or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Blastdoor

A bigger battery, a faster CPU, and more flash would benefit everybody too. But with every benefit comes a cost. Apple has to find the right mix of benefits and costs. There are no free lunches.  edit -- just to clarify, I'm not arguing whether adding more RAM to the iPhone 6 is the right thing to do or not. It might be, it might not be. I'm arguing that Apple is better positioned to make that decision than anyone here is.  I would also say that many companies are not able...
 There's a difference between saying that Apple is not making a product with the best mix of features *for you* and saying that Apple is not making a product with the best mix of features *for them* (which is closely related to making the best mix of features for the majority of customers). You're well positioned to assess what's best for you -- I'm sure you would benefit from more RAM. But Apple is substantially better positioned to assess what's best for them and/or the...
Does iOS use memory compression like Mavericks? If not, then perhaps the addition of that feature might allow Apple to stick with 1 GB of RAM for longer than they otherwise would have. 
I don't see how it's obvious that Apple was wrong to use 256 MB in the devices where that was used. The fact that Apple ultimately released devices with more RAM doesn't prove that Apple made the wrong choice in the devices that did have 256. The nature of the tradeoffs changes as technology improves. What doesn't make sense today in terms of any given spec -- RAM, clock speed, battery size -- might make sense in 2 years thanks to Moore's Law.  I doubt that anyone would...
Jesus El Christo... everytime somebody on the Asian continent says the word "iPhone 6", AI has to run a story about it. 
 Thanks -- interesting stuff!  Hopefully for HP's sake "The Machine" will be more like PA-RISC and less like Itanium. 
But was the problem HP's compilers not living up to expectations, or was it that Itanium was killed by lack of economy of scale? IIRC, Intel never fabbed Itanium on their latest process, new versions of Itanium were substantially delayed, and Itanium was incredibly expensive. Maybe all of those disadvantages were too much for a great compiler to overcome?  I really don't know the answer to that question. Maybe VLIW is a fatally flawed concept. I'm just not sure we've had a...
It sure sounds VLIW-ish to me, so it would appear that it's not dead yet. 
 My impression is that Denver is an evolution of VLIW -- that is, using the compiler to extract parallelism from the code and bundling those instructions together to be executed simultaneously. 
 Indeed... I would think that if VLIW were ever to succeed in the market, it would be in the context of a tightly integrated stack in which one company controls everything from the silicon up to software distribution. Yet Apple has not chosen to go VLIW, at least not yet. If Apple doesn't think it's a good idea, with their total control over compilers, language, OS, APIs, etc etc... it's a little hard to see how anyone else can make it work. 
New Posts  All Forums: