AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's iPad A4 processor X-rayed to reveal three-layer design
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iPad A4 processor X-rayed to reveal three-layer design - Page 3

post #81 of 98
4/7/10 at 12:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

256 should be fine for simpler usage. It's when a number of programs are running together that more memory becomes necessary. 256 may be enough for full use of multitasking programs, but it's a tight squeeze.

Not necessarily because if done right you can have lots of apps open at one time without much performance hit by having every other app run in a low power mode giving full resources to the open.

Or you can have efficient shared libraries like what the Amiga had where one app opens a library in memory and every app that requires that library just uses the one that's opened instead of opening another instance of that library. I well remember 16 apps running at the same time with only 1MB RAM and I'm talking spreadsheet, word processor, paint program, games, internet dialer, web browser, e-mail.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 98
4/7/10 at 12:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Ars posted its looong review of the device.

One thing they noted for the purpose of gaming, which, so far they found to be great is this:

Yeah because it's been really really bad for gaming on the iPhone 3GS because of this limitation.

No it hasn't because each game has been specifically programmed for this device meaning they're programmed for the limitations of the device and yet it's out performing a PSP and DS Lite.

I've given up on Ars lately they seem to be so hit and miss with the dribble they release.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 98
4/7/10 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

if you are going to run background apps with the suspected v4.0 then 256MB simply won't cut it with the amount of extra video RAM needed using typical backgrounding resources.

And the source of your information is.....?

It's amazing how people will make blanket statements about things they have absolutely no way of knowing.

There is, of course, the argument that multitasking will use more RAM than single-tasking (which is one of the reasons I don't think MT has a place on the iPHone or iPad), but how do you know it won't cut it? Have you used the release version of iPhone OS 4.0 with multitasking enabled? If so, can I borrow your time machine?
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 98
4/7/10 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And the source of your information is.....?

It's amazing how people will make blanket statements about things they have absolutely no way of knowing.

There is, of course, the argument that multitasking will use more RAM than single-tasking (which is one of the reasons I don't think MT has a place on the iPHone or iPad), but how do you know it won't cut it? Have you used the release version of iPhone OS 4.0 with multitasking enabled? If so, can I borrow your time machine?

You mean besides the numerous tests I ran to measure RAM usage and the iFixit claims that there is only 2Gb RAM on the chip? How much more evidence do you need? Do I really need proof that the 1024x768 display uses more video RAM than a 480x320 display? Why is that only a handful of posters around here can actually do any research?

If you think I'm incorrect why don't you post evidence to the contrary.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #85 of 98
4/7/10 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

He didn't ask you to show him that, "512 costs more than 256."

He questioned your claim that the extra costs to double the amount of RAM from 256 to 512 was the reason why Apple used the lower amount. And asked you to show the reports that proved it.

He split the question.

Quote:
but could you point out where it stated that it costs a bit more and is likely why Apple is as you contended.

Two parts. The answer to the first part is obvious, and, as I stated, the other was my own opinion.

And as I said that I thought that might be the reason. I don't have to give a reference for my reason.

He's acting very defensive about any questions about anything that even smells negative about the iPad. I don't have to allow him to pull me into that.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 98
4/7/10 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The proof is in the pudding. By all reports, the iPad is very, very fast in its present form, so I'm not worried about it.

Of course, I fully expect that next year, iPad v 2.0 will have a faster processor and probably more RAM. No big deal - I'll buy one and give the v 1.0 to my daughter.

Of course, if someone wants to wait for a 512 MB version, they're free to do that, although I've never understood that logic. When the 512 MB version comes out, why don't you wait for the 1 GB version. Then, you should probably wait for the 2 GB version -- and so on. My view is simple - if it meets my needs and budget today, I'll buy it, regardless of whether a newer version will come out some day. The only exception would be something where there's clearly an upgrade just around the corner (MacBook Pro, for example).

We're waiting for the 3G version, and will buy it shortly after it comes out. The only one who has been recommending that people wait for next years model here, as far as I've seen, is Vinea.

Perhaps you should be more careful of what you read into people's posts.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 98
4/7/10 at 2:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post

Not necessarily because if done right you can have lots of apps open at one time without much performance hit by having every other app run in a low power mode giving full resources to the open.

Or you can have efficient shared libraries like what the Amiga had where one app opens a library in memory and every app that requires that library just uses the one that's opened instead of opening another instance of that library. I well remember 16 apps running at the same time with only 1MB RAM and I'm talking spreadsheet, word processor, paint program, games, internet dialer, web browser, e-mail.

