Is Barnes & Noble https site untrusted for you today?

On 2017-03-06, Stijn De Jong wrote:
On 6 Mar 2017 19:35:31 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

Without any computer or added software, iOS users can back up their
entire device (apps, app data, system settings, and so on) to the
cloud, wipe the device clean, and then restore the entire device from
that cloud backup so that the device is in the *exact* state it was
in when it was backed up. Android can't do that because there is no
built-in backup utility, and to back up protected files requires
rooting / jail breaking the device.

Android devices can do *better* than that

No they can't.

which is that they can backup to and restore from their own external
SD card the *entire* device.

Nope not even close to the *entire* device. Lying about it isn;t going
to help you, troll.

--
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

In article , Snit
wrote:

the problem is with intel and their repeated delays on new chips.

There is that as well as, I think, Apple is holding off major new desktop
hardware until APFS is ready for prime-time.

that, and an eventual move to arm processors.

As long as I can still run Windows and other OSs in a VM I do not care what
chip they use.

neither does anyone else, except maybe intel executives.

note that microsoft is doing the same thing.

In article , Stijn De Jong
wrote:


That's why it's a defensible fact that iOS isn't tested (nor supported by
Apple) in the real world.

ios is well tested, but like everything, including android, nothing is
perfect.

I'll just correct your note which is that iOS is tested only within the
walled garden. Even Apple says they don't test a single thing with Linux,

linux is not supported so there's no reason to test it.

linux support is done by the linux community, and not particularly well.

and they probably don't test Android either, nor Windows sans iTunes, nor a
computer interfacing with the device where that computer doesn't have an
Apple "login" id.

they absolutely test without itunes.

There are so many things that Apple doesnt' test that it's a defensible
statement that Apple doesn't test their software in the real world.

you're making up things as you go along.

Besides, that Apple OS change killed thousands of Windows's users too
(e.g., the ones who don't use iTunes).

nonsense. more of your made up rubbish.

You never realize that I never make things up like you always do.
Everything I say is always defensible.

you misspelled laughable.



itunes is not required to use an ios device.

Heh heh ... you're joking right?

nope. itunes is not required.

In article , Stijn De Jong
wrote:

What's the answer?
obviously, update.

Nobody in his right mind blindly accepts updates that have no value that is
discernible.

being able to run an app without a waring is value, along with all of
the new features added in the past 2-3 years, including performance
increases.

Bearing in mind even Apple says they don't test their software in the real
world (e.g., Linux, Windows sans iTunes, no sysadmin privileges, etc.), so
you're the guinea pig.

nonsense. they say no such thing.


For example, as you are well aware, the iOS 10 related carrier update has
caused phones to lose connectivity in the past, to the point that the CEO
of T-Mobile told his customers NOT to update to iOS 10 carrier update.

that was t-mobile's error, not apple, and is no longer an issue.



only old apps that are still 32 bit (versus modern 64 bit apps) will
generate that alert.

I have since found out, as you are well aware, that the "alert" is a
propaganda ploy by Apple to "condition" their customers to an upcoming
switch to all-64-bit apps (most articles say in iOS 11).

There's not a single known case of a non-Apple-crapware app being sped up
on a 64-bit port over the 32-bit port on the same hardware.

nonsense.

every single 64 bit app runs faster than its 32 bit counterpart. every
single one.

nospam wrote:

In article , Stijn De Jong
wrote:

What's the answer?
obviously, update.

Nobody in his right mind blindly accepts updates that have no value that
is discernible.

being able to run an app without a waring is value, along with all of
the new features added in the past 2-3 years, including performance
increases.

Bearing in mind even Apple says they don't test their software in the
real world (e.g., Linux, Windows sans iTunes, no sysadmin privileges,
etc.), so you're the guinea pig.

nonsense. they say no such thing.


For example, as you are well aware, the iOS 10 related carrier update has
caused phones to lose connectivity in the past, to the point that the CEO
of T-Mobile told his customers NOT to update to iOS 10 carrier update.

that was t-mobile's error, not apple, and is no longer an issue.



only old apps that are still 32 bit (versus modern 64 bit apps) will
generate that alert.

I have since found out, as you are well aware, that the "alert" is a
propaganda ploy by Apple to "condition" their customers to an upcoming
switch to all-64-bit apps (most articles say in iOS 11).

There's not a single known case of a non-Apple-crapware app being sped up
on a 64-bit port over the 32-bit port on the same hardware.

nonsense.

every single 64 bit app runs faster than its 32 bit counterpart. every
single one.

So that is just another thing you know nothing about

It is very well possible that a 32bit app runs faster than its 64bits
cousin.
On windows this is even quite often the case, as windows has a rather shoddy
64bit implementation. On linux, it is *almost* never the case, linux was the
OS where the 64bit model for AMD/Intel processors was developed and tested
(Suse and AMD in the Dresden factory). OSX is somewhere inbetween

If a application needs a *lot* of pointers, it definitely runs faster on
32bits than on 64 bits, as long as it and the data fits into memory

In article , Peter Köhlmann
wrote:

There's not a single known case of a non-Apple-crapware app being sped up
on a 64-bit port over the 32-bit port on the same hardware.

nonsense.

every single 64 bit app runs faster than its 32 bit counterpart. every
single one.

