or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's A5 CPU in iPad 2 has 512MB of RAM, same as iPhone 4 - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's A5 CPU in iPad 2 has 512MB of RAM, same as iPhone 4 - report - Page 4

post #121 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

There are a lot of people arguing about how memory management works on iOS (and OS X, also, because they use the same technique), so I thought I would try and outline it as best as possible and my view as a iOS developer

As memory get used, it's divided into categories: Active Memory, memory currently being used by an application; Inactive Memory, memory not currently being used by an application and is therefore inactive, this memory is also paged to disk; Wired Memory, memory being used by iOS or other frameworks called by an app; Free Memory, memory not used by the application or iOS, virtually free of use.

When you launch an app, it gathers memory from either the free memory pool OR the inactive memory pool (which I'll describe in a little) and pulls it into the active memory pool for itself.
Whenever you leave a program (assuming that it does not have any multitasking-frameworks written in it) iOS automatically suspends it's active memory, shoving it into the inactive memory pool.
Inactive memory is the memory of other applications that have been previously opened then closed, or chunks of memory that an application is not actively using. This is why applications are faster to launch after you've previously opened them and Apple was easily able to add the "quickly resuming applications where you left off"-style multitasking to apps without requiring developers to rewrite anything; it was derived directly from OS X's memory management techniques. The difference between iOS and OS X, however, is that instead of paging inactive memory to disk whenever an app needs more than it currently has in it's own section of inactive memory and the available free memory, iOS just removes the oldest inactive memory (without saving it to disk), and gives what is needed to the requesting App and giving the rest back to the free memory pool.

To prevent this killing of apps too often, iOS uses a memory management technique (which is built into all apps, you're forced to use memory management instead of garbage collecting in iOS) for all of its apps. Basically, memory management works like this: App needs 10kb of memory, so it asks iOS for 10kb of memory, and iOS serves it 10kb of memory. When the App is done with the 10kb of memory, it HAS TO MANUALLY release the memory back to iOS, which then controls that memory. If this is done incorrectly, memory leaks spring, the app begins to DEVOUR memory, iOS is unhappy and kills the app. Because of this method, iOS apps rarely take up more than 50-75mb (Even for the iPad or OS X!). Don't get me wrong, there are intensive apps that take up more (like Safari), but that is very rare. Apple is strict about this in app creation.

That said, 512mb of memory is way more than enough, even for the iPad. While you'll notice a slight change in memory intensive applications such as Safari (which is very memory intensive because it decompresses Javascript, renders HTML, and caches images to memory) or iBooks (when rendering large PDF's and images), the biggest benefit will be multitasking, as more applications can be stored in the memory without having to remove them.
Currently, 256mb of memory is more than enough to run most any application (aside from running into problems with a few specific problems such as Safari with multiple tabs [which, Safari kills large and older tabs on its own when iOS tells it that it needs to reserve memory, often when loading other significantly large tabs]).
1gb of RAM would be a waste of resources and money in iOS land, for the time being.

I do not know the technology behind, but I never found the Macs I have used to be inadequate for my purpose, even when I used them for years, even when I have multiple applications (Pages, iPhoto, Numbers, Fetch, Editors, Previews, etc.), and several dozens of browser windows open (sometimes using Safari, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Netscape, Camino when I am checking layouts) with a gazillion of files open.

The first time I used an iPad, I thought it may not load my site because it lags a few seconds in my latest MacBookPro, but it loaded even much faster. Even with the smaller screen size (in portrait position), I was surprised how the resized whole page was "clear" and quite readable. There were so many things I found surprising for coming from the first generation iPad.

The other thing that I was amazed with are the "diskspace" sizes of the applications -- they seem to be much less space usage than what I would have expected.

One thing I am curious about, there used to be a function(?) called "Rebuild" I think in pre-OSX Macs. If memory serves me, it was supposed to deal with rebuilding more efficient storage of the contents of a file in the memory storage. This function is no longer in OSX?

CGC
post #122 of 264
.

Lottsa' good posts here... some not so good.


Some points about specs in general and RAM in particular.

This can be summed up quite eloquently:

RAM -- "Too much is never enough" (first heard describing N'Walins' cooking.

Specs in general -- "It's not the meat, it's the motion" (first heard in high school - lo, those many years ago)

IMO, individual specs are not as important as how easily they can be used, in concert, to accomplish what you want to do -- said with less vulgarity: it's not what you've got, rather how you [can] use it.

From my POV, RAM is important because it is, likely, the single spec that allows you to do things better and allows you to do things that aren't otherwise practical.

Consider: The reason those Photoshoppers and Video Editors and Logic users have 4 GB plus RAM -- is because they are dealing with large files in RAM. If they use less RAM, portions of the files are constantly being paged out and paged in to HDD. At some point, the paging uses so much resource that the app becomes impractical.

It is interesting that iMovie was made available on the iP4 but not the iPad 1. AFAICT, the only difference affecting iMovie is that iP4 has 512 MB RAM and iPad 1 has 256 MB RAM -- likely, 256 MB RAM is below the iMovie baseline requirement.


Now, RAM is important, bur it is only one spec.

I am interested in the specs of the GPU -- how many cores; speed; OpenCL capable.


Here's why. Say the GPU has 2 fast cores that are capable of supporting OpenCL.

If the iOS and SDK expose this, then any app can parcel out its work across 2 CPU cores and 2 GPU cores -- gaining capability and performance (GPU cores do some things much faster than CPU cores).

Because the iPad 2 runs iMovie, I suspect it has (at least) 512 GB RAM.

If the iPad 2 supports OpenCL (and has enough RAM) -- I believe it is capable (in the future) of running some rewritten Pro or Prosumer apps: Final Cut, Color, Motion, Logic, etc.


Who cares?

If you watch the keynote video where they demo iMovie and GarageBand, you are seeing the first baby steps of what multitouch can do for A/V editing -- pinching time lines, flicking cuts and clips...

The iPad 2 could be used stand-alone and/or as graphics tablet/control surface attached to a Mac...

You saw the GarageBand demo of pulling organ stops, banging drums or plucking guitar strings... the iPad 2 could bring those capabilities to the Mac Pro apps

This could, easily, be the start of a revolution of A/V editing, CAD, etc. at all levels: from hobbyist to Pro.