We don't really know. But it seems that people who are familiar with this situation are talking about the memory. From my own past experience in programming, I can say that RAM numbers are important. Are you posting from any knowledge you have here, or is it just guessing on your part?

These OS's don't use virtual memory, so what needs to be in RAM, NEEDS to be in RAM. I did speculate that if Apple has now implemented a virtual memory scheme for 4.0, it would alleviate the problem.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 98
4/7/10 at 2:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post

Yeah because it's been really really bad for gaming on the iPhone 3GS because of this limitation.

No it hasn't because each game has been specifically programmed for this device meaning they're programmed for the limitations of the device and yet it's out performing a PSP and DS Lite.

I've given up on Ars lately they seem to be so hit and miss with the dribble they release.

You can give up on them. But that just shows that you don't understand what they're writing. The people who author these articles have degrees in computer science, and are pretty good at what they do. Jon, for example stated that he believed the A4 was a Cortex A8, and he was correct, despite that some here argued that he didn't know what he was talking about, and that they apparently did.

I may not agree with all the specifics in Ars articles, but they'r usually pretty accurate. And since several games programmers have said the same thing, It's likely to be true.

The amount of RAM in smartphones has been an issue for some time; the iPad is no different.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 98
4/7/10 at 2:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And the source of your information is.....?

It's amazing how people will make blanket statements about things they have absolutely no way of knowing.

There is, of course, the argument that multitasking will use more RAM than single-tasking (which is one of the reasons I don't think MT has a place on the iPHone or iPad), but how do you know it won't cut it? Have you used the release version of iPhone OS 4.0 with multitasking enabled? If so, can I borrow your time machine?

It's not that it won't cut it, as though we're talking about a wall that must be climbed. It's that it makes it more difficult to have the kind of unlimited multitasking that so many on this site have been demanding the past 20 months.

We're talking about degree, not about absolutes here.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 98
4/7/10 at 2:35pm
Gruber posts review of iPad. The part under the Safari heading shows that mobileSafari is refreshing with multiple pages open when you switch between them. This is also something I and other have noticed on the iPad, on the first two iPhones, but not on the 3GS. The reason is simple: RAM. This resolution is more complex; more RAM is needed or better optimization of mobileSafari.

•

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/the_ipad
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #91 of 98
4/7/10 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

He split the question.



Two parts. The answer to the first part is obvious, and, as I stated, the other was my own opinion.

And as I said that I thought that might be the reason. I don't have to give a reference for my reason.

He's acting very defensive about any questions about anything that even smells negative about the iPad. I don't have to allow him to pull me into that.

Like hell I did.

Look at my original post, i.e., #53.

I was very specific when I asked you to show the reports that the reason why Apple was sticking to 256 right not because it costs a bit more.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 98
4/7/10 at 3:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Like hell I did.

Look at my original post, i.e., #53.

I was very specific when I asked you to show the reports that the reason why Apple was sticking to 256 right not because it costs a bit more.

I quoted you directly. And, for the third time, I'll state that I said that I thought cost might be a reason why Apple stuck with 256.

You have a problem reading that for some reason.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 98
4/7/10 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I quoted you directly. And, for the third time, I'll state that I said that I thought cost might be a reason why Apple stuck with 256.

You have a problem reading that for some reason.

I did not question your 'thought'.

I questioned the reports that you claimed supported your thought.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 98
4/7/10 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

I did not question your 'thought'.

I questioned the reports that you claimed supported your thought.

I never said that the reports supported my thought that the reason was price.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 98
4/7/10 at 4:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I never said that the reports supported my thought that the reason was price.

Really?

How else would you interpret:
"It just costs a bit more, and is likely why Apple is sticking to 256 right now, assuming the reports are correct."
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 98
4/7/10 at 4:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Really?

How else would you interpret:
"It just costs a bit more, and is likely why Apple is sticking to 256 right now, assuming the reports are correct."

The "assuming the reports are correct" referred to whether the memory was 256, or the 512 as had been earlier reported, not that Apple was sticking to 356 because of cost.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 98
4/8/10 at 5:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The "assuming the reports are correct" referred to whether the memory was 256, or the 512 as had been earlier reported, not that Apple was sticking to 356 because of cost.

Grammatically, that's a huge stretch. If you're taking that position, I guess the implication is that your understanding of English is extraordinarily weak.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 98
4/8/10 at 8:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Grammatically, that's a huge stretch. If you're taking that position, I guess the implication is that your understanding of English is extraordinarily weak.

Think what you like, but that was what I said, and what I meant. It was pretty obvious.

I see the iPad fanboys are out in force.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's iPad A4 processor X-rayed to reveal three-layer design