or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by wizard69

This is good news for Apple developers. What would be even better would be a commitment to standardize the language. I'm not talking open source though that would be nice, but rather a formal standard from which others could build their own versions of Swift. Of course if they are looking at two or more years before the language stabilizes that may be an issue. Even so a commitment to a standard now might get more people on board. As to feeds and such, id rather...
As far as I can see they didn't reveal anything to the professor. I suspect people are reading more into what the professor is saying here than was actually said. Being approached by someone doesn't mean you have had a extensive conversation with them.
Without more info that is an awfully strong statement to make! Before somebody like that would even consider signing up (agreeing to a NDA) he would have to have a conversation that is deep enough to allow a decision to be made. Like I said not everybody rolls over just because Apple comes knocking at the door.
Clock speed has nothing to do with big.LITTLE. For Apple it there are two considerations. The high priority one being power usage. The second is can the process node run their logic relaibly at those speeds.All companies make mistakes and frankly big.LITTLE is perhaps a huge one on ARMs part. In any event Apples choice of clock speeds has nothing to do with big.LITTLE.Apple has so many other ways to go about saving power that I don't see any reason at all for them...
Nearly linear performance increases are rare in software. However a very large portion of the software base out there can benefit from more than 2 cores. I guess if Apple want to compromise they could offer a processor with three cores. However it makes more sense to split the line with two core chips going into the iPhones and four core chips going else where.It is surprisingly easy to keep all of those cores running for short periods of time, much much harder to...
Sorry Andy but this is baloney! IOS uses the same techniques as Mac OS to support multiple processors, any app that can benefit from cores on a Mac can likewise benefit from cores on an iOS device. I wouldn't be surprised to find iPhine sticking to dual core as power usage is paramount there, but on other platforms cores would be a huge benefit. More cores would enhance existing apps and allow new classes of apps to be delivered to iPads.This I agree with 100%. ...
That is a very good possibility. People need to realize that the app market for iPad is exploding, the only thing that holds the app world back is RAM and CPU performance.
I look at it this way it is all about power, power as in watts. Considering Apple has a ways to go yet just to keep A7 core feed there is much that can be improved performance wise with the dual core chip. This is why I see a dual core for the iPhone as a real possibility. They have to find a balance between thermal power and computational power.That would be great for iPhone, maybe not so great for iPad, an enhanced AppleTV or other devices Apple has coming.Enough...
A performance enhanced A8 would be good enough for iPhone, however it won't do for iPad and some other things Apple could be working on. This is why I've stated before that I could see "X" variants again of Apples processors. With the X variants targeting higher performance machines, it would be easy for Apple to deliver a highly optimized cell phone chip.Beyond that I've heard solid rumors that Apples goals this go around have been improved power efficiency. People...
They could have contacted him about an NDA and he could have said no. Not everybody rolls over when Apple comes knocking.
New Posts  All Forums: