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 5

post #161 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

[...] Why must everyone make everything personal. [...]

Not sure if people are taking it personally or not. But it is clear that everything Apple does triggers an emotional reaction among many people who follow technology. And that's a good thing for Apple because coolness and mindshare are intangible emotional quantities.

Human males have been conditioned over millions of years to belong to groups. Because a group of people has a better chance of surviving and breeding than each one would alone. Tribes, fiefdoms, sports teams, armies, nations, whatever. Now that many of us don't need to fight for our lives every day, that need to join a group and compete against other groups for resources has been watered down to rooting for sports teams, technology companies, etc. The sometimes irrational "my group is better" instinct is still there.

If you had no emotional reaction to the iPad 2 or to people's replies to your post, you wouldn't have typed a 50+ line response. Would you?

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #162 of 264
Nvidia and Apple's motivations are entirely different.

Your whole rational for the iPad being rushed is based upon them not demoing games. Is that really what you want to go with?

Could they not wait to show new software abilities when they introduce iOS 5?


Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

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 #163 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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

Yes, that must be it --- when the Playbook has 948mb of freemem, when their entire UI is flash.
post #164 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

[...] 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.

Exactly. This is why Apple doesn't play the spec game. Apple wants to impress you with how the product works. In your hands. Not with a list of numbers.

And that seems to be an extremely successful concept.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #165 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Nvidia and Apple's motivations are entirely different.

Your whole rational for the iPad being rushed is based upon them not demoing games. Is that really what you want to go with?

Could they not wait to show new software abilities when they introduce iOS 5?

Not demo'ing ANY third-party app that uses the increased CPU/GPU speed.
post #166 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

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

I don't understand how this proves that the "Memory per Core" thingy is anything but utter bullshit. My 1st gen iPod Touch has 128Mb of memory and can run 3rd party apps, therefore, iOS should be as light as light as the Playbook's OS... and memory hasn't got anything to do with the number of cores...

That's kind of saying that my MBP would be just as fine with a Core Solo CPU and 2GB of RAM

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 #167 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


News flash - the iPad 2 hasn't shipped yet. Maybe 512 will be enough, maybe not, but we don't know if there will be complaints when it shipped. Despite the millions sold, there WERE plenty of complaints about the original iPad, one of the biggest being bad user experience due to not enough ram.

If your news is in flash, you will not see it on ipad2
post #168 of 264
You must not understand the milestone in being able to edit HD video with iMovie. They type of hardware that was previously necessary to handle that task.

More than likely they will have new software tricks to demo with the intro of iOS 5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Not demo'ing ANY third-party app that uses the increased CPU/GPU speed.
post #169 of 264
Interesting post:

Apple: Analysts See iPad 2 A Compelling Case

AAPL up 2.02%

MMI (MotoMobile) down 6.03%

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #170 of 264
I think none of us is saying that 1GB would be nice... but 512MB is pretty good as well, and I'd rather have the 512MB of RAM and the super-duper GPU than have 1 GB and get a meagre improvement on the GPU side (I'm not talking about the CPU as we all knew the iPad was just going to double the cores)

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 #171 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

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.

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.

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 is more room for growth, however, I am saying that for most things now, 256mb is more than perfectly fine for iOS. 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?


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.

I think I was able to grasp what you stated from your first post, and more important the simplification done to explain what would oherwise be an esoteric and complex concept.

We do that all the time, to explain the basic concepts in physics and chemistry. The nuances and exceptions are discussed in the Q&A, or further discussions.

What you stated above gives further insight as to why Apple does not simply port its Applications to the iPad, even if they work in OSX.

There was a time, when the G3 Desktop Mac was considered too powerful that the government required clearance before it could be shipped to China.

The CPUs and disk storage in many computers have become more powerful since then, but it seems, the bloat in Applications have kept up.

I remember when Apple first simplified the OSX, and it was able to delete so much without sacrificing its capabilities. It was the direction it has taken with the iOS and I hope, if as you say is true, it will continue to be strict in implementing RAM usage economy for all Apps that are accepted.

If I remember correctly, the earlier PCs had more memory and power in them that the four computers that controlled the spaceships in the Appolo program. So, why does a simple mobile device necessarily require more RAM, and be upgraded so often to run what would be considered "simpler tasks".

CGC
post #172 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

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?

I'm not sure which you're referring to, but I think it's one of the following:

In OS 9 and earlier, you could Rebuild the Desktop Database, by holding down command-option on startup. That went away with OS X. Doing this could fix a variety of problems, usually associated with applications being able to be run, or associated with file types. It could also decrease the size of the database making things more efficient, but you'd have to have a lot of files and apps on an old system that hadn't had its database rebuilt in a while to notice much of a difference. Still, it was a good habit to do this periodically. Pre-System 7, the Desktop Database was a huge vector for viruses, so rebuilding often could help prevent that as well (although there was Disinfectant as the most awesomest antivirus application ever).

