Yup, checked in on it, you are dead on.
Yup, checked in on it, you are dead on.
The cables have an ID chip in them that will specify their rating as to amps and voltage, plus a few other things. If you read my USB-PD story linked above, you will get the details. In short both ends start at the USB base and negotiate up their capabilities for voltage and amperage for send, receive, or both. They will do this within the bounds of the cable connecting them, and while both sides have limited capabilities to sense the cable properties, they really depend on the USB-PD ID chip.
This ID chip is of course counterfeit-proof, something we know that low end manufacturers are not capable of cloning or getting around in, oh, say, 12 seconds. So in short DO NOT BUY CHEAP/NO-NAME USB-PD CABLES FROM EVEN A POSSIBLY QUESTIONABLE SOURCE. Amazon, I am looking at you. Really. 100W = big fire quickly.
Basically yes, but not necessarily operating the phone circuit at optimal efficiency. I think it is engineered to charge the battery as quickly as possible while minimizing damage/degradation to the cells. The charger circuitry efficiency is a big concern too, but secondary to preserving the cell life. That said this problem is optimization on a dozen axis or more, not just A vs B.
The GN7 used QC2 from what I understand, likely because of their decision to split the GS7's SoC between QC and Samsung parts. I know that the phone version used QC2 because of lowest common denominator support and I am fairly sure that carried over to the Note.
That said the problem with the GN7's fires was not a battery defect but a manufacturing/assembly problem where the batteries were physically damaged and 'crimped' to the point where they internally shorted. I should be talking to someone today who probably knows if the QC-like tech has the ability to detect and stop this. I doubt it, but I am going to ask anyway.
Yes. First see what the guy below said (currently ranked 0 but worth a read), and then there is the responsiveness. USB-PD doesn't have the granularity and speed to deliver power in a way that won't hurt the battery. It can't shift quickly enough of finely enough to avoid hurting the battery. Could you do the same with USB-PD? Eventually yes, but it is really designed for charging laptops and powering big monitors, not for careful charging of mobile devices.
As was said below, you effectively have to dissipate the pressure of the firehose from USB-PD, QC3 and possibly others allow you to modify the inputs to your requirements from the source. This allows you to both match your input requirements precisely and to avoid generating heat at the source (charger) rather than on the device itself. Heat is REALLY bad for battery life, that alone makes schemes like QC3 worth it.
Think about who makes these phones. I have been in meetings where the OEM/ODM on the other side of the table looked at me and said, "that would add $.14/1000 units, totally out of the question". Don't hold your breath.
Both are fine but they don't actually address what QC3 does, they just deliver more juice. QC3 will change voltage in 200mV increments on the fly, allow 2 chargers for lower temps and better heat distribution, and actively monitor the battery for conditions which degrade life. There is a lot more to it, but pushing more wattage through USB-PD is REALLY BAD FOR BATTERY LIFE. I wrote up some pretty in-depth articles on both USB-PD and QC3 lined below if you care.
This is the long way of saying what Google is asking for is idiotic. If you look at the size of modern batteries and the rate at which USB-C can deliver power, we are bordering on all-night charges already. If you up the delivered power via PD, you will not meet the 500 charge minimum life carriers demand thus not sell any phones. Worse yet that number is about to go to 800 really soon if it is not already there. Plus you will have people pissed off that their phone is drawing more current than the charger is supplying while plugged in and being used.
In short I question Google's sanity on this one. I am asking around to see what the official take on this is from involved parties, but I suspect the original article's take is way off base. I won't say why yet, I like to know before I mouth off publicly.
Dell has some pretty spiffy laptops with Linux pre-installed, up to date ans supported drivers and the rest. They also sell Steamboxes.
You should check again and filter by SteamOS/Linux. Then sort by cost, you will see a fair number of triple A games there. Sure a lot are missing but my last check had over 1000 games available. If you don't NEED game-of-the-moment-X, there is plenty there to keep you happy for years.
Given their attitude, horrific user 'support', painful and extortionist pricing, repeatedly screwing over of entire platforms, and other customer indignities, I am Beyond caring about them. The world has moved on, no one cares about this dying platform any more.
While I was slightly interested in new updates, the fact that they removed the two features that would be useful to me on the builds I need shattered that faint hope. I should have known better than to expect functionality much less quality from Adobe. All this seems to be is that someone figured out it was less work, and therefore cheaper, to keep up with Linux builds than to update a years old code base that no one remembers how to patch. It isn't largesse, it is CYA on security
I would say I told you so, but when they announced a pullback on platforms ~4-5 years ago I did tell them so. All my friends there laughed and said I didn't have a clue. Within six months they had all quit. Within 2 years, Flash was walking dead, everyone with a stake in the market had solidified the alternatives and it was just a matter of time. Now they are trying to spin cost savings as a step in the right direction. The corpse is rotting but still managing to do PR, let it die the lonely death it deservers. Nothing to see here, move along.
Step 6 feet under.
I feel silly for asking this because I assume the answer is none, but does it support any OSes other than Windows? The 'deeply integrated' comments pretty much assure it doesn't, but I need to ask. I do recall when Skype was a useful tool worth paying for regardless of OS used but those days are long gone. SIGH.
You might want to think about what you just said, or read the blurb of an article you are commenting on. It specifically states "Major Linux distributions" which are not what tend to support ancient, embedded, long life, or related non-consumer/non-traditional server workloads. In short there are tons, hundreds likely of distros that will cater to 32-bit and even 8/16-bit hardware because that is all that is needed for the job they do.
Go look at Linaro's work, it isn't technically a distro but is supports some pretty 'craptacular' hardware, at least by modern user perspectives. How long do you think your router can live with 'only' 32b SoCs? Do you think DDWRT will get a massive boost from 64b code? How about your dishwasher? There are distros that cater to all those markets and they are not moving to 64-bit only.
In short nothing will change for 99.(big number) of users, those that need 8/16/32b code will still have distros to do it. Anyone wanting to run those distros as a modern desktop or server, well, enjoy it but I am not a masochist so I won't be joining you. For every one else, carry on, you won't notice anything but better wares and cheaper devices.
When the RIAA started their jihad against technology and user rights, I said I would stop funding the industry until it settled. It settled, users lost, and I choose not to fund an industry that actively attacks my rights. I have enough CDs and if I buy any more, usually local or indy artists, I make sure they are not part of the MAFIAA. If they are, they don't get my money and I don't get their music but I also don't fund the evil ones.
So far it hasn't killed me, you can choose not to consume the shit that hurts you.
Wouldn't it just be easier to ban Windows users from Bing? Solves several problems at once.
Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it.