This may be presumptuous, but have you tried some RSS readers? I used to keep track of sites with lots of tabs, but that shrunk down a lot when an RSS reader can keep you updated on numerous sites within just one tab, or a separate program.
I have them, but usually its just a links within links within links which lead to me researching different topics kind of thing.
My iPhone 4 Safari rarely crashes. In fact, it's more reliable than IE9 on my office computer.
my ipads safari crashes routinely, usualy once every few days. More often than ie8 on my office pc. My iphone has more issues with mail for some reason.
So far, I have seen no mention that 1GB of RAM will consume more power than 512K of RAM. This type of storage is volatile, thus it must always consume power while the iPhone is in use. It could be that Apple has made a tradeoff here to maintain battery life.
So far, I have seen no mention that 1GB of RAM will consume more power than 512K of RAM. This type of storage is volatile, thus it must always consume power while the iPhone is in use. It could be that Apple has made a tradeoff here to maintain battery life.
LP-DDR2 draws so little power I doubt it would make a difference of even minutes in total battery life.
That's a very good point. Won't that just burst some people's veins?
Well, you'll remember a while back AppleInsider was reporting that the so-called "retina display" iPad would be called "iPad 2 Plus" or something like that. It was also supposed to out this year, but that rumor proved false. It's likely that Apple doesn't choose the name until the last minute...all of this early talk is speculation.
my ipads safari crashes routinely, usualy once every few days. More often than ie8 on my office pc. My iphone has more issues with mail for some reason.
My first Mac came with 2 MB of RAM. I upgrade it to 17 MB, though.
Yeah, me too. I had a Mac IIsi, 1MB soldered onto the motherboard plus four 256KB sticks. I eventually swapped them out for 4MB sticks. Man, I was stylin'.
But that wasn't my first computer. I had an Apple II+, 48KB on the motherboard, I believe there was an extra 16KB on the disk controller card.
Today, 90% of my personal computing is done on an iPad 2 and I haven't bothered to upgrade the RAM in my year-old Mac mini.
Why don't they use some of the media storage as RAM? Then it would have 16.5, 32.5 or 64.5 GB or RAM? Which would be more than most Macs!
Basically, it goes back to how processors and memory are traditionally designed for computers. The processor has a small amount of registers that it can access near instantly and is the only section of storage it can access directly. Everything else has to be loaded into a register first, then the processor can actually do something with it. Then it has a larger amount of cache that it can't access as quickly as the registers, but there is more space. Then there's RAM that is more than the cache, but again, its even slower to access. All of these are volatile, meaning that they can't actually store the data permanently unless its powered.
Then there's the hard drive or solid state drive, which is massive compared to the RAM, and permanent, but even slower, due to the size of the storage area as well as because its not volatile it takes longer to read and write to.
Note these aren't exact numbers you can get the idea: a processor could have 32 registers which it can access within one processor cycle of requesting it. Stuff in the cache might take 10 times as many cycles to get to the processor. RAM might take 10 times more cycles than that to actually get to the processor. The permanent storage, the hard disk or SSD, could take hundreds or thousands of times more processor cycles to actually get to the processor. Part of the reason it takes longer is since there is more to search through, even with indexing the memory, it will take longer to find the bit(s) you want to process each time. Also, because it is permanent, it takes longer to actually store and read the information just due to the nature of the storage.
Anything stored below the permanent storage level in the hierarchy is lost as soon as you lose power so you can't store anything permanently in there unless you intend to permanently power the device which isn't realistic or practical 100% of the time. How would you like to have to restore everything, including the OS every time you reboot? So we can't make everything work like RAM and cache. Its also much more expensive.
Making everything permanent like the SSD would kill performance to have to search and find every thing each time, plus the additional read/write time and most of the processor's cycles would go unused, so that is unrealistic. It would be like using only 1/10,000 of the processor. So instead we use a hybrid, layered model to keep the stuff we need most frequently in the cache and the RAM. Stuff we need more often we store in a lower level of cache at least temporarily, so we can get to it faster, which is also why adding more RAM to the computer usually speeds up the computer a lot, because it can keep more closer and utilize everything more efficiently.
