View Single Post
Old 08-29-2008, 05:13 PM
     
  #28 (permalink)  
equus
Moderator
equus's Avatar
Join Date: 10-06-2003
Location: Peoples Republic of Khaalhifhornia
PDAPhone: iPhone,XV6900,BB Storm
Carrier: AT&T & VZW
Headset: Jabra BT135
Posts: 5,293
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
Equus,

I know your post wasn't directed at me, although it was somewhat implied that if they didn't go to college and where idiots for giving out that explaination that perhaps I am too for believing it. But don't worry as you know I don't shy away from a good debate and don't take anything said here personally.

It's is just irksome to have you dismiss that possibility out right as though a kindergartner would understand that it was impossible. I just don't think it's that simple.

From what I understand it's very plausible, they aren't saying the iPhone is "total incompatible" only that it has a flaw in it's power control algorithm. The fact that this flaw is fixed in 2.0.2 but if others on the same cell are using 2.0.1 or earlier can still affect your 2.0.2 phones performance goes a long way in explaining why AT&T went out of their way to get people to upgrade and why the first people putting 2.0.2 didn't see much benefit.

It also seems completely plausible this slipped through QA, since it's based on heavy loading of cells with multiple iPhone 3g's, not that it's acceptable that it did.

The source that gave out the info wasn't speculating and used the proper terminology in "UE" and "Node B" which you dismissed as BS but is part of the UTMS spec, and they where allegedly looking at real stats of less dropped calls as 2.0.2 started to take effect.

So while it could be fabricated, it definitely isn't a bunch of BS, as a bad power control algorithm on the phone could cause exactly the issues being reported and explained in that article based on the technical information I posted here, do you agree?
Justin I totally agree with your post, I meant that some of these reporters use "techy words" that they have NO idea what the heck they wrote but just grasp onto a few sentences cause some" white paper" info they read or saw or were told, thats the BS I am referring to cause they just cause a panic-mode in people reading that and general public think OMG the sky's afalling..you know what I mean.
YES a bad algorithm will definitely create transmission concerns, I AGREE.
As tight-lipped as Apple and at&t are we as general public have NO idea what algorithm or architecture programming is done. I can "speculate" based on knowledge of these kinds of designs that it COULD be one of the reasons and I definitely cannot say THAT IS THE REASON. Anyhoo, its always pleasant to chat with people like you who know their stuff. Can you imagine if you and I started posting about NODES, latency effects of heat, wire sizes, hard-wire connections, contaminated core-copper lines, packet losses, true thruput, managing wattage during peak demand..........members here would call my wife and tell her to whack me on my cranium and put that hole right back where it was earlier......
__________________
Funny it worked.....the last time!!Now I am not sure what was working before they put a hole in my head!!!!
 
equus is offline   Reply With Quote