apple in the last 7 years. I'll try to be
> more careful when making price comparisons in the future. I'll
> probably update the spreadsheet as time permits.
ok.
> Of course, this has nothing to do with any alleged wi-fi range
> differences between Apple and Android products, which was the original
> topic of this discussion.
there aren't any significant differences in normal everyday use.
he's trolling.
Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >> Incidentally, in Dec 2009, I did a price comparison between various
> >> Apple products and the closest equivalent Dell products:
> >> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mac-vs-PC.xls>
> >> The 13" MacBook was a bargain at the time, but all the other Apple
> >> products were about twice the price of Dell. Prices do not include
> >> shipping, Applecare, or Dell extended service contracts. I haven't
> >> checked, but I think the situation is much the same today.
>
> >in some cases, apple is much cheaper.
>
> With all due respect, your unsubstantiated opinion does not do much
> for me.
i substantiated it.
> >> Incidentally, in Dec 2009, I did a price comparison between various
> >> Apple products and the closest equivalent Dell products:
> >> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mac-vs-PC.xls>
> >> The 13" MacBook was a bargain at the time, but all the other Apple
> >> products were about twice the price of Dell. Prices do not include
> >> shipping, Applecare, or Dell extended service contracts. I haven't
> >> checked, but I think the situation is much the same today.
>
> >in some cases, apple is much cheaper.
>
> With all due respect, your unsubstantiated opinion does not do much
> for me.
> An example of equivalent PC and Apple products would be more
> useful than your astute pontification.
for some tasks, apple is the *only* choice. for others, windows is the
only choice. for most tasks, things are fairly close, but mac users are
generally more productive.
> Also, you seem to have an
> aversion to supplying numbers. A few of these would also improve your
> credibility.
> It was quite difficult to do the Dec 2009 comparison. I was
> recovering at home from surgery and was still somewhat drugged. It
> took me all day to nail down the details. Even so, there are
> differences between the Dell and Apple products in CPU speeds, memory
> types, Firewire ports, and included accessories such as the mouse and
> keyboard, which are options on Apple products but generally included
> with Dell products. Even with these differences, the ratio was still
> about 1:2, except for the 13" MacBook.
windows ultimate, not home.
> >for instance, there's nothing comes close to the retina imac 5k.
> >dell sells a similar 5k display *without* a computer for roughly what
> >apple sells the entire imac, which now has a wide-gamut display. not
> >only that, but it's expected to be updated in about a month or so.
>
> Is it really necessary that I have to do all the research? All that's
> necessary is for you to include a URL pointing to the two computers
> and displays with prices. Ok, I'll do the grunt work this time for
> you and see if you're right.
quo.
> I presume you mean the Apple 27" Retina 5K iMac computer.
> <http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/>
> The screen is 5120 x 2880.
> B&H has it for $1,900.
>
> <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1190403-REG/apple_mk472ll_a_27_imac_wit
> h_retina.html>
$1799 for the base model:
<http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac>
and as i said, the imac is due for an update, expected in a month or
so, which means the above specs are about to change.
> I'll also assume that you're referring to the Dell XPS 27 Touch
> All-In-One Desktop:
> <http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-27-2720-aio?stp=1>
> The screen is 2560 X 1440 or 1/4th that of the Apple display.
> Prices vary from $1,700 to $2,700.
i specifically said the dell 5k display, which has the same 5120 x 2880
resolution and is $2k msrp:
<http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&c
s=04&sku=up275k3>
that display was originally $2500, but then apple came out with the
imac 5k and dell had to cut its price.
street price is $1500ish these days, except that's only the display.
you still need a computer that can drive that 5k display, which means a
dual video card and dual cables because one single displayport
currently can't support 5k.
> So, you're correct that Apple is indeed cheaper than Dell for roughly
> equivalent computers and with a better built-in monitor. Apparently,
> some things have changed at Apple in the last 7 years. I'll try to be
> more careful when making price comparisons in the future. I'll
> probably update the spreadsheet as time permits.
> Of course, this has nothing to do with any alleged wi-fi range
> differences between Apple and Android products, which was the original
> topic of this discussion.
he's trolling.
Jeff Liebermann
Jul 31, 2016, 11:21:37 PM7/31/16
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:18:14 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>i did supply numbers.
No, you didn't. You did in your previous posting, but only after I
guessed wrong as to what you were comparing.
>i assumed someone familiar with product pricing would know the status
>quo.
Actually, I'm not familiar with current retail PC or Mac pricing. I
don't buy machines for my customers very often. Prices change so
often that I have requote bids several times before the actual
purchase. If I need prices, I get them at as near to the time of
purchase as possible.
>> I'll also assume that you're referring to the Dell XPS 27 Touch
>> All-In-One Desktop:
>> <http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-27-2720-aio?stp=1>
>> The screen is 2560 X 1440 or 1/4th that of the Apple display.
>> Prices vary from $1,700 to $2,700.
>you assume wrong.
>
>i specifically said the dell 5k display, which has the same 5120 x 2880
>resolution and is $2k msrp:
><http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=up275k3>
Sorry, but I thought you were comparing the price of equivalent
computers with build in displays, not comparing an Apple all in one
iMac, with a component system from Dell. Your point about pricing is
still correct, but it would be helpful if you would be more specific
about what you're comparing.
>> Of course, this has nothing to do with any alleged wi-fi range
>> differences between Apple and Android products, which was the original
>> topic of this discussion.
>there aren't any significant differences in normal everyday use.
Prove it. I supplied two very easy methods where you can test that
assertion using commonly available software (iperf and jperf) that
will run on most any device. I can run the test for you if you can't
seem to load one program on your Mac desktop or laptop, change one
setting in your router, and load one lousy app on your tablet.
However, I don't see why I should run it for you. I suspect that you
would not accept my results and conclusions as you did in my iPhone 4
death grip test. The problem is that you don't really know for sure
what will happen. Well, neither do I. I've run the test many times,
but never side by side comparing the range for various client devices.
It's always been to optimize something in the router, usually for
highest throughput, not for maximizing range.
>he's trolling.
So am I. Sometimes trolling is useful. I'm tired of unsubstantiated
assertions from all sides. Time to test the various claims.
wrote:
>i did supply numbers.
No, you didn't. You did in your previous posting, but only after I
guessed wrong as to what you were comparing.
>i assumed someone familiar with product pricing would know the status
>quo.
don't buy machines for my customers very often. Prices change so
often that I have requote bids several times before the actual
purchase. If I need prices, I get them at as near to the time of
purchase as possible.
>> I'll also assume that you're referring to the Dell XPS 27 Touch
>> All-In-One Desktop:
>> <http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-27-2720-aio?stp=1>
>> The screen is 2560 X 1440 or 1/4th that of the Apple display.
>> Prices vary from $1,700 to $2,700.
>you assume wrong.
>
>i specifically said the dell 5k display, which has the same 5120 x 2880
>resolution and is $2k msrp:
><http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=up275k3>
computers with build in displays, not comparing an Apple all in one
iMac, with a component system from Dell. Your point about pricing is
still correct, but it would be helpful if you would be more specific
about what you're comparing.
>> Of course, this has nothing to do with any alleged wi-fi range
>> differences between Apple and Android products, which was the original
>> topic of this discussion.
>there aren't any significant differences in normal everyday use.
assertion using commonly available software (iperf and jperf) that
will run on most any device. I can run the test for you if you can't
seem to load one program on your Mac desktop or laptop, change one
setting in your router, and load one lousy app on your tablet.
However, I don't see why I should run it for you. I suspect that you
would not accept my results and conclusions as you did in my iPhone 4
death grip test. The problem is that you don't really know for sure
what will happen. Well, neither do I. I've run the test many times,
but never side by side comparing the range for various client devices.
It's always been to optimize something in the router, usually for
highest throughput, not for maximizing range.
>he's trolling.
So am I. Sometimes trolling is useful. I'm tired of unsubstantiated
assertions from all sides. Time to test the various claims.
Aardvarks
Aug 1, 2016, 1:54:16 AM8/1/16
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:58:09 -0400, nospam wrote:
> you're also ignoring that apple and google have different business
> models, something you refuse to acknowledge, let alone even begin to
> understand.
Anytime Google wants to subsidize a phone for me, I'm perfectly happy.
> you're also ignoring that apple and google have different business
> models, something you refuse to acknowledge, let alone even begin to
> understand.
In fact, my Android phone doesn't even have a Google ID, and it works just
fine.
I wonder what would happen if I removed the iCloud account from an iOS
device.
nospam
Aug 1, 2016, 2:11:03 AM8/1/16
to
In article <nnmo64$3cp$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> I wonder what would happen if I removed the iCloud account from an iOS
> device.
nothing. you don't even need one in the first place.
> I wonder what would happen if I removed the iCloud account from an iOS
> device.
nospam
Aug 1, 2016, 2:13:13 AM8/1/16
to
> Anytime Google wants to subsidize a phone for me, I'm perfectly happy.
and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.
Michael Eyd
Aug 1, 2016, 7:10:02 AM8/1/16
to
Am 31.07.2016 um 04:59 schrieb Aardvarks:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 17:49:59 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> As you walk away from the wireless router,
>> instead of a general slowdown, you'll see an abrupt drop in speed,
>> possibly followed by a disconnect.
>
> Eureka! That's the test I need to run!
>
>> The typical 2.4GHz 802.11g system
>> will go about 10 meters before the speed drops abruptly. Measure and
>> record this distance along with the test conditions (devices,
>> frequency, protocol, fixed speed, etc).
>
> That's a PERFECT test!
> My hypothesis is that the iOS devices will drop in half the distance that
> the Android devices will drop - but that remains to be seen in the test.
You will want to test different device orientations as well. Reception
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 17:49:59 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> As you walk away from the wireless router,
>> instead of a general slowdown, you'll see an abrupt drop in speed,
>> possibly followed by a disconnect.
>
> Eureka! That's the test I need to run!
>
>> The typical 2.4GHz 802.11g system
>> will go about 10 meters before the speed drops abruptly. Measure and
>> record this distance along with the test conditions (devices,
>> frequency, protocol, fixed speed, etc).
>
> That's a PERFECT test!
> My hypothesis is that the iOS devices will drop in half the distance that
> the Android devices will drop - but that remains to be seen in the test.
might (from my experience: does) differ depending on device orientation
(e.g.: with the back facing in the AP direction, with the
top/bottom/left/right sides facing the AP).
Additionally, reception will differ as well depending on how/where you
put your hands (for an extreme example see the old iPhone4 Antennagate,
where bridging the different antenna segments of the frame could lead to
a dramatical decrease of signal strength), which hand you're using (a
ring on one hand might influence the readings), whether there's a
protective cover on the phone (and of which type, ...), ...
Obviously, you will need to test several devices for each device model
(in order to rule out issues with a specific device), and different
models altogether.
Lot's of influencing factors, that you want to take into consideration.
Best of luck,
Michael
nospam
Aug 1, 2016, 5:04:07 PM8/1/16
to
In article <a9etpbtc0roj7ofbm...@4ax.com>, Jeff
the imac 5k first came out 2 years ago and there *still* isn't anything
to match, so components is all that's possible.
there are some pc all in ones but they're not 5k displays which means
there's even more of a price advantage to the mac.
> >> Of course, this has nothing to do with any alleged wi-fi range
> >> differences between Apple and Android products, which was the original
> >> topic of this discussion.
>
> >there aren't any significant differences in normal everyday use.
>
> Prove it. I supplied two very easy methods where you can test that
> assertion using commonly available software (iperf and jperf) that
> will run on most any device. I can run the test for you if you can't
> seem to load one program on your Mac desktop or laptop, change one
> setting in your router, and load one lousy app on your tablet.
> However, I don't see why I should run it for you. I suspect that you
> would not accept my results and conclusions as you did in my iPhone 4
> death grip test. The problem is that you don't really know for sure
> what will happen. Well, neither do I. I've run the test many times,
> but never side by side comparing the range for various client devices.
> It's always been to optimize something in the router, usually for
> highest throughput, not for maximizing range.
that's not normal use.
normal use is connecting to wifi networks (public or private) and doing
normal everyday tasks, such as surfing the net, skype, checking email,
downloading new apps, etc. it's not running benchmarks and geeking out
over numbers.
i used to use my iphone 4 in a *wide* variety of places, from at home
(fairly strong signal) to airports & hotels (often weak and overcrowded
signals) and never had any problem with wifi or cellular.