In OS X there is Prebinding. Prior to 10.2 you could manually update prebinding and it would increase the launch time of a new application. As a result, it may be worth updating prebinding whenever a new app was installed. In 10.2 and later, prebinding was done automatically whenever a new app is launched.
post #173 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. 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).

Anyways, Apple is all about the user experience, so until Android makes some serious improvements that get it up to the level of the iTunes ecosystem, hardware is something of a moot point...

How can the Xoom play back 1080p? Isn't that physically impossible considering it has a resolution of 1280x800???
| 1TB 2.66 GHz C2D Mac mini Server | 32GB 3G Black iPad 2 | Apple TV 2 | 256GB 1.8 GHz i7 11" Macbook Air | 16GB Black iPhone 4S |
Reply
| 1TB 2.66 GHz C2D Mac mini Server | 32GB 3G Black iPad 2 | Apple TV 2 | 256GB 1.8 GHz i7 11" Macbook Air | 16GB Black iPhone 4S |
Reply
post #174 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Yes, that must be it --- when the Playbook has 948mb of freemem, when their entire UI is flash.

Except your assertion is based at a single frame of a demo video -- with no idea of what was going on at the time or, what the number represented, or even if the number displayed was accurate.

My hands-on experience is based of years of usage of Flash (dating from dealing with Macromedia Flash experts) to personal experience (as recently as yesterday) where Flash hangs/crashes the browser.

I have iPads -- I know how they perform!.

I have read/watched everything I can about the PlayBook -- and everything points to throwing hardware at a poor OS/UI implementation.


When the PlayBook becomes available, we will be able to experience how well or poorly the device performs (including battery).

Of course, time will prove which is the right or wrong assessment.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #175 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

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.

I am not sure you are advocating for the consumer or the stockholder.. At least, one thing I got was that there is a dichotomy in the interest of the two.

If you think that those who argue here in favor of Apple's high profit margin are because they are stockholders, that may or may not be true. However, I doubt very much that Steve Jobs or the company priced their products simply to satisfy their stockholders. Judging from their responses, Apple does not even give much consideration to attempts of stockholders or more accurately, the big financial management firms to distribute that $60 billion cash reserve. [I don't know how many Apple shares I own but there would be some indirectly from the multual funds I invest in.]

If your complaint is that consumers are being shafted by Apple for the perceived "charging" too much for a product, from what I read, among long time Apple users or even new ones, that is not the case. From those I know alone, they buy Apple products because they found it useful or better experience than the others they have used before. I have a friend for example who must have used all types of phones before, very loyal. Then, one day, she just bought an iPhone. I thought it would be too small for her to do most of her computer work (she has bad eyes and kind of older already) but she told me that she did most of her daily stuff now with her iPhone (banking, internet, emailing, etc.). She is very sociable, most of her group were devout RIM, Nokia, Windows users. The last time we talked she told me that many of them have converted to the iPhone, even the person who only bought an iPod touch initially because he could not part with his Blackberry because it has all his business contacts. These are people who even know less about RAMS, or multitasking, etc. Even more amazing, another friend who did not want her daughter to have an iPad (tye daughter wanted the iPad), and bought what she thought was a more useful "Dell computer", eventually bought an iPad herfself, when she went back to school, and after she bought and got so hooked up with her iPhone4 *with unlimited usage" -- data, phone text messaging. You might think she is rick, but she was not.

And this was in a place in Louisiana, where it was even more rate to know anyone who used a Mac. The friend who was persuaded by her son to buy a Dell computer, she had a pink iMac before that, was fed up with her Dell computer after it got infected with a virus twice. The repairs alone plus the cost of the external disk would be more than the cost had she bought the latest iMac or notebook, two years ago. After her very productive experience with the iPhone, she vowed never to buy any PC again. She is not saving for either the MacBook Air or an iPad.

As a long time Apple user myself, I do not consider Apple products overpriced. Sure I would want the devices I buy to be cheaper, and I would hunt for bargains (like tax free days). I do not have the computer expertise to be tinkering with my computer. If I want something installed that would require opening the body, I pay a technician to do it. If there is anything I do not understand, I want to talk to someone who knows something about it. Being able to do this got even easier when the Apple Stores came to Boston. So, I consider all these when I choose a computer, as part of the total cost.

