bryPT

bryPT

Lives in United States United States
Works as a IT Professional
Has a website at www.blue-echoes.com
Joined on Apr 10, 2006
About me:

Husband, Papa, and very rarely, a photographer.

Comments

Total: 52, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

bryPT: If I was Samsung or Google, I would charge $29 for a brand new Galaxy 8 or Pixel 2 for the same exact time that Apple charges existing customers the $29 ransomware battery replacement program. If anyone at Google or Samsung are reading this, be a hero and make the suggestion to management. Marketing would love it.

Yep. Apple writes code to throttle the CPU in a phone if the battery starts to get iffy and then bribes the owner to pay $29 bucks to get that full CPU back. THAT IS RANSOMWARE.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 17:07 UTC

If I was Samsung or Google, I would charge $29 for a brand new Galaxy 8 or Pixel 2 for the same exact time that Apple charges existing customers the $29 ransomware battery replacement program. If anyone at Google or Samsung are reading this, be a hero and make the suggestion to management. Marketing would love it.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2018 at 15:57 UTC as 4th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

bryPT: Disclaimer: my company purchased a brand new iPhone SE 6 months ago. Apple checked it out and battery is perfect. But it is also slow as molasses. Slower than my iPhone 6 that is 3 years old. Both insanely slow. Noticed the slowness when I went to 10.2.1 and 11 is a joke. I am currently using a 3 year old Windows Phone so I can get email and be functional.

This new "apology" from Apple is like Ransomware. "Dear older iPhone user, you have to pay us $29 to get your CPU un-throttled, but you get a free battery as well. Come in to our Apple Store and go to the Genius bar and give us $29 and we will return your phone. Hey, buy a new case while you are in as well!"

The arrogance Apple is showing here is on a new level. Forcing people to pay more to get a fix for something they implemented in the OS is a new low for this company.

Genius Bar employee checked my phone yesterday and said it was balls on solid. Still slow. Slower than my old and also slow 6. Compared side by side at the Apple store. And yeah, that whole different phone thing that MrScrooge pointed out kinda makes your claim a little flimsy.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

mlittle: Oh man, this is a trigger alert for the Apple fanboys

see post above...

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 16:46 UTC
In reply to:

alex2016g: Thats a great solution that I am more than happy with. Well done Apple for getting out of this situation in such a way

Are you happy when you get ransomware on your computer. Sure Mr. criminal, I will give you money to get my files back! Apple created the problem by writing the throttling into the OS and instead of removing it, they charge you $29 for a supposed work around. What a joke.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

Zigmont: Now I'm starting to wonder, I'm a Motorola phone guy and the last 2 phones I had seemed to slow down quite noticeably when they came out with the newer generations. There was nothing else wrong with the phones, other than they suddenly became very slow. I now wonder if they were/are pulling the same scam?

Motorola put out a statement that says they do not throttle on older phones.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

MrScrooge: Aye but will replacing the battery trigger the OS to undo the performance restriction?
We've all known that iOS updates were slowing down old iPhones for years - Apple's planned obsolescence policy is no big secret (it's like they took inspiration from Windows ironically) but now they're trying to put a spin on this to sell battery stock!
Abominable.

I have a 6 month old iPhone SE. I took it into an Apple Store and they ran diagnostics on it. Battery is spot on. The throttling is still happening. They gave me a new phone. All I have is Outlook on a fresh build. It takes 20-30 seconds to open Outlook. On my old and also slow iPhone 6 with all my crap on it, Outlook opens in 15-20 seconds. Instead of giving them $29 for that one, I will trade it in, get $90, and buy a Samsung or Google or other phone that is now light years ahead of the iPhone.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 16:37 UTC

Disclaimer: my company purchased a brand new iPhone SE 6 months ago. Apple checked it out and battery is perfect. But it is also slow as molasses. Slower than my iPhone 6 that is 3 years old. Both insanely slow. Noticed the slowness when I went to 10.2.1 and 11 is a joke. I am currently using a 3 year old Windows Phone so I can get email and be functional.

This new "apology" from Apple is like Ransomware. "Dear older iPhone user, you have to pay us $29 to get your CPU un-throttled, but you get a free battery as well. Come in to our Apple Store and go to the Genius bar and give us $29 and we will return your phone. Hey, buy a new case while you are in as well!"