> >he's trolling.
>
> So am I. Sometimes trolling is useful. I'm tired of unsubstantiated
> assertions from all sides. Time to test the various claims.
discussion is useful, not trolling.
Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'll also assume that you're referring to the Dell XPS 27 Touch
> >> All-In-One Desktop:
> >> <http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-27-2720-aio?stp=1>
> >> The screen is 2560 X 1440 or 1/4th that of the Apple display.
> >> Prices vary from $1,700 to $2,700.
>
> >you assume wrong.
> >
> >i specifically said the dell 5k display, which has the same 5120 x 2880
> >resolution and is $2k msrp:
>
> >><http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04
> >&sku=up275k3>
>
> Sorry, but I thought you were comparing the price of equivalent
> computers with build in displays, not comparing an Apple all in one
> iMac, with a component system from Dell. Your point about pricing is
> still correct, but it would be helpful if you would be more specific
> about what you're comparing.
find a 5k all in one for comparison.
>
> >> I'll also assume that you're referring to the Dell XPS 27 Touch
> >> All-In-One Desktop:
> >> <http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-27-2720-aio?stp=1>
> >> The screen is 2560 X 1440 or 1/4th that of the Apple display.
> >> Prices vary from $1,700 to $2,700.
>
> >you assume wrong.
> >
> >i specifically said the dell 5k display, which has the same 5120 x 2880
> >resolution and is $2k msrp:
>
> >><http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04
> >&sku=up275k3>
>
> Sorry, but I thought you were comparing the price of equivalent
> computers with build in displays, not comparing an Apple all in one
> iMac, with a component system from Dell. Your point about pricing is
> still correct, but it would be helpful if you would be more specific
> about what you're comparing.
the imac 5k first came out 2 years ago and there *still* isn't anything
to match, so components is all that's possible.
there are some pc all in ones but they're not 5k displays which means
there's even more of a price advantage to the mac.
> >> Of course, this has nothing to do with any alleged wi-fi range
> >> differences between Apple and Android products, which was the original
> >> topic of this discussion.
>
> >there aren't any significant differences in normal everyday use.
>
> Prove it. I supplied two very easy methods where you can test that
> assertion using commonly available software (iperf and jperf) that
> will run on most any device. I can run the test for you if you can't
> seem to load one program on your Mac desktop or laptop, change one
> setting in your router, and load one lousy app on your tablet.
> However, I don't see why I should run it for you. I suspect that you
> would not accept my results and conclusions as you did in my iPhone 4
> death grip test. The problem is that you don't really know for sure
> what will happen. Well, neither do I. I've run the test many times,
> but never side by side comparing the range for various client devices.
> It's always been to optimize something in the router, usually for
> highest throughput, not for maximizing range.
normal use is connecting to wifi networks (public or private) and doing
normal everyday tasks, such as surfing the net, skype, checking email,
downloading new apps, etc. it's not running benchmarks and geeking out
over numbers.
i used to use my iphone 4 in a *wide* variety of places, from at home
(fairly strong signal) to airports & hotels (often weak and overcrowded
signals) and never had any problem with wifi or cellular.
> >he's trolling.
>
> So am I. Sometimes trolling is useful. I'm tired of unsubstantiated
> assertions from all sides. Time to test the various claims.
Aardvarks
Aug 1, 2016, 5:44:45 PM8/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 02:13:11 -0400, nospam wrote:
> and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
> though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.
You don't use any Google apps on that iOS device?
> and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
> though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.
Aardvarks
Aug 1, 2016, 5:49:50 PM8/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 02:13:11 -0400, nospam wrote:
> and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
> though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.
Without a Google ID, all it has is an advertising ID, which I switch
> though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.
randomly, and which Google *says* they don't maintain the connection.
I don't log into *any* Google apps, as you know.
Since my system is well organized, I keep a duplicate folder of *just*
Google Apps, where every one is logged out of (and almost none are used
anyway, except maybe Google Maps). I have the history turned off if I'm
forced to log into an app, but I can't think of any app that you have to
log into other than Gmail, which is a different beast altogether, and,
which has the same issues on iOS anyway.
As you know, I also have my SSID tracking turned off, so that I'm not
spying on my self and my neighbors.
Likewise, I have all app connection to my location turned off, and no app
is allowed to use my location unless I expressly turn the app location
ability back on with App Ops Starter. And you have that same issue too on
iOS anyway, so, nothing is different there.
So, where, may I ask, is Google spying on me on Android that they're not
also spying on you in iOS?
Aardvarks
Aug 1, 2016, 5:51:22 PM8/1/16
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:52:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Also, you seem to have an
> aversion to supplying numbers.
> A few of these would also improve your credibility.
Jeff.
> Also, you seem to have an
> aversion to supplying numbers.
> A few of these would also improve your credibility.
That is the understatement of the year!
nospam
Aug 1, 2016, 5:52:21 PM8/1/16
to
In article <nnog5r$55e$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>
> > and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
> > though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.
>
> Without a Google ID, all it has is an advertising ID, which I switch
> randomly, and which Google *says* they don't maintain the connection.
it has more than that.
>
> > and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
> > though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.
>
> Without a Google ID, all it has is an advertising ID, which I switch
> randomly, and which Google *says* they don't maintain the connection.
nospam
Aug 1, 2016, 5:52:22 PM8/1/16
to
In article <nnofsa$4hc$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>
> > and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
> > though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.
>
> You don't use any Google apps on that iOS device?
don't change the topic.
>
> > and for that subsidy, google gets to track and data mine you, even
> > though you think you're avoiding it. you're not.
>
> You don't use any Google apps on that iOS device?
Aardvarks
Aug 1, 2016, 6:01:48 PM8/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 17:52:20 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> Without a Google ID, all it has is an advertising ID, which I switch
>> randomly, and which Google *says* they don't maintain the connection.
>
> it has more than that.
Like what?
>> Without a Google ID, all it has is an advertising ID, which I switch
>> randomly, and which Google *says* they don't maintain the connection.
>
> it has more than that.
Jeff Liebermann
Aug 1, 2016, 6:43:15 PM8/1/16
to
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 17:04:05 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>that's not normal use.