Edit: Just to be sure... A/V editing is kind of the "poster boy" app -- but there are implications in science, medicine, defense, etc. -- anywhere there is a need/advantage to manipulate high-resolution A/V files.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #123 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Uh, they trumpet the new "dual core 1GHz" A5 chip on the front page of the iPad site, and list basically all of the tech specs under "Tech Specs", except RAM - probably because it's the one area from a hardware standpoint that another device (ie Xoom) clearly outdoes it.

Its likely the iPad can make better use of RAM and doesn't need 1GB like the Xoom. More isn't always better.


Quote:
Plus the fact that Xoom can both play and output 1080p content while the iPad can digitally output 1080p but can only actually play 720p (cleverly presented by Apple, i must say).

What really is the point of playing 1920x1080 on a 1280x800 screen?
post #124 of 264
But... But Gizmodo had a headline that said it was only 256MB. How could Gizmodo get it wrong?

Wasn't Gizmodo at the launch? Didn't they get an iPad 2 to evaluate?

No?

ha ha...
post #125 of 264
Would you agree with the statement that iPad 1 has about 120MB of RAM available for the user app? This under ideal conditions and does vary some with iOS version.

You see if you don't accept that number then you can't really judge iPad against other iOS devices. Frankly this is the only place I care to compare iPad as I'm not interested in Android or other devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

There are a lot of people arguing about how memory management works on iOS (and OS X, also, because they use the same technique), so I thought I would try and outline it as best as possible and my view as a iOS developer

Err we are at odds right off the bat. First Mac OS/X supports paging for user data which dramatically alters the usage of RAM.
Quote:
As memory get used, it's divided into categories: Active Memory, memory currently being used by an application; Inactive Memory, memory not currently being used by an application and is therefore inactive, this memory is also paged to disk; Wired Memory, memory being used by iOS or other frameworks called by an app; Free Memory, memory not used by the application or iOS, virtually free of use.

I'm not sure this is well stated, iOS does not page user data memory. There is no virtual memory for user data. This is actually very important because it it means RAM space is very valuable in iOS devices as nothing gets paged out to a backing store.
Quote:
When you launch an app, it gathers memory from either the free memory pool OR the inactive memory pool (which I'll describe in a little) and pulls it into the active memory pool for itself.
Whenever you leave a program (assuming that it does not have any multitasking-frameworks written in it) iOS automatically suspends it's active memory, shoving it into the inactive memory pool.
Inactive memory is the memory of other applications that have been previously opened then closed, or chunks of memory that an application is not actively using. This is why applications are faster to launch after you've previously opened them and Apple was easily able to add the "quickly resuming applications where you left off"-style multitasking to apps without requiring developers to rewrite anything;

I think you are having issues explaining things here.
Quote:
it was derived directly from OS X's memory management techniques.

Well yeah iOS is basically the core of Mac OS/X with out the virtual memory support and a different scheduler. Of course people even have a hardtime wrapping their heads around this.
Quote:
The difference between iOS and OS X, however, is that instead of paging inactive memory to disk whenever an app needs more than it currently has in it's own section of inactive memory and the available free memory, iOS just removes the oldest inactive memory (without saving it to disk), and gives what is needed to the requesting App and giving the rest back to the free memory pool.

Yes IF there is enough RAM in the first place. If not the app itself has to manage it's memory and possibly fails to get the memory it needs.
Quote:

To prevent this killing of apps too often, iOS uses a memory management technique (which is built into all apps, you're forced to use memory management instead of garbage collecting in iOS) for all of its apps. Basically, memory management works like this: App needs 10kb of memory, so it asks iOS for 10kb of memory, and iOS serves it 10kb of memory. When the App is done with the 10kb of memory, it HAS TO MANUALLY release the memory back to iOS, which then controls that memory. If this is done incorrectly, memory leaks spring, the app begins to DEVOUR memory, iOS is unhappy and kills the app. Because of this method, iOS apps rarely take up more than 50-75mb (Even for the iPad or OS X!).

nope! OS/X apps can use a lot of memory[/quote] Don't get me wrong, there are intensive apps that take up more (like Safari), but that is very rare. Apple is strict about this in app creation.
[/quote]
in the context of iOS apps Apple has been strict about program size but the why is the big thing here. The why is that iPad 1 has far to little memory available to it. That is there is somewhere around 120MB free to apps for code and data. Data is not paged so the platform is extremely tight RAM wise. These issues put severe limits on what apps are capable of doing. Or in otherwords developers can only go so far before hitting walls imposed by Apple.
Quote:
That said, 512mb of memory is way more than enough, even for the iPad.

512MB is a significant improvement and nothing more. It may or may not be enough for apps that are non trivial. In any event you seem to imply that 512MB is enough for OS/X apps too, this has me questioning your sanity as there are all sorts of Mac apps that actively use far more RAM.
Quote:
While you'll notice a slight change in memory intensive applications such as Safari (which is very memory intensive because it decompresses Javascript, renders HTML, and caches images to memory) or iBooks (when rendering large PDF's and images), the biggest benefit will be multitasking, as more applications can be stored in the memory without having to remove them.

The biggest benefit is in having apps successfully handle the task at hand without crashing. In the realm of iOS, on the iPad, this is one of the biggest benefits of more RAM. For most users iPad is a one app at a time machine, when it fails to handle apps like that it is pretty bad, especially if the problem is the lack of RAM.
Quote:
Currently, 256mb of memory is more than enough to run most any application (aside from running into problems with a few specific problems such as Safari with multiple tabs [which, Safari kills large and older tabs on its own when iOS tells it that it needs to reserve memory, often when loading other significantly large tabs]).

Your logic escapes me here. 256MB only works because Apple constrains what developers can develop for the machine. You apparently know this as you alluded to the app store requirements above but yet you contend that 256 MB of RAM is enough (really less than 120MB). Do you not see where your logic fails? IPad 1's 256MB has only worked because Apple makes sure that more demanding apps never make it to app store.

To look at it another way a DOS machine might have run fine with 32MB of RAM as long as you avoided software that demanded more RAM. If that fancy new DOS based word processor required 64MB of RAM you are out of luck.

In any event the problem with RAM on iOS devices can be itemized below.
1. Some apps simply need a larger foot print. That is more RAM. Safari is a prime example here but there are others.
2. More RAM makes multitasking more useful.
3. Apple restricts apps in a way that limits capability. This is apparently directly related to the lack of RAM in the device. This developers have not been able to ship everything that they might want to.
4. The lack of RAM results in many page reloads for Safari and other apps. This can lead to excessive data usage and thus additional expenses.
Quote:
1gb of RAM would be a waste of resources and money in iOS land, for the time being.