Again if the specs are the same as iPad 2 why no Siri for iPad 2? Anyone?
1) The specs aren't the same.
2) Don't think that both having a general classification of A5 on the chip means the A5's are the same. Note the iPad's 'A4' chip came with 256MB RAM whilst the iPhone 4's A4 came with 512MB RAM. Also note during last week's event they mentioned the A5 having an ISP for the iPhone 4S's camera.
Again if the specs are the same as iPad 2 why no Siri for iPad 2? Anyone?
I'd imagine it's less to do with the specs, as it is a beta program still and the practicality of using it on an iPad vs an iPhone, in addition to the marketing of a new toy. Most people who will use it are going to be people on the go, or in the car, that can't go searching through their phone for the info manually at that second. Most people using the iPad, at that moment, don't have that limitation. You see more people with their hands full trying to use their phone than trying to use their tablet at the same time. They wait until they can pay more attention to a tablet usually before using it.
Granted, I'm sure there are exception cases, but it will get far more real-life use on an iPhone than an iPad. And assuming the beta stuff with the iPhone goes well, there's nothing stopping them from opening it up later on the iPad 2 (or even older iPhones and iPads) with just a switch in the OS and an update. Get it right first under optimal conditions...the optimize it and spread it around.
Note that Siri isn't just kept from other iDevices, it's also only for 3 languages and only 3 dialects of English. I'm not even sure it'll work in most other countries even if you are using the approved languages. They do list it as Beta which is very unusual for a shipping product, especially one that is a key and landmark feature of the event.
iMessage isn't in Beta and yet they've deemed that only for iOS and not for Macs where this service would nicely tie up all my IM conversations. I can't imagine that it's just marketing that keeping Apple from adding this app to Macs.
I'd imagine it's less to do with the specs, as it is a beta program still and the practicality of using it on an iPad vs an iPhone, in addition to the marketing of a new toy. Most people who will use it are going to be people on the go, or in the car, that can't go searching through their phone for the info manually at that second. Most people using the iPad, at that moment, don't have that limitation. You see more people with their hands full trying to use their phone than trying to use their tablet at the same time. They wait until they can pay more attention to a tablet usually before using it.
Granted, I'm sure there are exception cases, but it will get far more real-life use on an iPhone than an iPad. And assuming the beta stuff with the iPhone goes well, there's nothing stopping them from opening it up later on the iPad 2 (or even older iPhones and iPads) with just a switch in the OS and an update. Get it right first under optimal conditions...the optimize it and spread it around.
I can make a lot of cases for Siri being on the iPad but to keep it simple I'll just refer to Siri ad where the blind person (is visually challenged the PC term here?) is using it. That would he great on an iPad.
I can make a lot of cases for Siri being on the iPad but to keep it simple I'll just refer to Siri ad where the blind person (is visually challenged the PC term here?) is using it. That would he great on an iPad.
As I said, I'm sure there are plenty of cases where it could be useful on an iPad. I'm sure a big part of the reasoning is marketing for their new iPhone. But limiting it first, and working out the kinks on just the iPhone where it'll be more likely to used, also gives them a huge feature point for announcing iOS 6 when it comes out next year and they can say they're opening up for the iPad 2 and whatever else they can.
In fact, it is. The A5 is a POP (package on package) part, which has the CPU and the RAM on the same chip. This doesn't mean Apple could not have made a version that has more RAM though, but clearly it's a lot more cost effective to have only a single variation of the A5 chip you can use in multiple devices.
I've never had that happen with the iPhone, expect for a couple early revision of iPhone oS 2.x, and with the original iPad.
Then I must be doing something wrong because this happens to me all the time. It's basically my biggest complaint about iOS at this point, which is why I would've welcomed a RAM increase...
Comments
This may be presumptuous, but have you tried some RSS readers? I used to keep track of sites with lots of tabs, but that shrunk down a lot when an RSS reader can keep you updated on numerous sites within just one tab, or a separate program.