Right. Instead of numbers that are useful for comparing performance,
we might have "it feels fast" or perhaps "it does what I need, which
is good enough". I used to do battle with such nonsense when dealing
with wireless product design. My standard answer was to suggest that
perhaps we need more realistic metrics, test conditions, procedures,
and environments, not vague impressions or "mean opinion scores".
>normal use is connecting to wifi networks (public or private) and doing
>normal everyday tasks, such as surfing the net, skype, checking email,
>downloading new apps, etc. it's not running benchmarks and geeking out
>over numbers.
The nice thing about performance tests and benchmarks is that under
real world conditions, you're NOT going to get any better performance
than what is achieved by the performance testing. In other words, it
puts a ceiling on what to expect with your real world tests. Testing
at maximum speeds also tends to expose anomalies that would not
necessarily appear using a real world test. Of course, in the real
world, products that advertise big numbers tend to sell better than
products advertising the lesser real world numbers, which makes
companies prefer benchmarking. It's also rather difficult to compare
products tested under different real world conditions. Many real
world tests are difficult or impossible to reproduce and often produce
different numbers.
>i used to use my iphone 4 in a *wide* variety of places, from at home
>(fairly strong signal) to airports & hotels (often weak and overcrowded
>signals) and never had any problem with wifi or cellular.
Duly noted. Have you tried loading iperf or jperf and run a not so
real world test yet?
wrote:
>that's not normal use.
we might have "it feels fast" or perhaps "it does what I need, which
is good enough". I used to do battle with such nonsense when dealing
with wireless product design. My standard answer was to suggest that
perhaps we need more realistic metrics, test conditions, procedures,
and environments, not vague impressions or "mean opinion scores".
>normal use is connecting to wifi networks (public or private) and doing
>normal everyday tasks, such as surfing the net, skype, checking email,
>downloading new apps, etc. it's not running benchmarks and geeking out
>over numbers.
real world conditions, you're NOT going to get any better performance
than what is achieved by the performance testing. In other words, it
puts a ceiling on what to expect with your real world tests. Testing
at maximum speeds also tends to expose anomalies that would not
necessarily appear using a real world test. Of course, in the real
world, products that advertise big numbers tend to sell better than
products advertising the lesser real world numbers, which makes
companies prefer benchmarking. It's also rather difficult to compare
products tested under different real world conditions. Many real
world tests are difficult or impossible to reproduce and often produce
different numbers.
>i used to use my iphone 4 in a *wide* variety of places, from at home
>(fairly strong signal) to airports & hotels (often weak and overcrowded
>signals) and never had any problem with wifi or cellular.
real world test yet?
nospam
Aug 1, 2016, 6:47:24 PM8/1/16
to
In article <nnogs9$6m6$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>
> >> Without a Google ID, all it has is an advertising ID, which I switch
> >> randomly, and which Google *says* they don't maintain the connection.
> >
> > it has more than that.
>
> Like what?
you've been told several times before.
>
> >> Without a Google ID, all it has is an advertising ID, which I switch
> >> randomly, and which Google *says* they don't maintain the connection.
> >
> > it has more than that.
>
> Like what?
Jeff Liebermann
Aug 1, 2016, 7:03:05 PM8/1/16
to
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:03:59 +0200, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>You will want to test different device orientations as well. Reception
>might (from my experience: does) differ depending on device orientation
>(e.g.: with the back facing in the AP direction, with the
>top/bottom/left/right sides facing the AP).
That's quite true. The RF pattern produced by a cell phone is
>You will want to test different device orientations as well. Reception
>might (from my experience: does) differ depending on device orientation
>(e.g.: with the back facing in the AP direction, with the
>top/bottom/left/right sides facing the AP).
tailored primarily to meet SAR (specific absorption rate)
specifications. There's very little RF emitted in the direction of
the head, while much more out the back. Oddly, the peak for
smartphones is often straight down, where there are fewer obstructions
and the users hand is not likely to be holding the phone. Try
pointing the bottom of the phone at the nearest cell site and see if
the signal improves. It does on my Moto G phone.
Measuring the antenna patterns is not easy, but possible. All you
need is a $100 million anechoic RF chamber:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x86tiU3fkSk> (1:41)
and a huge pile of RF test equipment. I do my best using junk, but it
doesn't compare to having the real goodies.
Second best is to model the phone with an NEC4 modeling program.
<https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=antenna+pattern+cell+phone>
Those are the colorful 3D patterns. I do my best with 4NEC2 free
software.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/>
What you'll probably find is that the local RF environment (reflectors
and absorbers) has a much bigger effect on RF performance than the
cell phone antenna pattern. Both will cause variations in signal
strength, often in odd ways. The best I can do is wave the phone
around and record the highest reading or the average reading. Neither
is perfect, but the effort necessary to obtain a good 3D picture of
the phone is just too much work.
>Obviously, you will need to test several devices for each device model
>(in order to rule out issues with a specific device), and different
>models altogether.
>
>Lot's of influencing factors, that you want to take into consideration.
performance (speed) between Apple wi-fi devices, and Android wi-fi
devices. This can be tested with both types of devices side-by-side
and connecting to the same wireless router. I previously posted 2
good ways to perform the test, which so far nobody seems to have
performed. Also, nobody has asked me to perform any tests in order to
settle the issue, so I'm doing what I do best, which is nothing.
avag...@gmail.com
Aug 1, 2016, 8:39:33 PM8/1/16
to
No Vista ?
find a cell tower with a straight desert highway stretching off from tower base.
drive away n check reception speeds n bytes captured.
find a cell tower with a straight desert highway stretching off from tower base.
drive away n check reception speeds n bytes captured.
Jeff Liebermann
Aug 2, 2016, 12:54:23 AM8/2/16
to
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 17:39:30 -0700 (PDT), avag...@gmail.com wrote:
>find a cell tower with a straight desert highway stretching off from tower base.
>drive away n check reception speeds n bytes captured.
Please re-read the original comments by Aardvarks.
>find a cell tower with a straight desert highway stretching off from tower base.
>drive away n check reception speeds n bytes captured.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/alt.internet.wireless/mr9elO6AFnU/TNZOls9aAwAJ>
This is about wi-fi, not cellular.
Michael Eyd
Aug 2, 2016, 3:10:01 AM8/2/16
to
Am 02.08.2016 um 01:02 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:03:59 +0200, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>
>> You will want to test different device orientations as well. Reception
>> might (from my experience: does) differ depending on device orientation
>> (e.g.: with the back facing in the AP direction, with the
>> top/bottom/left/right sides facing the AP).
>
> That's quite true. The RF pattern produced by a cell phone is
> tailored primarily to meet SAR (specific absorption rate)
> specifications. There's very little RF emitted in the direction of
> the head, while much more out the back. Oddly, the peak for
> smartphones is often straight down, where there are fewer obstructions
> and the users hand is not likely to be holding the phone. Try
> pointing the bottom of the phone at the nearest cell site and see if
> the signal improves. It does on my Moto G phone.
The primary directions for mobile network antennas and WiFi antennas may
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:03:59 +0200, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>
>> You will want to test different device orientations as well. Reception
>> might (from my experience: does) differ depending on device orientation
>> (e.g.: with the back facing in the AP direction, with the
>> top/bottom/left/right sides facing the AP).
>
> That's quite true. The RF pattern produced by a cell phone is
> tailored primarily to meet SAR (specific absorption rate)
> specifications. There's very little RF emitted in the direction of
> the head, while much more out the back. Oddly, the peak for
> smartphones is often straight down, where there are fewer obstructions
> and the users hand is not likely to be holding the phone. Try
> pointing the bottom of the phone at the nearest cell site and see if
> the signal improves. It does on my Moto G phone.
be different, so one would have to test them independently...
>> Lot's of influencing factors, that you want to take into consideration.
>
> In this case, the issue is whether there is a difference in range and
> performance (speed) between Apple wi-fi devices, and Android wi-fi
> devices. This can be tested with both types of devices side-by-side
factor, where one device (might) severely interfere with the other.
Additionally (forgot to mention that in my previous post) there
shouldn't be anybody running around inside the test area (which is
larger than just the direct line of sight between the device(s) and the
AP), no cars should be passing in the vicinity, there should be no
neighboring WiFi networks even at the horizon, ...
> and connecting to the same wireless router. I previously posted 2
> good ways to perform the test, which so far nobody seems to have
> performed. Also, nobody has asked me to perform any tests in order to
> settle the issue, so I'm doing what I do best, which is nothing.
- I don't have any Android device available, least several different ones.
- Where I live I can easily and at any time find several other WiFi
networks.
- I wouldn't have enough open range (without reflections from other
houses, passings cars, heck there are even electrified railroad tracks
at about 500m distance).
- ...
Way too bad conditions for performing such a test.
Best regards,
Michael
avag...@gmail.com
Aug 2, 2016, 9:11:28 AM8/2/16
to
the S5 line is uh dedicated via liability as a talk op where the PC wifi line isnot that is S5 internet is available where PC wifi doesn't connect.
I was abt to look for the Black Rock tower......
I'll read later....
Aardvarks
Aug 2, 2016, 11:04:44 AM8/2/16
to
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 18:47:23 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> Like what?
>
> you've been told several times before.
Heh heh.
>> Like what?
>
> you've been told several times before.
Without a google play account, there's nothing for Google to latch on to.
nospam
Aug 2, 2016, 11:05:47 AM8/2/16
to
In article <nnqcq9$d04$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>
> >> Like what?
> >
> > you've been told several times before.
>
> Heh heh.
>
> Without a google play account, there's nothing for Google to latch on to.
wrong
>
> >> Like what?
> >
> > you've been told several times before.
>
> Heh heh.
>
> Without a google play account, there's nothing for Google to latch on to.
Jeff Liebermann
Aug 2, 2016, 12:39:59 PM8/2/16
to
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:03:08 +0200, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>The primary directions for mobile network antennas and WiFi antennas may
>be different, so one would have to test them independently...
True. However, unless you use an RF anechoic chamber, the influences
>The primary directions for mobile network antennas and WiFi antennas may
>be different, so one would have to test them independently...
of the room environment will have a bigger influence than the antenna
patterns. Reflectors and absorbers will ruin any test, unless you're
interested in performing a "real world" type of test, which is what
this range test might be considered. For example:
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com>
does their benchmarks indoors, with plenty of walls and furniture to
get in the way. I think it's part of Tim Higgins house, but I'm not
sure:
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-features/32512-does-an-ac-router-improve-n-device-performance>
The RF environment is far from perfect, but it's identical for each
router being tested, which the point of the test:
More on how they run their tests:
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/32478-how-we-test-wireless-products-revison-8>
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/32993-how-we-test-wireless-products-revision-9>
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/32944-how-we-test-mu-mimo>
and even more:
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tags/how-we-test>
The overall results are rather interesting (to me). Different
routers, which use the same chipset and roughly the same antennas,
produce substantially different performance results. I don't have
time to speculate on why, but let's just say that there are is a large
list of uncontrolled factors that have an effect on the measurements.
One can eliminate a fair number with a $100 million RF anechoic
chamber, but that's a bit beyond my present means.
>Side-by-side (taking this literally) might be yet another influencing
>factor, where one device (might) severely interfere with the other.
point, but not passing any traffic other than the usual beacons and
broadcasts, there is very little traffic that might constitute
interference. Offhand, my guess(tm) is about a 1/100 duty cycle. Were
any of these packets to collide with traffic from a nearby wireless
device, the error would be about 1% from the collision.
However, for the range test, this will have no effect because we're
not trying to squeeze as many packets as possible through a pipe.
We're trying to determine the range at which it is no longer possible
to pass packets or where the connection becomes unstable. At worst,
packet collisions will "blurr" the results somewhat. I don't consider
proximity to be a problem.
>Additionally (forgot to mention that in my previous post) there
>shouldn't be anybody running around inside the test area (which is
>larger than just the direct line of sight between the device(s) and the
>AP), no cars should be passing in the vicinity, there should be no
>neighboring WiFi networks even at the horizon, ...
the wireless router, noting the range at which traffic ceases.
Presumably, one would need to hold the device to do that. At the
frequencies involved, placing the device on top of a cardboard box
when carrying it will minimize proximity effects and antenna detuning,
while still allowing one monitor the device. It's far from perfect,
but methinks good enough.
>I won't do the tests, for several reasons:
>
>- I don't have any Android device available, least several different ones.
friends Apple users? What a horrible thought.