Well this last statement is highly debatable. The problem I have is that it appears as if Apple is intentionally limiting iPads capability. On the other hand 512MZb should go a very long ways to making iPad a better performing machine. Since the SoC are a stack of processor and RAM chips there are possible technical limits on just how much RAMmshould be in iPad 2. All I know is staying at 256MB is not acceptable.

In the end here it is pretty obvious that you have a better understanding of iOS than some here. However you seem to waltz right over the fact that iPad apps work fairly well simply because of Apple putting real constraints upon what an app can do. Basically any sort of computer hardware design can be made to work if you have that much control over the software running on it. I look forward to some real testing on these machines as that should clear up just what are the advantages of the new hardware in iPad 2.
post #126 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by tru View Post

First off I don't own a tablet as of yet but I was wondering. If you own an ipad why with all the options coming out this year would you buy an ipad2?

Well I dont own the iPad 1 but I'll get the iPad 2 for the following reasons:
- Battery Life
- Weight/Portability
- fast and responsive OS
- Thousands of Apps and great collection's of magazines and books

I need something to take with me while traveling. This product meets all my expectations. I can surf the web, watch a movie, play some games, read a book, etc

I really dont care for the android tablets, on which I need to spend hours customizing it and tweaking it, and than brag how customizable is.
I need a simple device that does the above mentioned things well and works perfect out of the box.
If I need to do some hardcore design or some decoding I have my quad core SLI desktop. For casual surfing, reading and playing I can lay on my couch, or sit on my balcony and play with my iPad, not worrying that I have to recharge it in an hour or two.
post #127 of 264
This isn't true either. Apple's competitors always attempt to trumpet betters hardware specs than Apple's products. The vast majority of people have little to no understanding of any of that stuff means. And have shown to not really care.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

I don't know that the iPad 2 is in need of more than 512MB of RAM from a usability stand point. It may work perfectly fine with just 512MB. However, from a marketing stand point, not having a 1GB of RAM is a huge mistake.
post #128 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

People should look more at how it performs and not at the numbers.

Agreed, and it performs poorly when many apps are open together, same as the 3GS phone, which is entirely down to RAM. I agree with a previous poster who said that when the next iOS is released, it could be an issue. iPhone 4 runs a lot smoother than the iPad in many scenarios (I know, I have both).

Historically Apple has always been stingy with RAM - I remember my 2006 MacBook shipped with 512MB as standard, when most systems were shipping with 1GB or more. Even Tiger 'recommended' 1GB of RAM at that time.

Having said that, the iPad does a lot better with its 256MB than the PlayBook seems to do with a gig. RAM isn't everything, but if iOS 5 makes the same leap iOS 4 did, the original iPad will be left behind after less than 18 months, and even the new iPad might struggle, which is not acceptable given this could be resolved for less than the price of an iTunes Movie.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #129 of 264
.

Just one indication of how investors feel:

AAPL up 1.81%

MMI (MotoMobile) down 4.72%

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #130 of 264
Sure the iPad has some real limitations. But come on they have it editing HD video. That is very impressive.

Just four years ago you needed a PowerMac G5 to edit HD video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Well this last statement is highly debatable. The problem I have is that it appears as if Apple is intentionally limiting iPads capability.
post #131 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

In any event you seem to imply that 512MB is enough for OS/X apps too, this has me questioning your sanity as there are all sorts of Mac apps that actively use far more RAM.

What makes me question your sanity is the fact that you are comparing OS/X with iOS.

There are many reasons Apple is keeping their system closed. Developers are not limitted byt he amount of the RAM but by the overall hardware of the device.
I dont see any ground braking applications for the 1GB Android devices, do you?

512MB of RAM is more than enough for iPad 2.

As CPU, memory, and battery capacity improve, so will the applications created for these devices. As simple as that...

You can wait for 10 years and get something more advanced or you can purchase a product that makes you happy today and enjoy it. What you need to do though is fix your expectations. Tablets are not PCs, and when they made tablet/laptops, they barely sold any... ask HP and Toshiba.
post #132 of 264
Yes I remember those days. Often was the case Apple was shipping less RAM but on a faster bus than most everyone else. So the RAM that Apple was using was more expensive than what most everyone else was using.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

Historically Apple has always been stingy with RAM - I remember my 2006 MacBook shipped with 512MB as standard, when most systems were shipping with 1GB or more. Even Tiger 'recommended' 1GB of RAM at that time.
post #133 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Interesting point.

Let's put it to the test. I still have my 3G, 3GS, along with my iP4. The 3G has 128 MB RAM and 3GS has 256 MB. I was able to install and run iOS 4.2 on my 3G (remember 128 MB!!) just fine. And of course, iOS 4.2 runs perfectly well on my 3GS and iP4 (512 MB).

So, when you say iOS uses 1/2 of 512MB, how can it work so well on my 3G and 3GS, neither of which has 512 MB? Hmmm ...

1) That's partially because the iOS4 version you installed on your 3G is different from the other 2 phones, with a lot of stuffs disabled.
2) And again, I could see some people claiming that their iphone 3G ran iOS4 just fine, but there's also a lot of people (myself and my friend included) that experienced problems with it because of memory issues. That tells me when some people say 'just fine', or 'not fine', it's probably subjective, but I did list the problems myself and my friends had on the iphone 3G (apps shut down, battery drains fast, phone shut down randomly, lags, etc).
post #134 of 264
I see many comparisons or allusions to RAM in Xoom, WebOS or other devices. Frankly guys they have nothing to do with the discussion. Rather what is important is the need to get beyond 256MB of RAM in the iPad. This to deliver a more acceptable user experience and to allow for more powerful apps. It really doesn't matter what Xoom has, what is important is a more capable iPad.

Sadly based on some of the posts here I don't think a lot of people on the forum today get it. More RAM is a big deal for every user.
post #135 of 264
Deleted... for the sake of a few on here I'll do my best to keep AI semi-reputable.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #136 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Never said there wasn't a noticeable speed improvement

Actually, you wrote precisely that. But that's ok. No need for me to be nitpicky since we are not in serious disagreement.