As to support, consider this issue. I have not bought an iPhone yet because, I have a very good deal with Sprint. During one of my travels, the phone I had just stopped working (dropped too many times), I had to get a replacement. It took too much time. Then, I eventually replaced it with supposedly a long-lasting battery phone from Samsung. I was supposed to get a $50 rebate from Samsung, but it never arrived. After notying the local branch of Sprint in Boston, they just told me to write to Samsung again? i never got the money.

After a few months, the supposed long lasting battery cell phone gets discharged faster than claimed. I had it checked by Sprint, and they claim nothing is wrong with it. Just so frustrating, but there is no recourse because I have no direct contact with the phone manufacturer. This would not have been an issue, if my phone was an iPhone. I could have gone to the local Apple Store to deal with the matter.

I have used the iPhone, and liked it a lot. I would want one but I could not justify the monthly costs over and above what I pay now with Sprint. I could buy a good iPad yearly for the extra cost of current iPhone usage charges.

However, when my contract with Sprint next yearwould be over, I am likely to bite the bullet, and reconsider holding up not getting an iPhone.

CGC
post #176 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Human males have been conditioned over millions of years to belong to groups.

Whoa! Are you saying all the posters here are male? So there's no chance of getting lucky with a girl here?

Damn!
post #177 of 264
When I consider an iPad I don't think about whether it can run Flash, if I want Flash I'd just consider some other tablets. The RAM size issue to me is about hoping iPad2 to be on par with iPhone 5 in terms of the running similar new apps smoothly and using iOS5 new features smoothly.
post #178 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

I'm not sure which you're referring to, but I think it's one of the following:

In OS 9 and earlier, you could Rebuild the Desktop Database, by holding down command-option on startup. That went away with OS X. Doing this could fix a variety of problems, usually associated with applications being able to be run, or associated with file types. It could also decrease the size of the database making things more efficient, but you'd have to have a lot of files and apps on an old system that hadn't had its database rebuilt in a while to notice much of a difference. Still, it was a good habit to do this periodically. Pre-System 7, the Desktop Database was a huge vector for viruses, so rebuilding often could help prevent that as well (although there was Disinfectant as the most awesomest antivirus application ever).

In OS X there is Prebinding. Prior to 10.2 you could manually update prebinding and it would increase the launch time of a new application. As a result, it may be worth updating prebinding whenever a new app was installed. In 10.2 and later, prebinding was done automatically whenever a new app is launched.

It's what you described first, I had hundreds of thousands of created texts files, created through the years. These do not included those of the applications. I used to "rebuild" then, supposedly as a good practice to avoid fragmentation.

I do not even know how many mmore text, images and all sorts of files I have now, a lot of them are also stored in the internet. I am now in my second external disk drive (more than 1 Terrabyte) on top of the internal drive. I don't even do systematic backup because it could easily increase the size by several fold.

So, I am not sure if the issue of random storage still happens in the OSX.

CGC
post #179 of 264
The question for me is, will iOS 4.3 do to the ipad 1 what 4.2 did to the 3gs?

I really hope not, I don;t want to have to upgrade, I have no interest in cameras on a mobile device other then the odd phone snap. None whatsoever.
post #180 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Not demo'ing ANY third-party app that uses the increased CPU/GPU speed.

Oh, samab, I don't expect much of you, but this is lame even by that standard. You missed the iMovie and GarageBand demos? Why would they need a third-party app to demonstrate that when they had their own? Of all the shills who come here to AI, and there are plenty of them, you are the saddest of them.
post #181 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post

The question for me is, will iOS 4.3 do to the ipad 1 what 4.2 did to the 3gs?

I really hope not, I don;t want to have to upgrade, I have no interest in cameras on a mobile device other then the odd phone snap. None whatsoever.

I've been running the 4.3 beta for quite some time -- works fine!

I believe it was designed more for the iPad 1 than for the iPad 2.

That said, the 4.3 GM is available to developers today -- iPad 2 - specifics, shown yesterday, could be included in that.

Developers are under NDA, so you are unlikely to hear many details until 4.3 is released on 3/11.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #182 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Except your assertion is based at a single frame of a demo video -- with no idea of what was going on at the time or, what the number represented, or even if the number displayed was accurate.

My hands-on experience is based of years of usage of Flash (dating from dealing with Macromedia Flash experts) to personal experience (as recently as yesterday) where Flash hangs/crashes the browser.

I have iPads -- I know how they perform!.

I have read/watched everything I can about the PlayBook -- and everything points to throwing hardware at a poor OS/UI implementation.


When the PlayBook becomes available, we will be able to experience how well or poorly the device performs (including battery).

Of course, time will prove which is the right or wrong assessment.

