Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Those were artworks and APIs for developers. They were meant to be available Eventually but were made available before it was time...completely different!
But is he right?
That depends. I agree with about user's experience part. When it comes to each new mega updates, me IMO, it feels like apple is brushing off unfinished business bugs ir whatever and add more stuff over it. I can't say for sure.
There is no proof that apple intended to decrease performance on older models....but i can see how conspiracy theorist would think apple would because it would push people to buy newer models.
Well it seems that Apple doesn't.
https://thenextweb.com/apple/2017/10/07/study-apple-isnt-slowing-down-your-old-iphone/
Edit:
It seems there is already a thread about it too.
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?sh...g-to-Benchmark-Analysis.2075795/&share_type=t
https://thenextweb.com/apple/2017/10/07/study-apple-isnt-slowing-down-your-old-iphone/
Edit:
It seems there is already a thread about it too.
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?sh...g-to-Benchmark-Analysis.2075795/&share_type=t
That’s not proof of anything. Same hardware will score the same benchmarks. It’s relabworld usage that matters which is where Apple has rigged things.
Alright, I DO think that they slow down their devices through not optimising their OS for older devices and not enforcing "App thining" (maketing BS). But was iOS 11 better, more stable, and faster as a beta ? I don't think that was the case on iPad Mini 2.
Knowing, however, that Apple deliberately says **** like "performance will be improved" or "battery life will extend" on an updated older device, only to half-brick the iPad/iPhone... I won't be updating my iPhone 6 to iOS 11.
iOS 9 killed my iPhone 4S. It was supposed to make apps lighter, to be easier on the CPU, to introduce Swift for core apps if I remember correctly... And it killed the device. It's unresponsive. I mean Windows rot unresponsive.
My iPad Mini 2 running iOS 11 is terrible.
There is no question that devices included in the upgrade program shouldn't be in the first place, and Apple is misleading its userbase when saying that these devices are capable of running the newer OS, when they are not.
Knowing, however, that Apple deliberately says **** like "performance will be improved" or "battery life will extend" on an updated older device, only to half-brick the iPad/iPhone... I won't be updating my iPhone 6 to iOS 11.
iOS 9 killed my iPhone 4S. It was supposed to make apps lighter, to be easier on the CPU, to introduce Swift for core apps if I remember correctly... And it killed the device. It's unresponsive. I mean Windows rot unresponsive.
My iPad Mini 2 running iOS 11 is terrible.
There is no question that devices included in the upgrade program shouldn't be in the first place, and Apple is misleading its userbase when saying that these devices are capable of running the newer OS, when they are not.
Futuremark has been benchmarking for 20 years. I've been using their products for 15. I trust them. The only way I could dismiss their finds, is if someone found actual code in iOS proving the opposite.
And I'm thinking if there even was such code someone would have already found it and there would be a jailbreak mod to unlock the performance.
So unless someone finds actual evidence in the code, I take Futurmark's word. And that's from someone using a slow 6 Plus.
What I mean is that my iPhone 6 scores the same geekbench score it did on iOS 8 but it's significantly slower on iOS 11 and I don't think anyone will deny this. Benchmarks don't show rea world impact
I agree that every iOS version makes all devices a bit slower. Some more than other, as well as some iOS versions are heavier than others. But this is not new in the tech world. The same goes for most hardware with upgradable OS's, computers, upgradable TVs, phones, game consoles.
You could say that Apple should spend more money to further optimise iOS for older devices. I could get behind that. But this is not what this thread is claiming though, is it?
Trying to reason with that guy is.. theres just no point.. with him its always Apple this, Apple that, Apple Apple APPLE! Just nod silently in disbelief at him.
I agree, some will never be reasonable. It will be some other but but but excuse why the conspiracy theory still exists in their head.
Point blank the premise of this thread is 100% proven false with facts and evidence.
Now do older devices struggle more with older hardware to run a newer OS with more features in real life, sure. But that is again common sense to expect (again go run Android 8.0 on an original Kindle Fire as see how stuttery piss poor that experience is; so it's not just "animations" but rather more background OS stuff going on taxing the older hardware build for one to many OS versions ago) and not the premise of the thread to begin with.
Point blank the premise of this thread is 100% proven false with facts and evidence.
Now do older devices struggle more with older hardware to run a newer OS with more features in real life, sure. But that is again common sense to expect (again go run Android 8.0 on an original Kindle Fire as see how stuttery piss poor that experience is; so it's not just "animations" but rather more background OS stuff going on taxing the older hardware build for one to many OS versions ago) and not the premise of the thread to begin with.
The video shows they insert a fake pause in the UI, so GPU and CPU benchmarks won't be affected. It's kind of the main point of the video.
[doublepost=1507467489][/doublepost]
This simply isn't true. It's a total lie for games consoles, for one thing. Plus old Windows machines are capable of running Windows 10 just as fast as newer machines. Just as older Macs are capable of running High Sierra.
Chris Pirillo makes the point that the latest Android runs better on older devices, too. The devices we're talking about have been insanely powerful for years now. The OS itself should not be slow or janky.
