Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #32927 > unrolled thread

WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-30 16:18 +0000
    Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-30 17:49 -0700
      Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-30 21:54 -0400
        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-07-31 02:16 +0000
        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-30 20:44 -0700
          Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 13:52 -0400
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-07-31 19:19 +0000
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-31 16:41 -0700
              Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 20:23 -0400
          Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-31 22:26 +0000
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 18:58 -0400
              Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-01 05:54 +0000
                Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 02:11 -0400
                Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 02:13 -0400
                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-01 21:44 +0000
                    Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 17:52 -0400
                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-01 21:49 +0000
                    Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 17:52 -0400
                      Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-01 22:01 +0000
                        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 18:47 -0400
                          Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-02 15:04 +0000
                            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-02 11:05 -0400
                              Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-02 18:19 +0000
                                Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-02 15:25 -0400
                                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-02 19:49 +0000
                                    Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-02 16:32 -0400
                                      Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 01:35 +0000
                                        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-02 21:43 -0400
                                          Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-03 03:27 +0000
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-07-31 23:17 +0000
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-31 17:23 -0700
              Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 20:36 -0400
                Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-31 18:52 -0700
                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 22:18 -0400
                    Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-31 20:21 -0700
                      Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 17:04 -0400
                        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-08-01 15:43 -0700
                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-08-01 18:23 +1200
                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-08-01 21:51 +0000
      Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-31 02:59 +0000
        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-07-30 21:42 -0700
        Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-01 13:03 +0200
          Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-08-02 08:59 +1200
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-08-01 16:19 -0700
              Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-08-02 13:18 +1200
                Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2016-08-01 21:51 -0500
                  Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-08-02 18:22 +1200
          Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-08-01 16:02 -0700
            Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-02 09:03 +0200
              Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-08-02 09:40 -0700
                Re: WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2016-08-03 10:33 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#33020

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 18:47:23 -0400, nospam 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33021

In article <nnqcq9$d04$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33027

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,
what are you saying Google latches on to then?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33029

In article <nnqo7t$5h7$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@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
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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33033

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.

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?

I only care about facts.
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33036

In article <nnqtg2$h0e$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@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.

> > 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33040

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 
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.

If the answer to the question were as simple as you say, then you wouldn't 
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.

I could repeat the question a thousand times, and you'd still *never* 
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.

Again, as always, you spew forth the garbage that Apple Marketing tells you 
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.

Again, as always, you spew forth the garbage that Apple Marketing tells you 
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33041

In article <nnrho0$tjj$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@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
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33048

On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:43:59 -0400, nospam wrote:

> you're full of shit.

:) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32974

On 2016-07-31, Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:
>
> Jeff,
> 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"... : )

-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32977

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Aardvarks
<aardvarks@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
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. 

Not a problem.  Everyone lies, but that's ok because nobody listens.

>On the other hand, you:

Ah, my favorite topic... me.

>a. Buy by price:performance so performance is just a set of numbers which
>is nothing to fear

Wrong.  I hardly buy anything new for myself.  I buy plenty for my
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

Sorta.  I have a few brands that I prefer.  However, even the best
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

Sorta.  My customers also was ease of use.  That makes self
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".

Nope.  They throw money at the problem.  Applecare is all about buying
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.

Nope, they don't give up.  The average Apple product user assumes that
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.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32978

In article <e73tpbhgk9sr1qrp6mo32rlhesev4npqld@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@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 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32979

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 20:36:58 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <e73tpbhgk9sr1qrp6mo32rlhesev4npqld@4ax.com>, Jeff
>Liebermann <jeffl@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.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32982

In article <449tpbpvbu5civ5o77ioc33cdvcd3ag56h@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@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.

> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32983

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 22:18:14 -0400, nospam <nospam@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.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32994

In article <a9etpbtc0roj7ofbmsu8b9gki8f1u9phf0@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@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.

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33006

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 17:04:05 -0400, nospam <nospam@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?  

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32989

In article <449tpbpvbu5civ5o77ioc33cdvcd3ag56h@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

You're just holding it wrong.  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32999

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.
That is the understatement of the year!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32945

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 
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. 

Fair enough.

>  Also note that anecdotal
> evidence of a problem is not definitive as measurements such as
> "range" and "sensitivity" tend to follow a bell curve.

I have had the two iPads tested at the Apple Genius bar, and they passed 
"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.

I *knew* you had tested Apple antennas in the past!
  "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.

In all cases in "my" house, I had my Android devices on a flat surface 
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.

While my grandkids play games almost exclusively on the iDevices, the main 
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.

Given the century-long cycles, you already had yours in 1989. Let someone 
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.

Looks like iPerf is available on iOS & Android & Windows & Linux!
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.

I don't have any fast computers - but just basic laptops.

> 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>

This is good that we an lay two mobile devices on a desk and run the same 
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>

I'd just pick one. Probably iPerf2 for compatibility.
 
> 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.

I'd stick with iPerf 2.
 
> 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>

Interesting that Mike Pennacchi set up a linux box running iperf -s.
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>

You used iperf3, but I'd probably use iPerf 2 only because I want simple 
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.

Are the three graphs (purple, green, and blue) different access points?
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.

Thanks to you, I set up a *wired* extender out of my spare WRT54G router, 
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. 

I've never done this. I'll have to check how to set the speed on the 
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.

Hmmmm....

> 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.

Ah. That makes sense!

>  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'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).

We're in the boonies. Empty channels aren't hard to find.
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.

In general, for utilities, the limitation is that iTools don't allow 
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. 

I would agree with you.

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.

I've already many times over seen substantial variations.
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.

Cellular is not in the cards; just WiFi.

> 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.

I will set up the iperf 2 on the various devices and test this out!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web