Quote:
3+ years on, not only can iOS still fit in 128 MB of memory, it has plenty of room for running apps. And as someone else mentioned, I'm sure iOS 5 will up the minimum requirements to 256 MB. It's only natural.

Well, since iOS 4.3 supports 3GS and up but not 3G, we can say that the minimum requirement is now 256 MB.
post #137 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post

It can only play 720p video... when mirroring the iPad's screen. There are no hardware limitations preventing the iPad from outputting to 1080p. 9x the GPU power comparing to the original iPad (which produced graphics akin to the original Xbox) also speaks volumes.

As I said it in another thread, the hardware is way ahead of software for the ipad2 --- which I think is showing that Apple is genuinely worried about the zillion android tablet models out there. I think that Apple drop a bunch of software features because they want to launch early (even though the hardware is capable of doing more).

Also Apple never demo'ed any third party apps that took advantage of the increased hardware specs. This is a very rush launch.
post #138 of 264
For those saying 256g ram is not enough...then why can the new iMovie app run on the iPod 4g? Looks like it's fine according to apple. :-)
post #139 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

There are a lot of people arguing about how memory management works on iOS (and OS X, also, because they use the same technique), so I thought I would try and outline it as best as possible and my view as a iOS developer

As memory get used, it's divided into categories: Active Memory, memory currently being used by an application; Inactive Memory, memory not currently being used by an application and is therefore inactive, this memory is also paged to disk; Wired Memory, memory being used by iOS or other frameworks called by an app; Free Memory, memory not used by the application or iOS, virtually free of use.

When you launch an app, it gathers memory from either the free memory pool OR the inactive memory pool (which I'll describe in a little) and pulls it into the active memory pool for itself.
Whenever you leave a program (assuming that it does not have any multitasking-frameworks written in it) iOS automatically suspends it's active memory, shoving it into the inactive memory pool.
Inactive memory is the memory of other applications that have been previously opened then closed, or chunks of memory that an application is not actively using. This is why applications are faster to launch after you've previously opened them and Apple was easily able to add the "quickly resuming applications where you left off"-style multitasking to apps without requiring developers to rewrite anything; it was derived directly from OS X's memory management techniques. The difference between iOS and OS X, however, is that instead of paging inactive memory to disk whenever an app needs more than it currently has in it's own section of inactive memory and the available free memory, iOS just removes the oldest inactive memory (without saving it to disk), and gives what is needed to the requesting App and giving the rest back to the free memory pool.

To prevent this killing of apps too often, iOS uses a memory management technique (which is built into all apps, you're forced to use memory management instead of garbage collecting in iOS) for all of its apps. Basically, memory management works like this: App needs 10kb of memory, so it asks iOS for 10kb of memory, and iOS serves it 10kb of memory. When the App is done with the 10kb of memory, it HAS TO MANUALLY release the memory back to iOS, which then controls that memory. If this is done incorrectly, memory leaks spring, the app begins to DEVOUR memory, iOS is unhappy and kills the app. Because of this method, iOS apps rarely take up more than 50-75mb (Even for the iPad or OS X!). Don't get me wrong, there are intensive apps that take up more (like Safari), but that is very rare. Apple is strict about this in app creation.

That said, 512mb of memory is way more than enough, even for the iPad. While you'll notice a slight change in memory intensive applications such as Safari (which is very memory intensive because it decompresses Javascript, renders HTML, and caches images to memory) or iBooks (when rendering large PDF's and images), the biggest benefit will be multitasking, as more applications can be stored in the memory without having to remove them.
Currently, 256mb of memory is more than enough to run most any application (aside from running into problems with a few specific problems such as Safari with multiple tabs [which, Safari kills large and older tabs on its own when iOS tells it that it needs to reserve memory, often when loading other significantly large tabs]).
1gb of RAM would be a waste of resources and money in iOS land, for the time being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Thank you for taking the time to write this. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I would only add one thing to the non-opinion parts above. iOS does not do the paging to the SSD (backing store) that the desktop OS X does. The rest of the memory subsystems are the same. I'm not sure what the full reasoning for this is, but they do make that clear in the documentation. [Edit: now I see wizard69 mentions this up a few posts too. I disagree with him on iOS having Virtual Memory though -- it most definitely does, that's what delivers the full 32-bit address space. iOS just doesn't deliver a backing store for the VM to use, a subtle but important distinction when we get to the point of splitting hairs.]

This is the main reason Prof Peabody sees a pseudo last-state sometimes rather than the true last-state all the time. if iOS paged there would be no reason for the reload from a file version of pseudo state restoration. (pseudo state is my wording, not Apple's).

Is 512MB enough? There is never enough memory if you are a developer, by definition. I wouldn't compare the 512MB to 1GB on a Xoom very directly though. That Xoom is running a robust JVM behind everything, and that means it is running a copy of that JVM in every process. That is a verified Metric Shitload of memory requirement that the app developers can never use.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #140 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Who cares. What difference does it make whether you can display 1080(p|i) vs. 720p video on your iPad screen? And who wants to connect their iPad to a TV to play video, 1080 whatever or 720?

It matters to the end-users who are ripping their own blu-ray discs. Simply ripping a movie takes minutes, but re-encoding that movie to a lower resolution takes hours.
post #141 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by regan View Post

For those saying 256g ram is not enough...then why can the new iMovie app run on the iPod 4g? Looks like it's fine according to apple. :-)

1. Just because a certain app can run on 256MB ram, doesn't mean 256MB ram is enough to run it smoothly.
2. Just because it can run on 256MB ram using iOS4, doesn't mean it can run on 256MB ram using iOS5.
3. Just because this app can run on 256MB ram, doesn't mean other apps can, and most likely a lot of new apps for iPhone5 won't be able to run on 256MB ram. Now obv people would counter with "this is purely speculation", but it's a pretty good guess, because that's how apps evolve overtime, to make use of capability of new hardware, and I personally won't want to buy an iPad2and in 3 months iPhone5 comes out and I won't be able to use those great apps for iPhone5 smoothly because of ram issues.
post #142 of 264
I was responding to somebody that had a twisted view of Mac apps
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphoria View Post

What makes me question your sanity is the fact that you are comparing OS/X with iOS.

Err not exactly, I was responding to somebody with confused ideas about the size of Mac apps.
Quote:
There are many reasons Apple is keeping their system closed. Developers are not limitted byt he amount of the RAM but by the overall hardware of the device.

If this was correct it would be nice but Apple does have restriction upon app size and memory usage. RAM would be a big limiting factor here.
Quote:
I dont see any ground braking applications for the 1GB Android devices, do you?

This is ignorant on a couple of levels. First there are no shipping Android tablets that leverage the tablet version of Android. Second in the context of Apple there is no device to target such apps for. Finally what is with the one GB android machine, it has nothing to do with the discussion about iPad 2's RAM. Zip!

The whole focus of my comments have been about the unknown amount of RAM in iPad 2 and the need to move beyond 256MB. That has nothing to do with Playbook, Xoom or any other tablet. It does have to do with enabling the platform so that it can provide a platform for those ground breaking apps.
Quote:
512MB of RAM is more than enough for iPad 2.

That is opinion only. I don't especially disagree with it but what I do disagree with is Apple hiding this important parameter from the buying public.

It won't take long to determine just how well iPad 2 works with whatever amount of RAM it has installed. 512 MB should solve some of iPads more glaring problems. Is it "more than enough" well that is not as easy to say. From the standpoint of a developer it might be fine or it might be too little to realize their dream in. You can't say definitively that 512mB is enough.
Quote:
As CPU, memory, and battery capacity improve, so will the applications created for these devices. As simple as that...

No fooling?

I'm begining to think that you only half assed skimmed over a couple of my posts as you really seem out of line here.
Quote:
You can wait for 10 years and get something more advanced or you can purchase a product that makes you happy today and enjoy it. What you need to do though is fix your expectations. Tablets are not PCs, and when they made tablet/laptops, they barely sold any... ask HP and Toshiba.

Again you are totally out of line here and frankly have completely missed what this thread and my comments have been about. Just to be clear I'm objecting to Apples keeping us in the dark about RAM in iPad 2. Further I state without reservation that iPad 1 never had enough RAM, thus the importance in knowing how much RAM is in iPad 2.

The last thing I need to do is to fix my expectations. It is very reasonable to expect Apple to be forthright and honest about the amount of RAM installed in their devices. Further it is not unreasonable to expect more than 256MB of RAM in iPad 2. People really need to read for content here.
post #143 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmillermcp View Post

Why does everyone get hung up on the amount of RAM? People are way too used to Windows machines and the common missunderstanding that more RAM is better which is just plain wrong.

All RAM is is a high-speed staging ground for items waiting to be processed since PC's historically have used very slow (comparatively) magnetic storage. The iPad has its memory on the same chip as the CPU/GPU which makes it insanely efficient and fast since it doesn't have to traverse a usually slower bus. The inclusion of solid-state flash memory as a storage medium makes the amount of RAM also less important as the device can stage less.

Look at the Xbox 360 (512MB) and the PS3 (256MB CPU/256MB GPU), they do amazing things with what most consider "insufficient" amounts of RAM. If the OS of the device is efficient and tuned to fit the hardware, the amount of RAM in the traditional way of thinking is less important as it is to a generic OS made to work with a variety of hardware.

Folks really need to read about the purpose of RAM before bashing a device because it has x amount instead of y. My 3GS can run just plenty with its 600MHz CPU and 256MB including Infinity Blade with little if any lag. My quad-core i7 with 12GB running Win7 has its moments of lag as much as my MacBook with its Core2 Duo and 4GB.


RAM size is VERY important from a developers point of view, ESPECIALLY for game developers. It essentially provides stretching room and temporary space to use to provide vertex shaders, polygon viewing data and many others all on one screen. The smaller the RAM size the less pixels, vertex shaders and the like displayed one time at any given moment. This decreases the graphical performance and subsequently the "wow" factor in future games. The more robust the available RAM the better programmers can utitlize this expanded space for their liking.

Remember, unlike a dedicated GPU on personal computers, mobile SOC's share system memory and video memory all on one RAM. This is what you call "shared RAM" in the PC world. Right from the get go the application is starting off on a smaller availability of RAM to begin with. Therefore, a larger RAM to compensate for that is a dream come true for programmers.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #144 of 264
No its not a rush.

Every major iOS upgrade has been in the summer. if there is any intention of the iPad outputting 1080P it would come with a major iOS upgrade.

When the original iPad launched last year it did not include anything particular special beyond what the iPhone 3G was at the time capable. Additional features came along much later.

I'm not sure how you call it a rush when Apple has never had a major software upgrade in this time frame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

As I said it in another thread, the hardware is way ahead of software for the ipad2 --- which I think is showing that Apple is genuinely worried about the zillion android tablet models out there. I think that Apple drop a bunch of software features because they want to launch early (even though the hardware is capable of doing more).

Also Apple never demo'ed any third party apps that took advantage of the increased hardware specs. This is a very rush launch.
post #145 of 264
Come March 11th, I'm voting with my wallet.
post #146 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by epakrat75 View Post

My 2 cents is that it's somewhat unimportant whether the old iPad suffers / suffered from a "lack" of RAM with it's single core. Now that RAM is doubled. Problem solved right? Maybe not because they also double the CPU cores. So, one could say that each core gets only 256MB if it's 512MB. That's pretty awful these days. RAM isn't that expensive, especially for what Apple is probably paying for it.

It also doesn't matter so much now since there aren't many apps to take advantage of the dual core nature but there will be. Any app that performs poorly will likely never make into the app store anyway. This device is already on the road to obsolescence. This is possibly a stop gap device to stem the tide of competitive devices (the copycats) while iPad 3 is prepared for us this year or early next year. It'll likely have a quadcore processor with the 1GB that everyone wants but by then with 4 cores it probably should be 2GB.

For those wondering, I think 512MB would have been plenty if Apple had stuck with a single core design. Anyone agree / disagree with the following?

256MBx1 core=meager, 512MBx1 core=average, 1GBx1 core=above average, 512MBx2 cores=meager, 1GBx2 cores=average, 2GBx2 cores=above average.

Please detail your knowledge of memory management within an embedded system. I'm dying to read it.
post #147 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Err we are at odds right off the bat. First Mac OS/X supports paging for user data which dramatically alters the usage of RAM... I'm not sure this is well stated, iOS does not page user data memory. There is no virtual memory for user data. This is actually very important because it it means RAM space is very valuable in iOS devices as nothing gets paged out to a backing store.

I'm sorry, but you didn't even attempt to read my entire post before you said it, you point out things that I have addressed later on in the post. I specifically say that iOS does not support paging while OS X does.

Quote:
I think you are having issues explaining things here. [...] Well yeah iOS is basically the core of Mac OS/X with out the virtual memory support and a different scheduler. Of course people even have a hardtime wrapping their heads around this.

I explained it in the simplest terms that I could, I'm not going into specifics so people who don't understand how the process works can at least grasp the idea. I know they are different I say that they are different.

Quote:
Yes IF there is enough RAM in the first place. If not the app itself has to manage it's memory and possibly fails to get the memory it needs [...] nope! OS/X apps can use a lot of memory

I say that iOS does run into memory limits in some occasions, one of applications that cause this is Safari, which is one of the most memory intensive applications on iOS. I never said that OS X applications ONLY EVER take up 50-70mb, but that is the average maximum. There are times when it can jump ahead, but it will return to a lower memory point. Open your Activity Monitor and you will get a grasp of how much programs use. Right now, for example, I have Firefox (420mb), iTunes (111mb), Safari (94mb), Mail (65mb), Pages (44mb), iCal (35mb) running. This supports both you and me, don't assume I'm only saying that ALL apps do that.

Quote:
In any event you seem to imply that 512MB is enough for OS/X apps too, this has me questioning your sanity as there are all sorts of Mac apps that actively use far more RAM.

I don't know where you get this idea. (edit: I made a typo, I was inferring that an app and iOS should exceed 512mb) I say that OS X supports paging memory AND more than one application running at the same time (unlike iOS, which halts applications).

Quote:
The biggest benefit is in having apps successfully handle the task at hand without crashing. In the realm of iOS, on the iPad, this is one of the biggest benefits of more RAM. For most users iPad is a one app at a time machine, when it fails to handle apps like that it is pretty bad, especially if the problem is the lack of RAM.

I don't think you understand what you're talking about here. The iPad is a one app at a time machine for ALL users. Rarely does it fail at handling that one app because apps rarely exceed the maximum amount of RAM the iPad can give to it. This is because iOS apps are written for iOS devices which mean using a less memory as possible. When an app is using too much memory, iOS will tell an app to release memory that isn't in use. A good example is the Twitter app: when it is collecting a lot of memory, iOS triggers "applicationDidReceiveMemoryWarning", which causes it to release cached information (recently view profiles you aren't friends of) and icons not in view. The releasing of this information is done by the Twitter app. However, if it failed to create memory and continues to eat memory, iOS will terminate it. Terminating an app because it using too much memory is the last ditch effort for iOS to sustain normal functioning. How often do apps randomly quit on you using an iOS device? Rarely. If an app is written efficiently, it will not consume a lot of RAM, and if it does, it will release it accordingly. This is a fact.

Quote:
Your logic escapes me here. 256MB only works because Apple constrains what developers can develop for the machine. You apparently know this as you alluded to the app store requirements above but yet you contend that 256 MB of RAM is enough (really less than 120MB). Do you not see where your logic fails? IPad 1's 256MB has only worked because Apple makes sure that more demanding apps never make it to app store.

You're implying that all applications should use ALL of the RAM that iOS gives to it. This is wrong. They should use as less as physically possible. Do more with less. Now, there are apps that could use more than what iOS can give, I'm not going to deny; but you are wrong in saying that Apple doesn't allow demanding apps into the App Store (look at the new iMovie... it's a prefect example of how memory management can be handled well). I am also not saying there isn't more room for growth, however, I am saying that for most things now, 256mb is more than perfectly fine for iOS and apps. If there was such a surplus of apps that had intensive RAM requirements, don't you think the iPad would have shipped with more than 256mb of RAM to begin with?

Quote:
In the end here it is pretty obvious that you have a better understanding of iOS than some here. However you seem to waltz right over the fact that iPad apps work fairly well simply because of Apple putting real constraints upon what an app can do. Basically any sort of computer hardware design can be made to work if you have that much control over the software running on it. I look forward to some real testing on these machines as that should clear up just what are the advantages of the new hardware in iPad 2.

I'm saying this as a developer, not as a user of these apps. I know how they apps work on iOS and the constraints there are. You blow the idea of a RAM limit WAY out of proportion. iOS apps are not completely hindered in development by the lack of RAM, and most apps will never even hit the active limit. While more RAM is always better, more than 512 is not necessary. If you have an App that is taking over 256mb+ RAM on an iPad, chances are, you are doing something wrong. RARELY (but there are still exceptions, as I stated) should an app on iOS (or even OS X) take more than that.

Why must everyone make everything personal. I blatantly stated what I was trying to do and my opinion towards it. Sorry for attempting to help those who don't understand, understand.

Relax, bro.
post #148 of 264
You are over playing this point to an extreme. Very few people care how much RAM is in their computer, much less how much RAM is in the iPad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

That is opinion only. I don't especially disagree with it but what I do disagree with is Apple hiding this important parameter from the buying public.
post #149 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

No its not a rush.

Every major iOS upgrade has been in the summer. if there is any intention of the iPad outputting 1080P it would come with a major iOS upgrade.

When the original iPad launched last year it did not include anything particular special beyond what the iPhone 3G was at the time capable. Additional features came along much later.

I'm not sure how you call it a rush when Apple has never had a major software upgrade in this time frame.

I would expect Apple to bring up a couple of third-party developer up on stage showing their new app or game that really uses the increased CPU and GPU power.

At the very least, when nVidia announced their quad-core tegra chipset --- they showed a game demo showing that 200 game characters in the dual-core tegra vs. 600 game characters in the quad-core tegra.
post #150 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Please detail your knowledge of memory management within an embedded system. I'm dying to read it.

The RIM Playbook showed 948mb of freemem --- last 30 second of video. The operating system took 1024-948=76mb of memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAXPGwChLGw
post #151 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

in the context of iOS apps Apple has been strict about program size but the why is the big thing here. The why is that iPad 1 has far to little memory available to it. That is there is somewhere around 120MB free to apps for code and data. Data is not paged so the platform is extremely tight RAM wise. These issues put severe limits on what apps are capable of doing. Or in otherwords developers can only go so far before hitting walls imposed by Apple.

512MB is a significant improvement and nothing more. It may or may not be enough for apps that are non trivial. In any event you seem to imply that 512MB is enough for OS/X apps too, this has me questioning your sanity as there are all sorts of Mac apps that actively use far more RAM.