Last edited:
What’s a better strategy to get people to upgrade their phone?
Intentionally slow it down so the user gets so frustrated & fed up?
Or make the experience of using your phone so great that you want to upgrade?
Seems like #1 is the OPPOSITE of what you’d want to do.
Intentionally slow it down so the user gets so frustrated & fed up?
Or make the experience of using your phone so great that you want to upgrade?
Seems like #1 is the OPPOSITE of what you’d want to do.
Try comparing 9.0 to 10.0 to 11.0 or 8.4.1 to 9.3.5 to 10.3.3 - comparing an end of cycle iOS version to the first version that hasn’t had the benefit of months of bug squashing and optimisation isn’t a like for like comparison. This will be especially pronounced on the oldest devices that have the least raw horsepower to throw at making things run smoothly, but we know stuttering and frame drops have been reported on brand new iPhones and iPads and older ones alike.
Alrighty then.. I guess you never had a PS3. Or a PC. Or a Mac. Your logic does not compute. If old PCs run Win10 as fast as new machines then why do people buy new PCs to begin with? What is your argument here exactly? That new OSes never get heavier as they advance?
Last edited:
The video shows iOS 9.3, so it's nothing to do with that.
[doublepost=1507471342][/doublepost]
I own a PS3 and a Windows machine and a Mac. Do you want me to make a video of my PS3 booting up and you can see that it's just as responsive as it ever was? Or my XBox 360? It's no problem, they're right here next to me. Let me know.
As for why people upgrade their Windows machines and Macs: It's because the apps themselves get more demanding, not the OS. Games, for example, require much more hardware power. The OS itself runs fine. (Just Google it to see for yourself -- there's quite a few articles showing old PCs running newer Windows as a test. Some of them have already been linked to in this thread.)
My Windows machine is running a Core i7 3770K, which was released in 2012, and a GTX 780, which was released in 2013. Not only is Windows 10 lightning fast, but I actually play GTAV on it with high quality settings turned on, too. Really can't complain to be honest.
Last edited:
Well then start the PS3 store and tell me how is that for snappy. You are counter argumenting yourself here. You say programmes and games are getting heavier because they add features and better graphics. That creates a bigger need in CPU and GPU power as well as RAM.
Operating systems as they are code as well, they do pretty much the same thing albeit way more optimised. They add features, transparencies, flashy animations which in their turn require more power to process. XP>Vista is a blatant example.
I'm done argumenting if the earth is round.
yes, we could do those comparisions... or we could have real lives, use our phones, get help when we need it, and wait for point updates to sort out some issues...
I'm stating simple facts.
(FYI: The PS3 interface hasn't changed much since it launched. I've no idea why you're trying to argue that it's changed to the point where it's slower now. My PS3 is my primary Blu-ray player, so I used it fairly frequently.)
Please don't claim something is true without offering a single shred of evidence, and then try and claim that you're on the side of logic. You have to provide something to back up your claims.
Perhaps you can find me a single article anywhere on the internet claiming that the PS3 is slower now than when it launched. That would be a start. I can also make you a simple video, where I will share your profile and name check you in it, showing that the PS3 OS is just as snappy as ever. I'll do the same with my Windows 10 machine if you like. Again, just let me know if that's what you want me to do.
Please don't try and claim you're not part of the tinfoil hat brigade if you're incapable of offering a shred of evidence for your statements.
Meanwhile, here's some reading for you:
Yes, Windows 10 runs great on old hardware
"Can you run Windows 10 on a PC that's eight years old? Oh yes, and it runs spectacularly well."
http://www.zdnet.com/article/yes-windows-10-runs-great-on-old-hardware/
Can your old PC run Windows 10? The answer will surprise you
"My experience with this 9-year-old box shocked me: It ran super-smooth and was surprisingly responsive just navigating Windows 10’s menu system."
https://www.pcworld.com/article/295...-windows-10-the-answer-will-surprise-you.html
Here's how a 12-year old computer runs Windows 10
"The fact that it shares the same minimum hardware requirements as Windows Vista (at least for the Premium experience) is a fantastic achievement but that's only part of the story; Windows 10 actually runs better than its beleaguered ancestor. Much better."
http://www.techradar.com/news/softw...pc-to-run-windows-10-here-s-the-proof-1288287
Your turn to provide some evidence for your claims.
From the very post you linked :
The “report” doesn’t actually exist. According to Snopes, a Harvard student did conduct a casual search of Google Trends, and her findings were exaggerated over time.
I didn't even know there was a BS "report" claiming Apple slows down iPhones deliberately. Maybe this false study is what prompted Futuremark to do the benchmark and put the claims to rest.
Hasn't changed much? Seriously?
I get consoles day 1, the PS3 was no exemption, and remember how it evolved from 2007 to 2013. You obviously don't, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Hint. Performance differed.
You are nitpicking with Win10. I don't feel evidence is needed to prove a graphic transparency requires more resources than an opaque graphic. I'm going to let you believe what you do.