QNX with Flash UI has been in 20 million automobiles --- with CPU and memory a lot less than tablets and smartphones.

With regard to performance and battery, you talked in the past about how poorly it would be --- based on engadget's screen shot of the battery life. Guess what --- that playbook had ONLY one of the core enabled in that demo. Freeze-frame the video at 29 seconds.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/06/b...ybook-preview/

Very different than the video I cited earlier today --- when the freeze-frame of the video clearly stated processor1 and processor2. Huge battery life improvement just by enabling the second core on.

A single 1GHz Cortex A9 core is 25% faster than a single 1GHz Cortex A8 core that the original ipad1 has. That's the performance we are talking about. People screamed that the CES videos on the playbook --- the flash website (often shown was tbs.com) was slow and stutterly. Well, the Playbook was operating on a single core --- with HD video playing in the background, quake 3 demo running in the background, the photo app playing a slideshow in the background, and the tbs.com website was stutterly in the foreground.
post #183 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Oh, samab, I don't expect much of you, but this is lame even by that standard. You missed the iMovie and GarageBand demos? Why would they need a third-party app to demonstrate that when they had their own? Of all the shills who come here to AI, and there are plenty of them, you are the saddest of them.

No, I didn't say that Apple needed to bring out third party developers on stage to demo third party apps that take advantage of improved speed in CPU/GPU --- just to prove that the new hardware rocks.

I said that Apple was rushing to launch the ipad2 because of the zillion of android tablets --- and because of that rush, no outside developers had the tools nor the time to actually make third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware. This is rather like the Motorola Xoom launching with 16 tablet apps in the app store.
post #184 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

No, I didn't say that Apple needed to bring out third party developers on stage to demo third party apps that take advantage of improved speed in CPU/GPU --- just to prove that the new hardware rocks.

I said that Apple was rushing to launch the ipad2 because of the zillion of android tablets --- and because of that rush, no outside developers had the tools nor the time to actually make third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware. This is rather like the Motorola Xoom launching with 16 tablet apps in the app store.

Actually except the Xoom, nothing significant has come out yet, so there's actually no need to rush because of the 'zillion of android tablets' in your dream. Besides, end of March was the time iPad1 launched, iPad2 is only 2-3 weeks sooner which should not be considered a 'rush' by any standard.
post #185 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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

How is that likely? And what the hell do you mean more RAM isn't always better? Do you mean when somebody other than Apple includes more memory, as in diehard apple fanboy-speak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

What really is the point of playing 1920x1080 on a 1280x800 screen?

Slow down and read the posts! We're talking about output via the video connector ie connecting to an external screen or projector.
post #186 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyopicPaideia View Post

How can the Xoom play back 1080p? Isn't that physically impossible considering it has a resolution of 1280x800???

It has video output... you can plug it into a screen or projector... read the posts before replying...
post #187 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

Actually except the Xoom, nothing significant has come out yet, so there's actually no need to rush because of the 'zillion of android tablets' in your dream. Besides, end of March was the time iPad1 launched, iPad2 is only 2-3 weeks sooner which should not be considered a 'rush' by any standard.

That's a matter of opinion and I can live with people disagreeing with me.

But Apple is selling an ipad2 with enough horses in both the 2x faster CPU and 9x faster GPU to decode 1080p videos. They expect you to pay $35 for that cable and I think it is fair for the consumer to expect that they can actually decode 1080p video.

I didn't make that statement out of thin air, there are numerous factors that are at least supporting my argument.
post #188 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

No, I didn't say that Apple needed to bring out third party developers on stage to demo third party apps that take advantage of improved speed in CPU/GPU --- just to prove that the new hardware rocks.

I said that Apple was rushing to launch the ipad2 because of the zillion of android tablets --- and because of that rush, no outside developers had the tools nor the time to actually make third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware. This is rather like the Motorola Xoom launching with 16 tablet apps in the app store.

It's not really like it at all.
post #189 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

... But Apple is selling an ipad2 with enough horses in both the 2x faster CPU and 9x faster GPU to decode 1080p videos. They expect you to pay $35 for that cable and I think it is fair for the consumer to expect that they can actually decode 1080p video. ...

It's fair for consumers to expect the iPad can do what Apple claims it can do. Expecting it to do something it wasn't advertised to do is pretty dumb.
post #190 of 264
That's a completely false premise. I'd wager that the iPad 2 was in development before any Android tablets were even seriously though about.