The biggest benefit is in having apps successfully handle the task at hand without crashing. In the realm of iOS, on the iPad, this is one of the biggest benefits of more RAM. For most users iPad is a one app at a time machine, when it fails to handle apps like that it is pretty bad, especially if the problem is the lack of RAM.

Your logic escapes me here. 256MB only works because Apple constrains what developers can develop for the machine. You apparently know this as you alluded to the app store requirements above but yet you contend that 256 MB of RAM is enough (really less than 120MB). Do you not see where your logic fails? IPad 1's 256MB has only worked because Apple makes sure that more demanding apps never make it to app store.

To look at it another way a DOS machine might have run fine with 32MB of RAM as long as you avoided software that demanded more RAM. If that fancy new DOS based word processor required 64MB of RAM you are out of luck.

In any event the problem with RAM on iOS devices can be itemized below.
1. Some apps simply need a larger foot print. That is more RAM. Safari is a prime example here but there are others.
2. More RAM makes multitasking more useful.
3. Apple restricts apps in a way that limits capability. This is apparently directly related to the lack of RAM in the device. This developers have not been able to ship everything that they might want to.
4. The lack of RAM results in many page reloads for Safari and other apps. This can lead to excessive data usage and thus additional expenses.


The problem I have is that it appears as if Apple is intentionally limiting iPads capability. On the other hand 512MZb should go a very long ways to making iPad a better performing machine. Since the SoC are a stack of processor and RAM chips there are possible technical limits on just how much RAMmshould be in iPad 2. All I know is staying at 256MB is not acceptable.

In the end here it is pretty obvious that you have a better understanding of iOS than some here. However you seem to waltz right over the fact that iPad apps work fairly well simply because of Apple putting real constraints upon what an app can do. Basically any sort of computer hardware design can be made to work if you have that much control over the software running on it. I look forward to some real testing on these machines as that should clear up just what are the advantages of the new hardware in iPad 2.

I do not have the expertise to confirm or refute the technical aspects of RAM. But, allow me to introduce a different twist.

i actually like the form factor of the iPad. When I first saw it, the first thing that came to mind was: Won't it be neat when the day comes when the notebook could be redesigned so that it would have the "unibody" form factor of the iPad with the capabilities of the more powerful desktops and notebooks?

One concern I had with the iPad form factor is that the exposed (and very sensitive) glass surface would likely break or shutter when dropped at a certain angle or wedged against anything that would cause too much pressure on the surface. The aforementioned scenarios are less prone to happen with the clam shell protection of the glass surface in the notebook.

The new cover of the iPad2 is a step in the right direction for the aforementioned without really "uglifying" the iPad with a thick cover.

But, the above wish is for the future of the potential notebook aesthetic form -- unibody, compact and more easy to share than the clam shell notebooks.

To go back to the issue you raised, when Steve Jobs introduced the iPad, he had an "optimal" usage in mind for the target consumers and activities (usage) expected. He stated explicit alsoAs that its function is between the iPhone/iPod touch and the notebooks and the desktops on the higher end.

To put simply, if one needs more sophisticated (and more likely more RAM intensive) applications, it must be done in the higher end notebooks and desktops.

Everyone was surprised by the low base price of the iPad -- about half of the estimate $800-1000. To achieve this, I surmised that Apple must have considered the economically most optimal and technologically available component parts. Thus, it eschewed the OLED (cost, availability and stability). The same is true with the SSD, and the CPUs, battery and other components without crippling the first iPad for the needs of the target audience and anticipated usage of the target audience.

Similarly, it rewrote the OSX => iOS to further enhance the optimization. And, as you stated, it enforced more economic usage of the available RAM for the Apps. This I believe is the reason also why it decided to exckude Adobe Flash -- not only because of the unreliability of updates, the lack of support for Mac OSX, and more important that it uses too much RAM (and battery power).

As part of this "better RAM" management, Apple also "rewrote" in house applications so that they would function more optimally under the constraints of the technologically inside the first iPad.

The dissatisfaction therefore comes not from the target consumer that Steve Jobs had in mind, but the perspectives of those who wanted the iPad to run more RAM intensive applications.

Sure the technology might be there, sure Apple could have enhance the RAM, disk storage, lens MPs, etc., but at what price? And, more important, how would it affect the "simiplicity of use" that was intended for the target consumers? Just as relevant, would these enhancement be practical for the expected usage of the targeted consumer?

CGC
post #152 of 264
Its because you are brining a reasoned and informed response into an emotional and uninformed discussion.

As Steven Colbert called it, a lot of "truthiness" happens here. The truth is based on what people feel. Most often some people feel 1GB has to always under every circumstance be better than 512Mb. Or 5MP camera is always better than a 3MP camera.

Others attempt to explain that is not always true. There are a lot of other variables to consider. "Truthiness" has no room for nuance and distinction.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

. Why must everyone make everything personal. I blatantly stated what I was trying to do and my opinion towards it. Sorry for attempting to help those who don't understand, understand.

Relax, bro.
post #153 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

1. Just because a certain app can run on 256MB ram, doesn't mean 256MB ram is enough to run it smoothly.
2. Just because it can run on 256MB ram using iOS4, doesn't mean it can run on 256MB ram using iOS5.
3. Just because this app can run on 256MB ram, doesn't mean other apps can, and most likely a lot of new apps for iPhone5 won't be able to run on 256MB ram. Now obv people would counter with "this is purely speculation", but it's a pretty good guess, because that's how apps evolve overtime, to make use of capability of new hardware, and I personally won't want to buy an iPad2and in 3 months iPhone5 comes out and I won't be able to use those great apps for iPhone5 smoothly because of ram issues.

You can use the same analogy for any laptop or PC you purchase.
You analogy is funny....
post #154 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

... RAM is very important, if Apple has stayed with 256MB the upgrade would be worthless. From the day it debuted iPad one has suffered from the lack of RAM.

And if that same Mysterious Korean told you iPad 2 had 1GB you probably would have believed him.

Getting high performance from limited resources is a sign of good engineering.
Apple is known for their good engineering. Put two and two together.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #155 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes I remember those days. Often was the case Apple was shipping less RAM but on a faster bus than most everyone else. So the RAM that Apple was using was more expensive than what most everyone else was using.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphoria View Post

You can use the same analogy for any laptop or PC you purchase.
You analogy is funny....

