Questions

Post #441,097 by drook 3/5/22 6:05:03 PM 3/5/22 6:05:03 PM Reply	Questions I don't see anywhere in the article, is the Game Optimizing Service something that you have the option to disable? According to the article, it's not "the apps the world cares about the performance of" that get full speed, it's the benchmarking apps themselves. Even if this scheme is otherwise reasonable, throttling everything except the benchmark apps is at least a little questionable. -- Drew
Post #441,099 by CRConrad 3/6/22 3:29:31 AM 3/6/22 3:29:31 AM Reply	Yup, seems I misread that last bit because I'd skimmed the rest a little too fast. At least judging from the comments on that article and a couple of other articles linked from there. What irks me the most is that as a stickler for precise language, I managed to misinterprete "benchmark apps" as "apps included in a benchmark" in stead of what it plainly says, actual benchmark apps. Yeah, OK, now it's quite a bit scummier. I still can't be bothered to give all that much of a fuck, though. So this years phone isn't actually twenty percent faster than last years, only ten -- or maybe even only five -- but Samsung tried to make it look like theirs is, but everyone else's only ten. A) Who gives a fuck? Phones are for surfing the Web nowadays. If a page loads in less than a minute and stays visible on the screen after that, that's enough. B) "But my GAAAAMES!"? Buy a fucking XBox. Or PC or PS5, fuckdoiknow which is best. Fuckdoicare. C) These are the same stupid shenanigans we've seen since the PC was born, or probably even before. You'd have to be born yesterday not to fucking expect it. :: Ever tried using your phone as a, you know, PHONE? A 2011 Galaxy S2 works fine for that, and hey, it even lets you browse the Web. -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
Post #441,100 by crazy 3/6/22 4:56:57 PM 3/6/22 4:56:57 PM Reply	I can easily tell the difference And it's far far slower than the phone I had from 3 years ago. And I bought the bargain basement pixel of the time frame. So I disagree with your attitude that my expectations are too high. My expectations were set from something from years ago. And it doesn't come close to them. And I don't play games with it.
Post #441,106 by crazy 3/7/22 11:19:49 AM 3/7/22 11:19:49 AM Reply	18 seconds That's how long it takes me to hum the theme of Jeopardy including the final two bump bump. That is an absolute worst case scenario of how long something should take to come back. Websites should load within about 2 seconds but I'll give them 18 seconds. Then I will abandon them. When I coded interactive systems, two breaths was all I would allow for a result to return before figuring out how to do it faster or throw it into the background. I always targeted before someone lifted their hand off the enter key. When I was doing that I was splitting a single 386 chip between 30 people with 16 megabytes of memory. It was running their full screen interface as well as everything else in the database. Everyone was running Oracle queries constantly simultaneously as well as updating the shared database. Everyone was typing into and the editorial interface running on that chip. The devices we hold in our hands are a hundred times more powerful. Non network local stuff should not lag in the slightest. Websites will lag depending on how stupid the people on the back end are combined with bad network connections and latency. You said 60 seconds? I don't believe you. I think you get annoyed and frustrated after 20, possibly less. Start counting as you wait for web pages and get back to me. What's your real number?

Welcome to IWETHEY!