macOS 10.12.3 fixes

[dsnio]

Hey guys.

1. Why isn’t the Safari bug fix which was the cause of the inconsistent battery life in MBP 16 not addressed in the updates list? (pic attached)
2. I’ve done battery life test in my 2016 MBP in 10.12.2 for a continuous moderate-heavy web browsing session throughout which yielded unacceptable battery life for me. I don’t want to do the same thing again, it’s tiring. Is there something like an automated web browser test which repeatedly loads uncached websites to get a new estimate of the battery with the update similar to something what ConusmerReports did as in the attached pic?
3. Is this update gonna give any improvement for my classy 2015 rMBP which is already on 10.12.2 with Safari?

 

[skids929]

I am of the opinion that they don't list all the tweaks for every release. I will say I notice a difference in my battery life from .2 to .3 ....One of the most noticeable is when I close the lid and reopen it's at the same number it was at when I closed it. That didn't happen in .2 for me.

 

[Sanpete]

The Safari bug was fixed in the previous update. [Edit: actually only in the previous beta, not the previous update.] It's highly unlikely that it was affecting your battery life anyway, unless you turned off cache in Safari.

What did you do to test your battery, and what results did you get? What model do you have?

 

[dsnio]

The Safari bug was fixed in the previous update. It's highly unlikely that it was affecting your battery life anyway, unless you turned off cache in Safari.

What did you do to test your battery, and what results did you get? What model do you have?

I've 2016 13" TB MBP 256SSD. I tested the battery during a whole day using Safari only (moderate-heavy browsing). I normally don't use a laptop especially with the small screen for browsing but had to do for the sake of getting battery estimate to make a decision on returning. I got 8hrs 15 min in about 25% brightness and no key backlighting. I still have few days left to return. Just updated to 10.12.3. I don't wanna do the web browsing session whole again to get the new estimate. Do you have any idea to do an automated web browser test which repeatedly loads uncached websites to get a new estimate of the battery similar to something what ConusmerReports did as in the attached pic?

 

[Sanpete]

8:15 may not be bad, really, depending on what kinds of webpages you were using. The model you have is the one with the most challenges in getting good battery life. The non-TB and the 15" are easier that way.

I'm not aware of public software that will do what you want, but I've never looked. Consumer Reports and other review sites may write their own. It looks like your machine is able to get decent battery life, so you might get by just reading the results of others with the OS update to see if it helped them, and expect a similar adjustment to your own.

 

[jerryk]

I've 2016 13" TB MBP 256SSD. I tested the battery during a whole day using Safari only (moderate-heavy browsing). I normally don't use a laptop especially with the small screen for browsing but had to do for the sake of getting battery estimate to make a decision on returning. I got 8hrs 15 min in about 25% brightness and no key backlighting. I still have few days left to return. Just updated to 10.12.3. I don't wanna do the web browsing session whole again to get the new estimate. Do you have any idea to do an automated web browser test which repeatedly loads uncached websites to get a new estimate of the battery similar to something what ConusmerReports did as in the attached pic?

Selenium and other web browsing testing tools can do this. Do a google search for "website testing software". Lot of choices.

 

[wittyphrase]

The Safari bug was fixed in the previous update. It's highly unlikely that it was affecting your battery life anyway, unless you turned off cache in Safari.

What did you do to test your battery, and what results did you get? What model do you have?

I thought they said that they noticed CR testing method was flawed because they were browsing with the cache off, but that test led them to uncover a bug in Safari? Doesn't that suggest there was a bug causing battery issues that were separate and distinct from the cache issue?

 

[Sanpete]

I thought they said that they noticed CR testing method was flawed because they were browsing with the cache off, but that test led them to uncover a bug in Safari? Doesn't that suggest there was a bug causing battery issues that were separate and distinct from the cache issue?

Yes, but my understanding is that the bug was made an issue by switching off cache, that it doesn't arise otherwise.

 

[xPad]

Yes, but my understanding is that the bug was made an issue by switching off cache, that it doesn't arise otherwise.

That was never stated, and is just conjecture.

 

[Sanpete]

That was never stated, and is just conjecture.

I think it was implied by Apple's statement and by the fact that users weren't getting wildly inconsistent results, as CR did, rather some were getting consistently bad results.