>- Where I live I can easily and at any time find several other WiFi
>networks.
determine how far you can operate before it quits. You can do that
with ping, which hogs very little bandwidth, and will not interfere
with the neighbors streaming wireless connection.
>- I wouldn't have enough open range (without reflections from other
>houses, passings cars, heck there are even electrified railroad tracks
>at about 500m distance).
54Mbits/sec, you'll get about 30 meters range. The transition between
working and dead will be quite abrupt, usually within a meter or two.
If you find a straight line path that's about 50 meters long, you
should be ok.
>Way too bad conditions for performing such a test.
absolute measurement. Absolute measurements would be nice, so we
could compare your results with mine and others, but that's not going
to happen without an extremely well controlled environment. However,
when comparing two devices, the conditions are identical, and
therefore the comparison is quite valid.
You probably spent more time finding excuses to not run the test than
it would take to actually perform it. Thanks for at least thinking
about the problems involved.
Aardvarks
Aug 2, 2016, 2:19:47 PM8/2/16
to
On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:05:44 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> Without a google play account, there's nothing for Google to latch on to.
>
> wrong
So, without a google play account, and without a static advertising ID,
>> Without a google play account, there's nothing for Google to latch on to.
>
> wrong
what are you saying Google latches on to then?
nospam
Aug 2, 2016, 3:25:15 PM8/2/16
to
In article <nnqo7t$5h7$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
make a difference? you aren't interested in answers.
do you really think that google, whose revenue is almost entirely from
data-mining what people do and employs some of the smartest people
around, hasn't thought of that scenario?
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>
> >> Without a google play account, there's nothing for Google to latch on to.
> >
> > wrong
>
> So, without a google play account, and without a static advertising ID,
> what are you saying Google latches on to then?
you've been told before by several people. why would yet another time
>
> >> Without a google play account, there's nothing for Google to latch on to.
> >
> > wrong
>
> So, without a google play account, and without a static advertising ID,
> what are you saying Google latches on to then?
make a difference? you aren't interested in answers.
do you really think that google, whose revenue is almost entirely from
data-mining what people do and employs some of the smartest people
around, hasn't thought of that scenario?
Aardvarks
Aug 2, 2016, 3:49:26 PM8/2/16
to
On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:25:10 -0400, nospam wrote:
> you've been told before by several people. why would yet another time
> make a difference? you aren't interested in answers.
In other words, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
> you've been told before by several people. why would yet another time
> make a difference? you aren't interested in answers.
I'm tired of your senseless riddles.
You only know Apple marketing glossy literature.
I'll ask the group that actually knows Android, to find the answer to the
question:
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
> do you really think that google, whose revenue is almost entirely from
> data-mining what people do and employs some of the smartest people
> around, hasn't thought of that scenario?
You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature.
Apple marketing plays your fears like a fiddle.
I'm just looking for real facts.
We're quite different that way.
- You live by fear.
- I live by facts.
But, if there is the tiniest shred of truth, hidden deeply in your
self-serving nebulous riddles, I'll ask the group that actually knows:
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
To that end, I opened a separate thread in the android newsgroup to ask the
question of how Google can possibly mine "my" data, given that I have the
phone set up using basic privacy recommendations.
Here is the specific question.
The goal is for someone to simply answer the question.
Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well set up Android phone?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/WRA6ay_bwME
nospam
Aug 2, 2016, 4:32:14 PM8/2/16
to
In article <nnqtg2$h0e$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
> > do you really think that google, whose revenue is almost entirely from
> > data-mining what people do and employs some of the smartest people
> > around, hasn't thought of that scenario?
>
> I only care about facts.
> You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature.
no you don't. you only care about trolling.
that's why you're avoiding answering what is a simple question and
spewing the usual apple bashing nonsense.
you ignore everything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, then
snip and change the topic, which makes it *impossible* to have any type
of discussion with you.
> To that end, I opened a separate thread in the android newsgroup to ask the
> question of how Google can possibly mine "my" data, given that I have the
> phone set up using basic privacy recommendations.
you have no idea what they track so you *can't* block it all, and even
if you did know, you still can't.
you leak data, and it's trivial to tie it all together.
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>
> > you've been told before by several people. why would yet another time
> > make a difference? you aren't interested in answers.
>
> In other words, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
insults just prove my point even more.
>
> > you've been told before by several people. why would yet another time
> > make a difference? you aren't interested in answers.
>
> In other words, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
> > do you really think that google, whose revenue is almost entirely from
> > data-mining what people do and employs some of the smartest people
> > around, hasn't thought of that scenario?
>
> I only care about facts.
> You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature.
that's why you're avoiding answering what is a simple question and
spewing the usual apple bashing nonsense.
you ignore everything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, then
snip and change the topic, which makes it *impossible* to have any type
of discussion with you.
> To that end, I opened a separate thread in the android newsgroup to ask the
> question of how Google can possibly mine "my" data, given that I have the
> phone set up using basic privacy recommendations.
if you did know, you still can't.
you leak data, and it's trivial to tie it all together.
Aardvarks
Aug 2, 2016, 9:35:06 PM8/2/16
to
On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 16:32:12 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> I only care about facts.
>> You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature.
>
> no you don't. you only care about trolling.
We've already established you live in an environment of fear which you try
>> I only care about facts.
>> You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature.
>
> no you don't. you only care about trolling.
to ameliorate by purchasing exactly what Apple Marketing tells you to
purchase.
Me?
I don't live in the fear-filled environment you live in, yet, I am as
privacy conscious as anyone, so I simply ameliorate the risk by judicious
understanding of fact.
If you have a single fact to your argument - you'll place it in the
aforementioned thread - but - of course - you have no facts.
Once the Google Play ID is removed (which also removed the Advertising ID
at the same time, at least from the Android Settings menus), and once apps
are globally denied certain information (such as location), my hypothesis
is that the Android device is just as insecure from privacy breaches as the
iOS device.
We're different you and I.
1. You *only* see fear.
2. I only see *solutions*.
1. You only spout what Apple Marketing tells you to spout.
It makes you feel better about your fear.
2. I simply report facts and I simply ask for facts.
I'm not afraid of facts.
> that's why you're avoiding answering what is a simple question and
> spewing the usual apple bashing nonsense.
need copious cryptic self-serving riddles just to save face.
