Speaking from experience, one of the reasons the Moto G seems to stutter and lag more is because it has a paltry (for Android phones) amount of RAM (1GB) and has an extremely paranoid memory-manager that doesn’t allow the free memory to drop below ~170MB. This means that it starts killing background services (such as AC Display) and cached apps (such as the launcher) willy-nilly when you launch a particularly memory-heavy app (like Chrome, or the execrable official Facebook app – 80MB just sitting there?!), and has to load them all over again once you exit. The CPU, however, seems to handle most tasks pretty smoothly, if given enough memory.
Well, yes, there’s that, too (though the Macbook+iPad combo isn’t any cheaper, so there is a consumer mindset roadblock regarding "2-for-1" devices). Hence my comment about Microsoft really needing to get students (who, in addition to being somewhat more easily sold on new shiny gadgets, get educational discounts that push the price below that of a Macbook) on board with the Surface.
This is actually a rather fair hands-on; while admitting that the Surface Pro 3 has its good points (excellent industrial design, provision of a pen for note-taking, and so on), you nevertheless admit that it is not a fit for your working style (which is to say, conventional laptop use and conventional tablet use, with no need for a 12-inch note-taking device that also runs desktop applications and can be sorta used as a laptop).
On the other hand, I an very much enamoured with the Surface Pro 3 precisely because it has a 12-inch screen and note-taking capabilities in a footprint that is relatively thin and light, and since I normally use my current laptop on tables with a single screen angle anyway, I don’t quite mind the kickstand.
I fear that the Surface Pro 3 is therefore a hard sell to the general public; they, by and large, have no use for the unique combination of features that the Surface Pro 3 brings to the table (kickstand, pen, large screen and desktop app support). Perhaps Microsoft can slowly (very slowly) turn users onto the benefits of such a device (I’d argue that targeting students and youths in general, who are young and game enough to integrate new devices into their workflows and lifestyles, and savvy enough to recognize the possible benefits of such, is one of the better ways to go).
Okay, thanks. Was thinking that maybe App Ops was available on unrooted stock Android as well (which it was, from 4.3.0 – 4.4.1, but not from 4.4.2 onwards).
So it’s an Xposed module that enables the disabled/hidden App Ops function (i.e. this module)? Well, I’m sad now, since I expected a root-free method.
Android version? Rooted? Custom ROM?
OnePlus = 1+ = 2
One = 1
OnePlus One + Zero = 2 + 1 + 0 = 3
HALF-LIFE 3 CONFIRMED ALIENS DID BENGHAZI RON PAUL 2016
Many news sources reported that App Ops was removed in Android 4.4.2 onwards:
Did you have to install an additional app to enable the feature?
Whatever you say. I’m of the opinion that if apps on your phone have the ability to request superuser elevation, that’s already a security risk. I can trust my one and only girlfriend; I can’t trust each and every Android app developer whose apps I installed on my phone.
And you still haven’t seen the point: App Ops was removed from Android, so pointing at it and saying "use this" isn’t helpful. XPrivacy is the only alternative that realistically exists on most phones, if you don’t want to install custom ROMs (which are themselves another whole slew of possible risks).
Was disabled since Android 4.3, unless you want to unlock your bootloader, root, install Xposed and then XPrivacy, in which case congratulations, you’ve opened up three security holes in your device (bootloader unlocked, superuser access granted, Xposed able to set up arbitrary application hooks) to solve one security issue (lack of fine control over Android app permissions).
I mean you can trust open source programs not to have any crap right?
That has never, never been true. "Open Source" doesn’t make a program magically start to have every line of its code audited for malware or crapware, and it especially doesn’t mean that the user can be complacent about the security of his system (i.e. next next next oh no spaghetti-o).
I must implore you, as a fellow literate human being, to read my entire comment again before you leap to unfounded conclusions. I was clearly talking about physical embodiments of ideas, the result of what happens if I take that "pattern of information" and make an object embodying the idea. Is that embodiment not made of scarce physical resources? Can I not likewise exchange that embodiment for scarce physical resources? If you were to create an identical embodiment of that idea with a view towards exchanging said embodiment for scarce resources, are you not affecting my ability to exchange my own, physically-existing, scarce-resource-containing embodiment of the idea for scarce resources, thus creating conflict over scarce resources?
If you take my idea, the product of my intelligence and ingenuity and mental effort and most importantly, the result of me expending the scarce resource of MY TIME, and create a physical product from it, and sell that product, and receive payment for that product, you are denying me the scarce resource of MONEY, and reducing the necessarily finite number of CUSTOMERS that I could have sold my own embodiment of what is ultimately still my idea (generated, remember, from scarce, valuable time and effort) to. Do you not see the problem with that? Have we suddenly, when I wasn’t looking, entered a utopia where physical immortality has been achieved and the yoke of necessity finally lifted from our shoulders?
Ah, got it. Android user here (no physical Home button), so I was just confirming. I must admit, that solution’s quite elegant.
Doesn’t resting your finger on Home automatically unlock the iPhone and dump you to the Home screen? What you’re suggesting is closer to:
Well, for Trusted Devices, the phone actually is unlocked already, so in that case it’d be "swipe and go to app". For Face Unlock, not so seamless.
The two-handed method would probably work, but as you said it’s a little rubbish.
To borrow two ideas from Android, they could either implement Face Unlock (so you’d unlock as soon as you held it up to your face) or Trusted Devices (which automatically unlocks the phone if it’s within Bluetooth range of a previously paired device that you carry on your person, such as a Bluetooth headset or a smartwatch).
This is not “ultra low-power WiFi”. The devices operate using an ambient WiFi signal, absorbing or reflecting it to modulate a signal, that much is true, but the actual modulation scheme is not 802.11x compatible at all; it’s something much less complex (and thus much less power-hungry), such as On-Off Keying (think Morse code).
I seem to remember reading about this technology sometime last year as well. It certainly seems promising, but given that most users’ data usage habits favor downstream traffic more than upstream (not much need to have faster upload speeds when most of what you do is watch Youtube videos or check Facebook), I’m not sure that it would really improve the average consumers’ experience, or free up that much spectrum, since you’d still need spectrum for downstream links.
Right, here’s the article, from MIT Technology Review, dated October 29, 2013: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/520586/the-clever-circuit-that-doubles-bandwidth/
Your username will be used to login to Verge going forward.
As part of the new Verge launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.
Your username will be used to login to Verge going forward.
We'll email you a reset link.
If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.
Choose an available username to complete sign up.