Funny in the sense that he wasn't making an analogy?

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #156 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Actually, the biggest problem with the PS3 is its lack of video RAM. Porting games to it is a real pain in the ass.

Despite its Cell processor and Blu-Ray drive, the PS3 has often struggles to match the apparently "out-dated" Xbox 360 in terms of graphics. Blu-Ray is capable of holding huge textures but the PS3 can't take advantage. You can have all of the processing power in the world but it's wasted if it's not matched by an equally high amount of RAM.

Ever heard of Uncharted 2?

Its textures are so detailed, and the CPU/GPU are so busy rendering and anti-aliasing the game that all of the textures stored in an uncompressed state and streamed right into the game.

Also, ever heard of RAGE? Pretty impressive stuff they can do with this "paltry" 512Mb

Guess that kinda destroys your post, doesn't it?

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply
post #157 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

I would only add one thing to the non-opinion parts above. iOS does not do the paging to the SSD (backing store) that the desktop OS X does. The rest of the memory subsystems are the same. I'm not sure what the full reasoning for this is, but they do make that clear in the documentation. [Edit: now I see wizard69 mentions this up a few posts too. I disagree with him on iOS having Virtual Memory though -- it most definitely does, that's what delivers the full 32-bit address space. iOS just doesn't deliver a backing store for the VM to use, a subtle but important distinction when we get to the point of splitting hairs.]

This is the main reason Prof Peabody sees a pseudo last-state sometimes rather than the true last-state all the time. if iOS paged there would be no reason for the reload from a file version of pseudo state restoration. (pseudo state is my wording, not Apple's).

Is 512MB enough? There is never enough memory if you are a developer, by definition. I wouldn't compare the 512MB to 1GB on a Xoom very directly though. That Xoom is running a robust JVM behind everything, and that means it is running a copy of that JVM in every process. That is a verified Metric Shitload of memory requirement that the app developers can never use.

One more thought.

Apparently, Android developers are not [as] concerned with memory management because Android provides Garbage Collection to detect, locate and free memory no longer used by the app. The iOS developer is responsible for memory management.

Many will argue that this is not an issue because modern Garbage Collection schemes are quite efficient -- and can theoretically outperform manual memory management.

I have no links/citations, but, I have read that there are periodic, noticeable performance hits with Android due to pauses/jitters related to Garbage Collection.

If GC is poorly implemented on Android, one way to compensate is to throw hardware at the problem. (In mainframe parlance: "There is no substitute for Cubic Inches").

So, it may be to support equivalent capability/performance an app on the iPad requires less RAM (and other hardware) than on Android.


I also think the PlayBook approach to addressing Flash & UI issues is to throw hardware at the problem.


IMO, this the exact opposite approach than should be used in the power/weight/battery constraints of a mobile device.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #158 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

RAM size is VERY important from a developers point of view, ESPECIALLY for game developers.

As a game developer, I'm happy to say that 512MB is sufficient to match the PS3 and XBox360.

Even with the 9X GPU of the iPad 2, the iPad is a less capable hardcore games machine. So I'd expect most iOS games to require a much (much) smaller memory footprint.

C.
post #159 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

I would only add one thing to the non-opinion parts above. iOS does not do the paging to the SSD (backing store) that the desktop OS X does. The rest of the memory subsystems are the same. I'm not sure what the full reasoning for this is, but they do make that clear in the documentation.

We can speculate! Im of the opinion that they did not do paging because the Flash memory they implemented isn't using any sort of wear leveling. Running a paging file would quickly wear out the flash. The other possibility is that they wanted hard limits on app capability.
Quote:
[Edit: now I see wizard69 mentions this up a few posts too. I disagree with him on iOS having Virtual Memory though -- it most definitely does, that's what delivers the full 32-bit address space.

This is where we could get into a lot of confusion and would not benefit the crowd much. IOS doesn't page out user data to backing store so there is no demand paging for data. In this context that would be virtual memory, that is memory beyond what is implemented in hardware. Interestingly because code segments are read only the OS can page them in, there is no page out, this is exactly what Mac OS does.
Quote:
iOS just doesn't deliver a backing store for the VM to use, a subtle but important distinction when we get to the point of splitting hairs.]

Splitting hairs it is. I just have a hard time calling an implementation virtual memory when your address space is limited to the free RAM the app gets.
Quote:
This is the main reason Prof Peabody sees a pseudo last-state sometimes rather than the true last-state all the time. if iOS paged there would be no reason for the reload from a file version of pseudo state restoration. (pseudo state is my wording, not Apple's).

Sounds like a bug or two. If the last state is not being saved properly then something was done wrong.
Quote:
Is 512MB enough? There is never enough memory if you are a developer, by definition.

With out the ability to page RAM becomes a precious resource and directly impacts a developers ability to code nice apps. However low RAM is also a user problem. Frankly many examples have been suggested already in this thread with respect to user problems with RAM. Most of those Safari related.
Quote:
I wouldn't compare the 512MB to 1GB on a Xoom very directly though. That Xoom is running a robust JVM behind everything, and that means it is running a copy of that JVM in every process. That is a verified Metric Shitload of memory requirement that the app developers can never use.

It will be interesting to see how much of that 1GB space goes to the system and the JVM on Android devices. It would also be interesting to see how many CPU cycles get wasted running JVM code. But frankly it doesn't really matter as I'm not currently interested in a Xoom.

The discussion about RAM and iOS devices has little to do with non iOS devices. It is really about the iPad user experience and the capability for a new generation of apps.
post #160 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

The dissatisfaction therefore comes not from the target consumer that Steve Jobs had in mind, but the perspectives of those who wanted the iPad to run more RAM intensive applications.

Sure the technology might be there, sure Apple could have enhance the RAM, disk storage, lens MPs, etc., but at what price? And, more important, how would it affect the "simiplicity of use" that was intended for the target consumers? Just as relevant, would these enhancement be practical for the expected usage of the targeted consumer?

CGC

At what price? Apple is getting 50-60% profit margin on the iphone and 30-40% profit margin on the ipad --- while Nokia is getting something like 12% profit margin.

Many people here owns Apple stocks --- but the perspective of the shareholder might not be aligned with the perspective of the end-user.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple's A5 CPU in iPad 2 has 512MB of RAM, same as iPhone 4 - report
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's A5 CPU in iPad 2 has 512MB of RAM, same as iPhone 4 - report