So that is just another thing you know nothing about

that would be you

It is very well possible that a 32bit app runs faster than its 64bits
cousin.

not on arm. simply recompiling for 64 bit arm will be a benefit.

On windows this is even quite often the case, as windows has a rather shoddy
64bit implementation.

this isn't about windows.

On linux, it is *almost* never the case, linux was the
OS where the 64bit model for AMD/Intel processors was developed and tested
(Suse and AMD in the Dresden factory). OSX is somewhere inbetween

it's not about linux either.

If a application needs a *lot* of pointers, it definitely runs faster on
32bits than on 64 bits, as long as it and the data fits into memory

nonsense.

nospam wrote:

In article , Peter Köhlmann
wrote:

There's not a single known case of a non-Apple-crapware app being sped
up on a 64-bit port over the 32-bit port on the same hardware.

nonsense.

every single 64 bit app runs faster than its 32 bit counterpart. every
single one.

So that is just another thing you know nothing about

that would be you

It is very well possible that a 32bit app runs faster than its 64bits
cousin.

not on arm. simply recompiling for 64 bit arm will be a benefit.

On windows this is even quite often the case, as windows has a rather
shoddy 64bit implementation.

this isn't about windows.

On linux, it is *almost* never the case, linux was the
OS where the 64bit model for AMD/Intel processors was developed and
tested (Suse and AMD in the Dresden factory). OSX is somewhere inbetween

it's not about linux either.

If a application needs a *lot* of pointers, it definitely runs faster on
32bits than on 64 bits, as long as it and the data fits into memory

nonsense.

Idiot

All you can ever reply is "nonsense". And you are totally unable to say
*why*

Because you are a extremely stupid MAK retard. You know nothing about any
technical subjects. You are a Snit

In article , Peter Köhlmann
wrote:

There's not a single known case of a non-Apple-crapware app being sped
up on a 64-bit port over the 32-bit port on the same hardware.

nonsense.

every single 64 bit app runs faster than its 32 bit counterpart. every
single one.

So that is just another thing you know nothing about

that would be you

It is very well possible that a 32bit app runs faster than its 64bits
cousin.

not on arm. simply recompiling for 64 bit arm will be a benefit.

On windows this is even quite often the case, as windows has a rather
shoddy 64bit implementation.

this isn't about windows.

On linux, it is *almost* never the case, linux was the
OS where the 64bit model for AMD/Intel processors was developed and
tested (Suse and AMD in the Dresden factory). OSX is somewhere inbetween

it's not about linux either.

If a application needs a *lot* of pointers, it definitely runs faster on
32bits than on 64 bits, as long as it and the data fits into memory

nonsense.

Idiot

that would be you.

All you can ever reply is "nonsense". And you are totally unable to say
*why*

no need, when it's flat out wrong.

Because you are a extremely stupid MAK retard. You know nothing about any
technical subjects. You are a Snit

ad hominem attack noted, even if you can't spell correctly.

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:55:25 -0500, nospam wrote:

every single 64 bit app runs faster than its 32 bit counterpart. every
single one.

Yet still, you can't name a single test of a single non-Apple-crapware iOS
app that shows the 64-bit iOS app faster than the 32-bit counterpart
running on the same 64-bit hardware.

In article , Stijn De Jong
wrote:


every single 64 bit app runs faster than its 32 bit counterpart. every
single one.

Yet still, you can't name a single test of a single non-Apple-crapware iOS
app that shows the 64-bit iOS app faster than the 32-bit counterpart
running on the same 64-bit hardware.

what part of every single one is not clear?

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 23:15:52 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

every single 64 bit app runs faster than its 32 bit counterpart. every
single one.

So that is just another thing you know nothing about

It is very well possible that a 32bit app runs faster than its 64bits
cousin.
On windows this is even quite often the case, as windows has a rather shoddy
64bit implementation. On linux, it is *almost* never the case, linux was the
OS where the 64bit model for AMD/Intel processors was developed and tested
(Suse and AMD in the Dresden factory). OSX is somewhere inbetween

If a application needs a *lot* of pointers, it definitely runs faster on
32bits than on 64 bits, as long as it and the data fits into memory

Ah, but remember, Peter, the more often nospam repeats his contention, the
more people will come to accept it as truth (the Göbbels principle).

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

In article , tlvp
wrote:


every single 64 bit app runs faster than its 32 bit counterpart. every
single one.

So that is just another thing you know nothing about

It is very well possible that a 32bit app runs faster than its 64bits
cousin.
On windows this is even quite often the case, as windows has a rather
shoddy
64bit implementation. On linux, it is *almost* never the case, linux was
the
OS where the 64bit model for AMD/Intel processors was developed and tested
(Suse and AMD in the Dresden factory). OSX is somewhere inbetween

If a application needs a *lot* of pointers, it definitely runs faster on
32bits than on 64 bits, as long as it and the data fits into memory

Ah, but remember, Peter, the more often nospam repeats his contention, the
more people will come to accept it as truth (the Göbbels principle).

yet another thing you know nothing about but choose to butt your head
into anyway.