From Apple's statement: "We learned that when testing battery life on Mac notebooks, Consumer Reports uses a hidden Safari setting for developing web sites which turns off the browser cache. This is not a setting used by customers and does not reflect real-world usage. Their use of this developer setting also triggered an obscure and intermittent bug reloading icons which created inconsistent results in their lab. After we asked Consumer Reports to run the same test using normal user settings, they told us their MacBook Pro systems consistently delivered the expected battery life."

 

[xPad]

I think it was implied by Apple's statement and by the fact that users weren't getting wildly inconsistent results, as CR did, rather some were getting consistently bad results.

From Apple's statement: "We learned that when testing battery life on Mac notebooks, Consumer Reports uses a hidden Safari setting for developing web sites which turns off the browser cache. This is not a setting used by customers and does not reflect real-world usage. Their use of this developer setting also triggered an obscure and intermittent bug reloading icons which created inconsistent results in their lab. After we asked Consumer Reports to run the same test using normal user settings, they told us their MacBook Pro systems consistently delivered the expected battery life."

That's what conjecture means. They didn't say that the bug was solely triggered by the cache setting, but that the cache setting triggered it. Also, that it's intermittent (i.e., it happens from time to time, such as when you have this cache setting enabled).

It's also conjecture to say that the bug happened at other times.

All that really matters is whether 10.12.3 takes care of the problems some people seem to have had, which it appears to have done.

 

[Sanpete]

Implication isn't the same as conjecture. If the bug was intermittent, those whose machines were affected by it would have highly inconsistent battery life, which isn't what people were reporting. The bug was about reloading icons, which wouldn't affect video streaming tests or the like, only browsing.

I was wrong that the bug was fixed in the previous update, by the way. It was only in a previous beta. I agree that the main thing is whether the issues with battery life are fixed. Hope that happens.

 

[xPad]

Implication isn't the same as conjecture.

Never said it was. I said what you posted was conjecture. Why are you even arguing this?

 

[Sanpete]

Never said it was. I said what you posted was conjecture. Why are you even arguing this?

Ha, ask yourself that question first. My point is that it's implication, not conjecture.

 

[mpainesyd]

Mail sort still not fixed
Grrr...

 

[dsnio]

That's what conjecture means. They didn't say that the bug was solely triggered by the cache setting, but that the cache setting triggered it. Also, that it's intermittent (i.e., it happens from time to time, such as when you have this cache setting enabled).

It's also conjecture to say that the bug happened at other times.

All that really matters is whether 10.12.3 takes care of the problems some people seem to have had, which it appears to have done.

Well let's hear it from the people. Except some saying that the battery life improved from 10.12.3(beta) we haven't heard anything from most users.
[doublepost=1485355489][/doublepost]

I think it was implied by Apple's statement and by the fact that users weren't getting wildly inconsistent results, as CR did, rather some were getting consistently bad results.

From Apple's statement: "We learned that when testing battery life on Mac notebooks, Consumer Reports uses a hidden Safari setting for developing web sites which turns off the browser cache. This is not a setting used by customers and does not reflect real-world usage. Their use of this developer setting also triggered an obscure and intermittent bug reloading icons which created inconsistent results in their lab. After we asked Consumer Reports to run the same test using normal user settings, they told us their MacBook Pro systems consistently delivered the expected battery life."

Quoting from Apple's website,

The wireless web test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing 25 popular websites with display brightness set to 12 clicks from bottom or 75%.

So Apple's stupid enough to use caching for their own test loading 25 websites with 75% brightness. No wonder why I don't come close to Apple's estimated battery life even in low brightness. Isn't this pure cheating?

 

[szilske]

What about mail attachments with Exchange and S/MIME??

 

[Sanpete]

Quoting from Apple's website,

The wireless web test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing 25 popular websites with display brightness set to 12 clicks from bottom or 75%.

So Apple's stupid enough to use caching for their own test loading 25 websites with 75% brightness. No wonder why I don't come close to Apple's estimated battery life even in low brightness. Isn't this pure cheating?

I would suppose, though they don't say, that they don't browse 25 pages but 25 websites with lots and lots of different pages.