I have them, but usually its just a links within links within links which lead to me researching different topics kind of thing.
Goddamn, man, lay off the porn
My iPhone 4 Safari rarely crashes. In fact, it's more reliable than IE9 on my office computer.
my ipads safari crashes routinely, usualy once every few days. More often than ie8 on my office pc. My iphone has more issues with mail for some reason.
So far, I have seen no mention that 1GB of RAM will consume more power than 512K of RAM. This type of storage is volatile, thus it must always consume power while the iPhone is in use. It could be that Apple has made a tradeoff here to maintain battery life.
LP-DDR2 draws so little power I doubt it would make a difference of even minutes in total battery life.
That's a very good point. Won't that just burst some people's veins?
Well, you'll remember a while back AppleInsider was reporting that the so-called "retina display" iPad would be called "iPad 2 Plus" or something like that. It was also supposed to out this year, but that rumor proved false. It's likely that Apple doesn't choose the name until the last minute...all of this early talk is speculation.
my ipads safari crashes routinely, usualy once every few days. More often than ie8 on my office pc. My iphone has more issues with mail for some reason.
You forgot to say, "I'm an Apple fan, but..."
My first PowerBook didn't even have 512mb of ram, and I did a hell of a lot more on it than I do on my phone today.
My first Mac came with 2 MB of RAM. I upgrade it to 17 MB, though.
My first Mac came with 2 MB of RAM. I upgrade it to 17 MB, though.
Yeah, me too. I had a Mac IIsi, 1MB soldered onto the motherboard plus four 256KB sticks. I eventually swapped them out for 4MB sticks. Man, I was stylin'.
But that wasn't my first computer. I had an Apple II+, 48KB on the motherboard, I believe there was an extra 16KB on the disk controller card.
Today, 90% of my personal computing is done on an iPad 2 and I haven't bothered to upgrade the RAM in my year-old Mac mini.
Are we 100% sure it only has 512K RAM?
Why don't they use some of the media storage as RAM? Then it would have 16.5, 32.5 or 64.5 GB or RAM? Which would be more than most Macs!
Basically, it goes back to how processors and memory are traditionally designed for computers. The processor has a small amount of registers that it can access near instantly and is the only section of storage it can access directly. Everything else has to be loaded into a register first, then the processor can actually do something with it. Then it has a larger amount of cache that it can't access as quickly as the registers, but there is more space. Then there's RAM that is more than the cache, but again, its even slower to access. All of these are volatile, meaning that they can't actually store the data permanently unless its powered.
Then there's the hard drive or solid state drive, which is massive compared to the RAM, and permanent, but even slower, due to the size of the storage area as well as because its not volatile it takes longer to read and write to.
Note these aren't exact numbers you can get the idea: a processor could have 32 registers which it can access within one processor cycle of requesting it. Stuff in the cache might take 10 times as many cycles to get to the processor. RAM might take 10 times more cycles than that to actually get to the processor. The permanent storage, the hard disk or SSD, could take hundreds or thousands of times more processor cycles to actually get to the processor. Part of the reason it takes longer is since there is more to search through, even with indexing the memory, it will take longer to find the bit(s) you want to process each time. Also, because it is permanent, it takes longer to actually store and read the information just due to the nature of the storage.
Anything stored below the permanent storage level in the hierarchy is lost as soon as you lose power so you can't store anything permanently in there unless you intend to permanently power the device which isn't realistic or practical 100% of the time. How would you like to have to restore everything, including the OS every time you reboot? So we can't make everything work like RAM and cache. Its also much more expensive.
Making everything permanent like the SSD would kill performance to have to search and find every thing each time, plus the additional read/write time and most of the processor's cycles would go unused, so that is unrealistic. It would be like using only 1/10,000 of the processor. So instead we use a hybrid, layered model to keep the stuff we need most frequently in the cache and the RAM. Stuff we need more often we store in a lower level of cache at least temporarily, so we can get to it faster, which is also why adding more RAM to the computer usually speeds up the computer a lot, because it can keep more closer and utilize everything more efficiently.