The arrogance Apple is showing here is on a new level. Forcing people to pay more to get a fix for something they implemented in the OS is a new low for this company.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 16:34 UTC as 70th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

BillMassNBPT ILC: Using an iMac to edit photos? I would take a hard look at a Microsoft Surface Studio before you default to the Apple store on which iMac to buy. Bought an iMac 2 1/2 years ago with 27" Retina. No doubt the retina is a beautiful display but Microsoft has taken notice and then some. 28" touchscreen and pen interaction to make selections and adjustments among other things may make the iMac platform look a little tired to some.
Good news is there are more choices out there now....

I have a Surface Book. It is amazing. And it has a cumbersome SD card slot as well. It is insanely fast and reliable. I highly recommend it.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 12:59 UTC
In reply to:

Boeing skipper: "You can build a windows PC for a much lower price". This is what I did two years ago, spent $2,000 on a custom build. I have so many issues with my PC, I've had rasomwares, viruses, Windows forcing updates on a weekly basis if not more, crashes and various bugs.
Meanwhile, I've used Macbooks at work and when I travel for the past 4 years and I never ever had a single issue with them.
The day Windows become as reliable as Apple products, I'll switch over, but for now I'm looking to replace my PC with the iMac Pro.

My desktop is 8 years old. I run Lr on it just fine. I too just upgraded the video card and added more RAM. SSD drives in it and it still screams. 8 years old.

I am running Windows 10, firewall off, no antivirus. Just have Windows Defender running. I have never gotten any malware of virus. I am an I.T. guy, but still, I do not click on any links in email, no ads clicked on, no website browsing to places questionable. If I want to do that c***, I don't use a machine that is valuable to me that has data that is valuable to me. Get a junky laptop or PC if you want to do that stuff.

It is not the Operating system that gives you viruses, it is the human being using the computer that gives you viruses. I am tired of hearing that Windows (and Mac, yes Mac's uses get viruses, I know since I am in I.T.) are unsecure. That argument is old and tired.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 12:44 UTC
On article TriLens triple lens holder coming to Kickstarter (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

bryPT: The Spider Holster is brilliant. This? Tough sell. You would have to take the thing off to sit down or get through a tight space. I have to remove my camera from my spider holster when in a congested area. I assume you would have to do the same with this, but you also have a camera around your neck and then this thing in your hand?

Say you have a 70-200 f2.8 on that thing, then a couple primes like an 85mm f1.8 and 35mm f1.8, due to gravity, the 70-200 will be pointed down all the time, you need that one, you gotta get that think pointed up and steedy enough to get it off the thing than swap out the lens you have on the camera now.

Just seems cumbersome to me, but some may love it. To each his own. I know a lot of people won't even try a Spider Holster due to one reason or another and I truly do not understand those people whatsoever.

Good luck to them. Hope they don't turn out to be a Trigger Happy (anyone remember that train wreck on Kickstarter?).

I do see this kinda working at weddings or the likes. But then you lens cap is on or not? Fumbling around to attach and detach a lens cap seems to be a hassle.

My camera on a spider holster, then I have a small bag that I can slip 2 lens in and leave them uncapped on both ends (lens front down in soft bottom of bag). I have gotten pretty proficient swapping a lens with one hand while camera is hanging on the spider holster. I can swap out pretty darn quick having both my hands free to do so. But then again, this may work for someone else.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 13:16 UTC
On article TriLens triple lens holder coming to Kickstarter (165 comments in total)

The Spider Holster is brilliant. This? Tough sell. You would have to take the thing off to sit down or get through a tight space. I have to remove my camera from my spider holster when in a congested area. I assume you would have to do the same with this, but you also have a camera around your neck and then this thing in your hand?

Say you have a 70-200 f2.8 on that thing, then a couple primes like an 85mm f1.8 and 35mm f1.8, due to gravity, the 70-200 will be pointed down all the time, you need that one, you gotta get that think pointed up and steedy enough to get it off the thing than swap out the lens you have on the camera now.

Just seems cumbersome to me, but some may love it. To each his own. I know a lot of people won't even try a Spider Holster due to one reason or another and I truly do not understand those people whatsoever.

Good luck to them. Hope they don't turn out to be a Trigger Happy (anyone remember that train wreck on Kickstarter?).