The Android tablets are working around the success of the iPad. Currently Android tablets have had no appreciable success that Apple needs to compete against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

I said that Apple was rushing to launch the ipad2 because of the zillion of android tablets --- and because of that rush, no outside developers had the tools nor the time to actually make third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware. This is rather like the Motorola Xoom launching with 16 tablet apps in the app store.
post #191 of 264
Welcome to the twisted logic of internet forums.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It's fair for consumers to expect the iPad can do what Apple claims it can do. Expecting it to do something it wasn't advertised to do is pretty dumb.
post #192 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

How is that likely? And what the hell do you mean more RAM isn't always better? Do you mean when somebody other than Apple includes more memory, as in diehard apple fanboy-speak?

Because iOS software is fine tuned specifically to the iPad hardware in away that Android is not fine tuned the Xoom.

That fact has nothing to do with fanboism, its simply a fact.

Quote:
Slow down and read the posts! We're talking about output via the video connector ie connecting to an external screen or projector.

Seeing as we actually have not seen how well the Xoom can do this. I'd hold out my wide sweeping judgements. It might another coming soon in the near future type feature.
post #193 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It's fair for consumers to expect the iPad can do what Apple claims it can do. Expecting it to do something it wasn't advertised to do is pretty dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Welcome to the twisted logic of internet forums.

It is also expected that consumers don't have to read the fine print to actually find out that they pay $35 for that cable because Steve Jobs said it can output to a 1080 hdtv and then find out at home they can't actually play those videos. Some how that's twisted logic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That's a completely false premise. I'd wager that the iPad 2 was in development before any Android tablets were even seriously though about.

The Android tablets are working around the success of the iPad. Currently Android tablets have had no appreciable success that Apple needs to compete against.

It is clear that Apple started ipad2 development as soon as they launched the original ipad.

I said that the TOOLS that third party developers needed weren't available earlier --- and that no third party developers had time to develop third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware to be launched at the same time as the actual ipad2 launch.
post #194 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Well BS that we need to get this info from a fourth party. Further it is BS in the sense that Apple does publish many specs for the iPads but prefers to screw over the consummer with respect to this one important parameter.

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.

Hmm, all of your recent comments are worthless. Thanks for sharing.
post #195 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It is also expected that consumers don't have to read the fine print to actually find out that they pay $35 for that cable because Steve Jobs said it can output to a 1080 hdtv and then find out at home they can't actually play those videos. Some how that's twisted logic?

The iPad has never been able to play 1080P before. Why would someone suddenly assume that it does? Why would someone need to look through the fine print to find out that the iPad does not have a functionality that it has never had?


Quote:
I said that the TOOLS that third party developers needed weren't available earlier --- and that no third party developers had time to develop third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware to be launched at the same time as the actual ipad2 launch.

What makes this a false premise is the fact that Apple did not present the iPad 2 to developers for them to do anything with it. You are inventing an entire premise in your mind and coming up with an entire conclusion to something that never happened in reality.
post #196 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Because iOS software is fine tuned specifically to the iPad hardware in away that Android is not fine tuned the Xoom.

That fact has nothing to do with fanboism, its simply a fact.

It is also simply a fact that the Playbook uses an embedded OS that will have a smaller memory footprint than the ipad --- and they come with a gig of memory.
post #197 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The iPad has never been able to play 1080P before. Why would someone suddenly assume that it does? Why would someone need to look through the fine print to find out that the iPad does not have a functionality that it has never had?

What makes this a false premise is the fact that Apple did not present the iPad 2 to developers for them to do anything with it. You are inventing an entire premise in your mind and coming up with an entire conclusion to something that never happened in reality.

Apple also never sold a HDMI cable before.

Third party developers don't need Apple to present them with an actual ipad2 in order for the developers to start coding. What they need is the development TOOLS.
post #198 of 264
The Playbook is an entirely different story from the Xoom. At least the Xoom has a launch date, when are they actually going to ship the Playbook?

And an interesting take on developing apps for the Playbook.

You win. I concede defeat. I no longer want to attempt developing an app for the Playbook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It is also simply a fact that the Playbook uses an embedded OS that will have a smaller memory footprint than the ipad --- and they come with a gig of memory.
post #199 of 264
What development tools are you talking about? The HDMI out simply mirrors whats on the screen. Developers don't need to do anything for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Third party developers don't need Apple to present them with an actual ipad2 in order for the developers to start coding. What they need is the development TOOLS.
post #200 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The Playbook is an entirely different story from the Xoom. At least the Xoom has a launch date, when are they actually going to ship the Playbook?

And an interesting take on developing apps for the Playbook.

You win. I concede defeat. I no longer want to attempt developing an app for the Playbook.

They are ALL rushing to get the tablets launched. Apple has the luxury of dropping features from the initial launch to a later date.
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