Again if the specs are the same as iPad 2 why no Siri for iPad 2? Anyone?
1) The specs aren't the same.
2) Don't think that both having a general classification of A5 on the chip means the A5's are the same. Note the iPad's 'A4' chip came with 256MB RAM whilst the iPhone 4's A4 came with 512MB RAM. Also note during last week's event they mentioned the A5 having an ISP for the iPhone 4S's camera.
Again if the specs are the same as iPad 2 why no Siri for iPad 2? Anyone?
Marketing?
Again if the specs are the same as iPad 2 why no Siri for iPad 2? Anyone?
I'd imagine it's less to do with the specs, as it is a beta program still and the practicality of using it on an iPad vs an iPhone, in addition to the marketing of a new toy. Most people who will use it are going to be people on the go, or in the car, that can't go searching through their phone for the info manually at that second. Most people using the iPad, at that moment, don't have that limitation. You see more people with their hands full trying to use their phone than trying to use their tablet at the same time. They wait until they can pay more attention to a tablet usually before using it.
Granted, I'm sure there are exception cases, but it will get far more real-life use on an iPhone than an iPad. And assuming the beta stuff with the iPhone goes well, there's nothing stopping them from opening it up later on the iPad 2 (or even older iPhones and iPads) with just a switch in the OS and an update. Get it right first under optimal conditions...the optimize it and spread it around.
Marketing?
Note that Siri isn't just kept from other iDevices, it's also only for 3 languages and only 3 dialects of English. I'm not even sure it'll work in most other countries even if you are using the approved languages. They do list it as Beta which is very unusual for a shipping product, especially one that is a key and landmark feature of the event.
iMessage isn't in Beta and yet they've deemed that only for iOS and not for Macs where this service would nicely tie up all my IM conversations. I can't imagine that it's just marketing that keeping Apple from adding this app to Macs.
I'd imagine it's less to do with the specs, as it is a beta program still and the practicality of using it on an iPad vs an iPhone, in addition to the marketing of a new toy. Most people who will use it are going to be people on the go, or in the car, that can't go searching through their phone for the info manually at that second. Most people using the iPad, at that moment, don't have that limitation. You see more people with their hands full trying to use their phone than trying to use their tablet at the same time. They wait until they can pay more attention to a tablet usually before using it.
Granted, I'm sure there are exception cases, but it will get far more real-life use on an iPhone than an iPad. And assuming the beta stuff with the iPhone goes well, there's nothing stopping them from opening it up later on the iPad 2 (or even older iPhones and iPads) with just a switch in the OS and an update. Get it right first under optimal conditions...the optimize it and spread it around.
I can make a lot of cases for Siri being on the iPad but to keep it simple I'll just refer to Siri ad where the blind person (is visually challenged the PC term here?) is using it. That would he great on an iPad.
I can make a lot of cases for Siri being on the iPad but to keep it simple I'll just refer to Siri ad where the blind person (is visually challenged the PC term here?) is using it. That would he great on an iPad.
As I said, I'm sure there are plenty of cases where it could be useful on an iPad. I'm sure a big part of the reasoning is marketing for their new iPhone. But limiting it first, and working out the kinks on just the iPhone where it'll be more likely to used, also gives them a huge feature point for announcing iOS 6 when it comes out next year and they can say they're opening up for the iPad 2 and whatever else they can.
The RAM is NOT built into the CPU chip.
In fact, it is. The A5 is a POP (package on package) part, which has the CPU and the RAM on the same chip. This doesn't mean Apple could not have made a version that has more RAM though, but clearly it's a lot more cost effective to have only a single variation of the A5 chip you can use in multiple devices.
I've never had that happen with the iPhone, expect for a couple early revision of iPhone oS 2.x, and with the original iPad.
Then I must be doing something wrong because this happens to me all the time. It's basically my biggest complaint about iOS at this point, which is why I would've welcomed a RAM increase...