I'm not in the least bit worried about my decision in iOS products and
Android products looking good.
You bought on fear.
I bought in price:performance.
We're different that way.
> you ignore everything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, then
> snip and change the topic, which makes it *impossible* to have any type
> of discussion with you.
answer it, simply because you're a fear monger and I'm simply looking for
facts.
To you, it makes you feel better if you spew marketing-motivated fact less
FUD.
To me, it makes me feel better to simply know iron cold hard facts.
We're different that way.
> you have no idea what they track so you *can't* block it all, and even
> if you did know, you still can't.
to spew forth - sans a shred of fact behind your fear-inspired thought
process.
I'm not *afraid* like you are.
I'm simply sensible.
Which is why I ask for facts. Not your Apple-marketing-inspired FUD.
Remember, you buy *only* on fear.
I buy *only* on facts.
We're different that way.
> you leak data, and it's trivial to tie it all together.
to spew forth - sans a shred of fact behind your fear-inspired thought
process.
If you had a single fact, you'd have stated it by now.
So, in this case, we're more similar in knowledge, but different in
purpose:
1. You don't know the answer but you *still* spout Apple Marketing mantra!
2. I don't know the answer, so I simply ask the question of all.
You're afraid of the factual answer.
I'm not.
We're different that way.
nospam
Aug 2, 2016, 9:44:02 PM8/2/16
to
In article <nnrho0$tjj$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
includes android devices (3 of them), apple devices and windows pcs
(which i'm waiting on win10 anniversary update). in other words, you're
full of shit.
the fact that you're starting off with bashing proves you're doing
nothing but trolling.
as i said initially, you've been told many times how info leaks and how
google can track people (most of which is obvious), but you flat out
refuse to listen. you are not interested in any of it. you think you
know everything and refuse to learn.
<aard...@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> >> I only care about facts.
> >> You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature.
> >
> > no you don't. you only care about trolling.
>
> We've already established you live in an environment of fear which you try
> to ameliorate by purchasing exactly what Apple Marketing tells you to
> purchase.
nonsense. i purchase whatever best does what i want to do, which
> >> I only care about facts.
> >> You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature.
> >
> > no you don't. you only care about trolling.
>
> We've already established you live in an environment of fear which you try
> to ameliorate by purchasing exactly what Apple Marketing tells you to
> purchase.
includes android devices (3 of them), apple devices and windows pcs
(which i'm waiting on win10 anniversary update). in other words, you're
full of shit.
the fact that you're starting off with bashing proves you're doing
nothing but trolling.
as i said initially, you've been told many times how info leaks and how
google can track people (most of which is obvious), but you flat out
refuse to listen. you are not interested in any of it. you think you
know everything and refuse to learn.
Aardvarks
Aug 2, 2016, 11:27:08 PM8/2/16
to
On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:43:59 -0400, nospam wrote:
> you're full of shit.
:)
> you're full of shit.
Michael Eyd
Aug 3, 2016, 4:40:01 AM8/3/16
to
Am 02.08.2016 um 18:40 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:03:08 +0200, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>
>> The primary directions for mobile network antennas and WiFi antennas may
>> be different, so one would have to test them independently...
>
> True. However, unless you use an RF anechoic chamber, the influences
> of the room environment will have a bigger influence than the antenna
> patterns.
In an open-field scenario (as Aardvark claims to have) that should not
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:03:08 +0200, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>
>> The primary directions for mobile network antennas and WiFi antennas may
>> be different, so one would have to test them independently...
>
> True. However, unless you use an RF anechoic chamber, the influences
> of the room environment will have a bigger influence than the antenna
> patterns.
be a problem - while the main antenna orientation might still have an
influence. Especially if by chance the main antenna direction is covered
by the holding hand...
> Reflectors and absorbers will ruin any test, unless you're
> interested in performing a "real world" type of test, which is what
> this range test might be considered. For example:
> <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com>
> does their benchmarks indoors, with plenty of walls and furniture to
> get in the way. I think it's part of Tim Higgins house, but I'm not
> sure:
> <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-features/32512-does-an-ac-router-improve-n-device-performance>
> The RF environment is far from perfect, but it's identical for each
> router being tested, which the point of the test:
>
> More on how they run their tests:
> <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/32478-how-we-test-wireless-products-revison-8>
> <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/32993-how-we-test-wireless-products-revision-9>
> <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/32944-how-we-test-mu-mimo>
> and even more:
> <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tags/how-we-test>
>
> The overall results are rather interesting (to me). Different
> routers, which use the same chipset and roughly the same antennas,
> produce substantially different performance results. I don't have
> time to speculate on why, but let's just say that there are is a large
> list of uncontrolled factors that have an effect on the measurements.
> One can eliminate a fair number with a $100 million RF anechoic
> chamber, but that's a bit beyond my present means.
>> Side-by-side (taking this literally) might be yet another influencing
>> factor, where one device (might) severely interfere with the other.
>
> True. However, if a wireless client is associated with an access
> point, but not passing any traffic other than the usual beacons and
> broadcasts, there is very little traffic that might constitute
> interference. Offhand, my guess(tm) is about a 1/100 duty cycle. Were
> any of these packets to collide with traffic from a nearby wireless
> device, the error would be about 1% from the collision.
but actually about RF interference which might (or might not) influence
the signal strength as received by the chips inside the phone. Basically
increasing 'background noise'. And this factor does not have to be
symmetric, as it will depend on antenna design, circuit board design,
case design (and materials), ...
> However, for the range test, this will have no effect because we're
> not trying to squeeze as many packets as possible through a pipe.
> We're trying to determine the range at which it is no longer possible
> to pass packets or where the connection becomes unstable. At worst,
> packet collisions will "blurr" the results somewhat. I don't consider
> proximity to be a problem.
problem. How can you rule that out?
>> Additionally (forgot to mention that in my previous post) there
>> shouldn't be anybody running around inside the test area (which is
>> larger than just the direct line of sight between the device(s) and the
>> AP), no cars should be passing in the vicinity, there should be no
>> neighboring WiFi networks even at the horizon, ...
>
> Part of the range test is take the tablet or iphone and walk away from
> the wireless router, noting the range at which traffic ceases.
> Presumably, one would need to hold the device to do that. At the
> frequencies involved, placing the device on top of a cardboard box
> when carrying it will minimize proximity effects and antenna detuning,
> while still allowing one monitor the device. It's far from perfect,
> but methinks good enough.
>> I won't do the tests, for several reasons:
>>
>> - I don't have any Android device available, least several different ones.
>
> Borrow one or invite your friends to the test. Or, are all your
> friends Apple users? What a horrible thought.
thinking like Aardvarks).
>> - Where I live I can easily and at any time find several other WiFi
>> networks.
>
> Not a problem. You're not trying to maximize throughput, just
> determine how far you can operate before it quits. You can do that
> with ping, which hogs very little bandwidth, and will not interfere
> with the neighbors streaming wireless connection.
that might change any second, e.g. depending on the current usage of the
other networks. I can control the usage of mine, but not the usage of
the other ones. And as the frequency band is crowded on any channel, I
don't stand a chance of finding an unused set of channels (for 2.4GHz
I'd need three neighboring channels to be sufficiently safe, for 5GHz
I'd have to look that figure up).
>> - I wouldn't have enough open range (without reflections from other
>> houses, passings cars, heck there are even electrified railroad tracks
>> at about 500m distance).
>
> I think you'll find that at 802.11g speeds, with the wireless fixed at
> 54Mbits/sec, you'll get about 30 meters range. The transition between
> working and dead will be quite abrupt, usually within a meter or two.
> If you find a straight line path that's about 50 meters long, you
> should be ok.
>> Way too bad conditions for performing such a test.
>
> It doesn't matter. We're comparing two devices, not producing an
> absolute measurement. Absolute measurements would be nice, so we
> could compare your results with mine and others, but that's not going
> to happen without an extremely well controlled environment. However,
> when comparing two devices, the conditions are identical, and
> therefore the comparison is quite valid.
out at least major influencing factors (beyond the ones to be tested)?
> You probably spent more time finding excuses to not run the test than
> it would take to actually perform it. Thanks for at least thinking
> about the problems involved.
the test, as the answer is simple: It's Aardvarks' claim, and the past
'discussions' with him here have given ample proof that he won't even
accept the best founded test results. If they're not supporting his
view, that is.
So I resort to 'his claim - his proof'. And as he always claims that he
proves everything he says (something already found to be not true time
after time), I won't even start going down this path.
There are some more reasons I could bring up, but I'll leave it for now.
Best regards,
Michael
pf...@aol.com
Aug 4, 2016, 3:40:06 PM8/4/16
to
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:18:04 PM UTC-4, Aardvarks wrote:
> In your experience with *both* Android & iOS mobile devices, have you also
> found the iOS devices severely lacking in WiFi sensitivity (resulting in
> dropped connections when Android devices are still working fine)?
>
> This is a question borne out of experience setting up WiFi for dozens of
> local neighbors, some of whom use Apple ipads & iPhones, and others who use
> Android mobile equipment.
>
> Almost always, in my own personal experience in my own large home with
> multiple iPads and Android phones, and in the large homes of my neighbors,
> the Apple iPads and iPhones almost always have *far worse* WiFi reception
> than do the Android phones.
>
> Has this been your experience also?
> If so, why do you think this is the case?
> -------------------------------------------
> NOTE: Jeff is honest to a fault, so, his opinion matters greatly.
That has not been my experience at all. At our summer house, where the nearest WiFi is more than 100 yards away, my wife's iPhone gets it routinely, my Android and Samsung tablet acknowledge that it is there, but cannot get enough signal to connect.
At home, within a very few yards of the WiFi, both are just fine. Now, what is interesting is that if we have many devices connected - as in when the kids and grandkids are in the house and all using the same WiFi, the iPhones will sometimes be knocked off and the android/Samsung tablets survive. Go figure.
I don't think this has much to do with antennas nor with any other specifically physical manifestation. I think it has more to do with signal sensitivity and internal signal handling. At 900 MHz, there will be *some* orientation issues, of course, so the phone position will have *some* effect on reception. We found that when we oriented the antenna at our repeater (we have a large footprint house) to a specifically vertical position and matched that to the main transmitter, things did get better.
The bottom line is that our reception is situational. The Apple products do much better with a really weak signal - if demand is uncrowded. They do not do so well when there is a great deal of demand on a single source even if the signal is "stronger".
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
> In your experience with *both* Android & iOS mobile devices, have you also
> found the iOS devices severely lacking in WiFi sensitivity (resulting in
> dropped connections when Android devices are still working fine)?
>
> This is a question borne out of experience setting up WiFi for dozens of
> local neighbors, some of whom use Apple ipads & iPhones, and others who use
> Android mobile equipment.
>
> Almost always, in my own personal experience in my own large home with
> multiple iPads and Android phones, and in the large homes of my neighbors,
> the Apple iPads and iPhones almost always have *far worse* WiFi reception
> than do the Android phones.
>
> Has this been your experience also?
> If so, why do you think this is the case?
> -------------------------------------------
> NOTE: Jeff is honest to a fault, so, his opinion matters greatly.
That has not been my experience at all. At our summer house, where the nearest WiFi is more than 100 yards away, my wife's iPhone gets it routinely, my Android and Samsung tablet acknowledge that it is there, but cannot get enough signal to connect.
At home, within a very few yards of the WiFi, both are just fine. Now, what is interesting is that if we have many devices connected - as in when the kids and grandkids are in the house and all using the same WiFi, the iPhones will sometimes be knocked off and the android/Samsung tablets survive. Go figure.
I don't think this has much to do with antennas nor with any other specifically physical manifestation. I think it has more to do with signal sensitivity and internal signal handling. At 900 MHz, there will be *some* orientation issues, of course, so the phone position will have *some* effect on reception. We found that when we oriented the antenna at our repeater (we have a large footprint house) to a specifically vertical position and matched that to the main transmitter, things did get better.
The bottom line is that our reception is situational. The Apple products do much better with a really weak signal - if demand is uncrowded. They do not do so well when there is a great deal of demand on a single source even if the signal is "stronger".
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
avag...@gmail.com
Aug 4, 2016, 7:47:17 PM8/4/16
to
A primitive approach for Apple. Cost of a circuit adding Q with rising traffic is ? prohibitive.
try sized metal plates in the hallways for physically dircting traffic rf ?
is that available at the frequency level ?
0 new messages