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 13:11 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

bryPT: A lot of expensive gear is never going to make the plane now. A few years ago, I had a friend that decided to check in his camera bag in that was holding over $20k in equipment when flying back to the states from Africa. He arrived in the states but the gear didn't.

I had a TSA agent look through my camera bag once and said "I need to check to see if this is an actual camera. Put that big lens on it and let me see it." HUH? Okay. I put my 100-400 on it and he pointed it around and fired off about 20 shots. "Wow, fast. Yep, it is a camera. You are good." I put it back in the bag and went on my way. In my hotel room that night, I was cleaning lenses and checking the bodies and pulled up the photos I had on the card. Scrolling through shots of Arizona... Mountains... Rock formations... Biltmore Hotel ... women's rear end walking through the terminal... WHAT??? The TSA Agent must have known what he was doing because there was about 20 perfectly framed photos of a woman's rear end!!! DAMN HIM!!! It was a good laugh but my wife wouldn't have laughed. :)

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 17:44 UTC

A lot of expensive gear is never going to make the plane now. A few years ago, I had a friend that decided to check in his camera bag in that was holding over $20k in equipment when flying back to the states from Africa. He arrived in the states but the gear didn't.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 17:44 UTC as 20th comment | 3 replies

Excellent article! That must have been a pretty awesome tour to take.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 18:43 UTC as 60th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (394 comments in total)

Pentax ME Super. Was 11 years old when I bought it with paper route money.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 12:57 UTC as 259th comment
On article Leica SL Review (1094 comments in total)
In reply to:

bryPT: Does this camera deserve an 84 score? If this thing cannot capture a clear image of a dog moving with an f1.4 lens, is uncomfortable to hold, not balanced with the lenses that fit it and "lags behind the competition" on a few focusing items, shouldn't it get a lower score? Then, you add in the absolutely ridiculous price to an camera that has the above list of deficiencies, and it comes in with an 84 score? Looking at comparable reviews of pros and cons, I am thinking this thing should have checked in at a 78 or so. I would put the value slider pegged to the left if I am paying $7000 for the body alone and cannot get a dog photo. And then the focus and metering slider is 3 clicks from the right even though it lags in that performance category?

I normally look to honesty in my Reviews at DPReview, but this one seems a bit off.

I will never touch one, so I will give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt here, but it just seems like there is something off with this review.

All you have proven is with superior glass, this body still struggles in low light moving dog photos. The better glass cannot help it's deficiencies in focus.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 16:13 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (1094 comments in total)

Does this camera deserve an 84 score? If this thing cannot capture a clear image of a dog moving with an f1.4 lens, is uncomfortable to hold, not balanced with the lenses that fit it and "lags behind the competition" on a few focusing items, shouldn't it get a lower score? Then, you add in the absolutely ridiculous price to an camera that has the above list of deficiencies, and it comes in with an 84 score? Looking at comparable reviews of pros and cons, I am thinking this thing should have checked in at a 78 or so. I would put the value slider pegged to the left if I am paying $7000 for the body alone and cannot get a dog photo. And then the focus and metering slider is 3 clicks from the right even though it lags in that performance category?

I normally look to honesty in my Reviews at DPReview, but this one seems a bit off.

I will never touch one, so I will give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt here, but it just seems like there is something off with this review.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 13:33 UTC as 57th comment | 14 replies
On article Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III real-world sample gallery (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Franiec: I believe that this lens is one of the greatest optics ever created by any of manufacturers.
Since printed media are in the decline, this lens appeals less and less to the mainstream (smartphone and tablet users) and the trend will continue.
Use of such lens is shrinking by the minute because people want to share their pictures instantly on the smartphone and tablet screens. It is hard to discern the difference at these sizes.
Add $2200.00 to the mix and you'll have the picture of a struggle that typical wedding photographers have to meet to stay in business.
That is why gear like that is less and less appealing. Even for the people who make a living using such lens.

FYI Richard and William, I can connect the 70d (and other Canon wireless ready DSLRs) wirelessly to an iPhone through the Canon App. So, within seconds of taking a photo, it is on your phone to be uploaded to any social site. I do it to update my site (whenever I get around to updating my site). Pretty impressive stuff, and you will get those likes faster than those iPhone snaps!

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 18:02 UTC

WOW. That is some awesome photography right there.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 18:00 UTC as 10th comment
Total: 52, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »