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 3

post #81 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphoria View Post

Do you know how much RAM does the XBOX 360 or the PS3 have?

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.
post #82 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.

The problem is not lack of RAM - but rather video memory bandwidth.

C.
post #83 of 264
It always amazes me how so many people know so much more than Apple about designing iProducts.

After all, it is only logical that some no-name person with zero design experience on a forum like this will know more than Apple's thousands of engineers who have designed some of the leading products in the world.

When you've designed a consumer product that has done 1/100 as well as the iPad, feel free to throw out your comments. Until then, the facts are clear:

1. The iPad 1 was a huge, runaway success
2. The iPad 2 is better in nearly every way (thinner, lighter, cameras, twice the RAM, twice the CPU, much greater graphics performance).
3. While there were undoubtedly some complaints about iPad performance (mostly from people who didn't understand that it isn't a laptop, IMHO), they were rare - and virtually every review talks about near-instantaneous response. My own experience is that I don't recall a time when I felt that it was slow. The iPad 2 will be much better.

Stop the whining, please.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #84 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

You may have some facts wrong.

C.

Lol, okay, so I guess that does make me an expert.
post #85 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoogH View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
You may have some facts wrong.

Lol, okay, so I guess that does make me an expert.

No, it makes you an analyst.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #86 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoogH View Post

WOW, people have no idea how technology works in this thread... I am no expert, but I do have a CS degree...

iOS does NOT store multiple applications in memory, or running simultaneously on the processor. You may ask "Then how does it multi-task". The short answer is "It doesn't" in the common sense of the word.

When you switch to another application, the iPad uses the advantage of a solid state drive. It freezes the application and stores its current state to the SSD. This means, what the user sees is a very fast resume and the APPEARANCE of multitasking. While it is true that applications can request to background process, nearly NO app does this. Even calendar applications simply add events to the system scheduler, rather than multi-tasking. It's a brilliant way to give the consumer what they want while preserving battery life and performance.

That being said, only one application and parts of the OS are actually stored in memory. That means, unless you are running a singular application that needs that memory, MORE does NOT help. Like the poster above me, the system-on-a-chip technology has insanely fast bus speeds. Even if the OS has to retrieve information from the hard-drive, it's an SSD, which is VERY fast compared to a traditional HD.

My point: The pauses, slow down, etc. are due to iOS bugs more so than lack of memory. 512MB of RAM is MORE than enough for the way iOS works. The iPhone 4 uses the same chip and has nearly the resolution of the iPad; it works fine.

This is a great explanation, but unfortunately it's wrong. I know it's wrong because I experience these problems with multi-tasking multiple times a day all day. The state isn't always saved and it seems to have to do with large documents taking up memory that is then needed for another app.

If you switch away from an application that is in effect "using up most of the memory" when you switch back to it, the state is sometimes actually *changed* and parts of the document have been switched out of memory. This is a fact. I experience it with Pages and with some other apps as well. Every day, all day.

I'm not up on the technical details of iOS memory handling (although I already knew everything you state above which is the basic outline), so maybe the stuttering and the pauses during multi-tasking are due to the speed of the memory bus or something but I sincerely doubt it. I don't see how any bus is so slow as to force the user to wait full seconds to access a program that's been "previously frozen."

Regardless of that, the more extreme cases of the state being changed are an easily repeatable thing that I actually tested just before posting this just to ensure myself that I was in fact correct, and that it does in fact happen.

If I am typing a long document in Pages and switch away to something trivial, when I switch back (after a pause) the program is in exactly the same state as when I left it off. If instead I use a program that needs a lot of memory or use two or three programs in a row, Pages "saves" the document and when I go back to it, it has returned to the top or first page of the document. This is most definitely *not* the state I left it in.

I am assuming that what's happening here is that the documents are being paged out of memory and the state is being destroyed because on a user-experience level that's exactly what it seems like. The apps that do this (discard the saved state), are all memory hungry apps like Pages, or some of the comic book readers, so again, I'm assuming that the system is having problems with holding all these apps (and their saved states which would include large files), in memory because this is exactly how the system is behaving.

Why else would Pages discard the saved state? If I'm wrong, I'd be interested in knowing the exact details of the why and wherefore's, but it's not like it really matters since the effect would be the same anyway. I just hope iPad 2.0 doesn't do this because it's not multi-tasking if every app has to start over with it's documents when you switch to it.
post #87 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

When connected to a 1080p tv, the Xoom will "actually play" 1080p video. Conversely, while the iPad2 can technically output 1080p, it can only actually play 720p video, even when connected to a 1080p TV.

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?

Seriously, how does one develop such a ridiculous perspective on technology? I always thought it was ridiculous enough that people wanted a Blu-ray drive in a 13" MBP, but this is even more absurd. Any device manufacturer implementing functionality like this is simply wasting their development resources on it when they should be focusing on more important things, and passing the cost along to you. I guess that's why the Xoom costs $799, with a contract, and, in reality, does far less than a 1st gen iPad.
post #88 of 264
iOS 4 runs on the iPhone 3G which only has 128MB RAM and it works fine, although it does not support multitasking. The CPU is also only clocked at 412MHz.

Anyone who thinks that iOS w/512MB RAM is functionally equivalent to Android w/512 MB RAM or WebOS w/512 MB RAM is just plain ignorant. The same goes for CPU clock rates.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #89 of 264
Rather I'm pointing out that to really make a good device better it needs more than 256MB of RAM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kube View Post

Although I agree that the current iPad "seems" to need more RAM, its hard to know. My main gripe is in Safari, which, when I go pack a page, seems to waste a lot of time reloading the data. This seems to be more the case since 4.2.

The problem is very real. It is a huge problem for 3G cell users as that directly impacts data usage. I wouldn't be surprised if some users cut their data usage in half.
Quote:
But two caveats:
1. The real question is real-world usage. Are there stalls? or is it smooth?

Reloads significantly slow web usage down and can add to ones data usage bill. That is real world.
Quote:
2. If certain actions slow down, its hard to know the bottleneck.

This is true, unless you are the developer you won't know what is slowing down an app. However realize that memory management is not free in iOS.
Quote:
It may turn out the the bump from 256 to 512 fixes most bottlenecks. Maybe not. We'll see.

If that is what we get it will make a big difference. In the end the App will get around 3 times more RAM. That is pretty significant and combined with other Safari improvements ought to make for a much better user experience.
Quote:
--
I a related question. The keynote presentation made a big point about up to a 9x increase in graphics speed and 2x increase in general computation speed. Other than manipulating photogaphic images, where would the graphics speed increase show up?

Well the 2X improvement in CPU power is hard to define right now. We don't know what the improvements to each core is. However many apps that have followed Apple guide lines should benefit from the new CPU.

As to the GPU that is even less defined, we really don't know what capability got a 9x improvement. However let's say 3D performance increased 4X. That means better games performance. It isn't just games though; things like CAD viewers, drawing programs, mapping software and visualization software ought to benefit. IPad is actually an excellent viewer for CAD files and making that faster is a good thing. Beyond that much of the low level drawing code is GPU accelerated so general app performance or feel should be better.
We might even see OpenCL support in the future.

I've never considered the GPU a weak point in iPad 1 but the GPU improvements are very welcomed. In the end it means that developers can deliver far more capable apps in the future.

Note much room has been left for fudge above. We won't really know what performance is like until there are direct comparisons with the old iPad. It looks good at the moment though.
post #90 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

You really don't know what you are talking about. You can not tune the need for RAM away. Beyond that many apps can't even be implemented on iPad 1 due to the lack of RAM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

Yes, it is. And this is probably the most prominent area where you will notice the effect of insufficient RAM (insufficient for what you want to do at that moment, which is holding multiple web pages in RAM).
But I am hard pressed to offer any other app where you notice this effect. Note that basically all apps are designed with the RAM limitation in mind, thus they are designed to operate well with the existing RAM amount. Web pages however are usually not designed with the RAM limitations of the iPad in mind, for sure some are, but most are not.

The doubling of ram and the new Nitro JavaScript engine powering Safari is the classic Apple way of simultaneously dealing with platform evolution, power management, ...and the silly season of selective, and so predictably self-serving, pundits' set of debatable arguments.

A blend of frugal hardware improvement increments and in-house software moxy should do for the end users what reason could never hope to accomplish for the ever coalescing non-sense teasers.
post #91 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoogH View Post

WOW, people have no idea how technology works in this thread... I am no expert, but I do have a CS degree...

iOS does NOT store multiple applications in memory, or running simultaneously on the processor. You may ask "Then how does it multi-task". The short answer is "It doesn't" in the common sense of the word.

When you switch to another application, the iPad uses the advantage of a solid state drive. It freezes the application and stores its current state to the SSD. This means, what the user sees is a very fast resume and the APPEARANCE of multitasking. While it is true that applications can request to background process, nearly NO app does this. Even calendar applications simply add events to the system scheduler, rather than multi-tasking. It's a brilliant way to give the consumer what they want while preserving battery life and performance.

That being said, only one application and parts of the OS are actually stored in memory. That means, unless you are running a singular application that needs that memory, MORE does NOT help. Like the poster above me, the system-on-a-chip technology has insanely fast bus speeds. Even if the OS has to retrieve information from the hard-drive, it's an SSD, which is VERY fast compared to a traditional HD.

My point: The pauses, slow down, etc. are due to iOS bugs more so than lack of memory. 512MB of RAM is MORE than enough for the way iOS works. The iPhone 4 uses the same chip and has nearly the resolution of the iPad; it works fine.

When you switch to another app on iOS 4 the first app stays in the RAM not the flash storage (or SSD). If the system need more RAM then it will terminate the apps in the memory starting with the oldest until the memory demand is met.
post #92 of 264
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.
post #93 of 264
Here's an article that provides some insight about people who actually bought the iPad, and actually used them:

"A Parent’s Struggle With a Child’s iPad Addiction"

Contrary to what many detractors here, those who found the role of the iPad, or other iOS devices in their lives, and their family do not talk about how many rams, or what resolution their devices are.

They talk about the applications that they found useful, or how their children were impacted. Some talk about how improved the lives of some of the more disadvaantaged - the autistic, the deaf, the blind, the disabled, etc.

They do not talk about "upgrade potentials" but what they can do with the device, here and now.

They are aware of the imperfections of the device but take it as it is, because of the other things it can do for them to enhance the quality of their lives.

So, it is like choosing a boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife or partner in whatever endeavor. The ideal is desired but it is an illusion because we can always think of something more ideal.

It is about taking the totality of a being, and in this case, in our discussion, the device, and see if they can be part of our life.

It is pathetic, and borders pathological, for people to "dislike" and "hate" and obsess talking and writing about their hate and dislike. And, even more delusional to think that they can persuade others, in forums like this, those who have found the iPad or whatever device, would simply turnabout and embrace the perspective of hatred and envy.

A post or two is excusable. But, hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands of posts -- reposting the same hatred and dislike, in every conceivable guize?

If it is adulation and acceptance you crave for your perspective of hatred and envy of anything Apple is your goal, you may find more resonance in sites that like or adore the tech devices of your own choosing.

And, if you are being paid to do so, I would have greater respect for a prostitute -(s)he is only selling his/her body, not his(her) soul and mind.


Get a life!

CGC
post #94 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...

does it matter that it cant play 1080P on the device? 720P is more than enough on the current Ipads display resolution. !080P would create more workload for 0 gain.
post #95 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

iOS 4 runs on the iPhone 3G which only has 128MB RAM and it works fine, although it does not support multitasking. The CPU is also only clocked at 412MHz.

It does not work fine, at least from my experience and a lot of my friends' experience. Apps shut down randomly, battery drains much faster, some apps would open and then close in 10 secs, etc.

People keep forgetting that when you've 512MB, about 1/4-1/2 of that is already being used by the OS itself and phone/email/iPod. Also I'd willing to bet that iOS5 which is around the corner will increase the amount of ram needed for the OS itself.
post #96 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobius View Post

What are you basing this statement on?

Seems to me you're making an assumption about the memory based on what you think is enough. The iPad is far more efficient with memory allocation than PCs or Macs for that matter. There's no point paying for more memory if it won't be needed.

March 2012 - Steve on Stage

"Now, those of you with iPads and iPad II's will still be able to run iOS 5.0, you will not however get all of the features! Guess it's time to give us another $500 because we didn't have the foresight to put a Gig of RAM in the thing"...
iMac 24" (Late 07), iMac 17" G5, Mac mini (Early 09), MacBook (Mid 07), iPad WiFi 32, iPhone 4, iBook G4 1.2, HP Compaq 610 Laptop, eMachine W5233, (1) Xserve G5 and (1) Xserve G5 Cluster node with...
Reply
iMac 24" (Late 07), iMac 17" G5, Mac mini (Early 09), MacBook (Mid 07), iPad WiFi 32, iPhone 4, iBook G4 1.2, HP Compaq 610 Laptop, eMachine W5233, (1) Xserve G5 and (1) Xserve G5 Cluster node with...
Reply
post #97 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It always amazes me how so many people know so much more than Apple about designing iProducts.

After all, it is only logical that some no-name person with zero design experience on a forum like this will know more than Apple's thousands of engineers who have designed some of the leading products in the world.

When you've designed a consumer product that has done 1/100 as well as the iPad, feel free to throw out your comments. Until then, the facts are clear:

1. The iPad 1 was a huge, runaway success
2. The iPad 2 is better in nearly every way (thinner, lighter, cameras, twice the RAM, twice the CPU, much greater graphics performance).
3. While there were undoubtedly some complaints about iPad performance (mostly from people who didn't understand that it isn't a laptop, IMHO), they were rare - and virtually every review talks about near-instantaneous response. My own experience is that I don't recall a time when I felt that it was slow. The iPad 2 will be much better.

Stop the whining, please.

Rant- skip buy if you are anti-rant.

Come on, don't use patronizing arguements, you can do better than that. By your logic, you dont have any right to complain or suggest improvements to any thing someone has bought unless they design it themselves, thats silly.

I've found this an interesting thread(aside from the snide comments).
Obviously there needs to be an optimal RAM size, else it would be 1. Can we agree on that?

So... there are a couple issues of concern that people have brought up and they seem valid points. Are they issues for the 'masses' probably not, but for some tech and cost conscience user, maybe.

Point 1 How much work load can the system handle?
With 256, it does not seem to be enough to handle certain 'big tasks'. Counter points - 512 will be more than enough now. This is not a pro unit(until yesterday, when SJ says its not a toy). OR that it is software issue. Example - Can it handle more than 5 minutes worth of video editing? Example - loading mulitiple Safari screens.(note, Apple has claimed a software fixed to a big bottle neck in safari).

Point 2 - Obsolesence - some have pointed out that a few iOS' updates down the road and it may not be able to handle it and new apps. That is a reason for 'extra' memory today. This is also a valid point IMO. Why, we have historical record, older devises are no longer supported. So, what is a good sunset time frame? Thats a whole nother food fight. IMO - 3-4 years, but thats just me.

Would 1Gig of RAM mitigate that? Our PC experiences says yes. Counter arguements is it doesnt really matter if OS is tuned correctly etc.

IMO intuitately, the larger the RAM the better... to a point.
What that point is, I have no freak'n idea. But we do know that software growth will occur, while 512 is fine today, will it be in Dec?

End of rant, all will be answered March 11th.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #98 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.

Thank you for taking the time to write this. Couldn't have said it better myself.
post #99 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmillermcp View Post

Implemented how?

There are developers out there right now that need the extra RAM in iPad 2 to deliver their product. Some apps simply can't be implemented on iPad 1 effectively.
Quote:
Last time I checked, the iPad can run anything the iPhone 4 can unless it requires a special feature like the gyroscope. There is not a single App that requires the iPhone 4's 512MB of RAM.

You did not grasp what was being said one bit.
post #100 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

Come on, don't use patronizing arguements, you can do better than that. By your logic, you dont have any right to complain or suggest improvements to any thing someone has bought unless they design it themselves, thats silly.

That's not even close to what I said.

What I said is that people who don't know anything about product design should stop making stupid comments like "it needs 1 GB of RAM".

If you have a real observation, you are free to comment. For example, the people who say that they have problems with Safari reloading their web pages are reporting an observation. Where they go wrong is in insisting that THEIR solution is the right one. Maybe more RAM doesn't fix it? Maybe it's a design choice by Apple? Maybe it's a software problem. You just don't know.

Stick to observations and requests and I have no objections. The problem is when people jump from that into telling Apple how to design the system - when I'm willing to venture that not a single poster here has the technical credentials for that 'advice' to be useful.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #101 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?

If you travel quite a bit, it is sometimes nice to load up movies on an iDevice and play them back on the flat panel in a hotel room. Granted, 720 works just fine for that purpose.
post #102 of 264
...'bout Willis?"

You tryin' to kill my "ent-y-tainment" reading these bozo's comments an' spoutin' off 'bout stuff they obviously don't have a clue about? Lordy knows: they would do it soooo much better! Ya right!

Just don't "evah" try eating Cheerios at the same time as reading these Forums... b'-weave me!

PS: Hey Wiz: ya gonna write again how the iPad needs more RAM? It's in every thread.
We get it!... too bad you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It always amazes me how so many people know so much more than Apple about designing iProducts.

After all, it is only logical that some no-name person with zero design experience on a forum like this will know more than Apple's thousands of engineers who have designed some of the leading products in the world.

When you've designed a consumer product that has done 1/100 as well as the iPad, feel free to throw out your comments. Until then, the facts are clear:

1. The iPad 1 was a huge, runaway success
2. The iPad 2 is better in nearly every way (thinner, lighter, cameras, twice the RAM, twice the CPU, much greater graphics performance).
3. While there were undoubtedly some complaints about iPad performance (mostly from people who didn't understand that it isn't a laptop, IMHO), they were rare - and virtually every review talks about near-instantaneous response. My own experience is that I don't recall a time when I felt that it was slow. The iPad 2 will be much better.

Stop the whining, please.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #103 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

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

Agreed! One of the very few enlightening posts on the subject thus far.
post #104 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

Agreed! One of the very few enlightening posts on the subject thus far.

Yes... but will it stop the bitching... knowledge, reason and logic seem to have absolutely no effect on the bitch quota...
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #105 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's not even close to what I said.

The problem is when people jump from that into telling Apple how to design the system - when I'm willing to venture that not a single poster here has the technical credentials for that 'advice' to be useful.

Uh hum, some of us are experienced engineers specialized in design of electronic products. So listen up to my *useful advice*.

The memory thing is a red herring, up to an extent.

Let's face it. Apple has rarely made it a priority to have the absolutely fastest processor and greatest amount of memory in any of their products. In fact, they don't make it easy for users to add their own RAM. But I don't remember too many people choosing Windows strictly because of low RAM.

One notable exception is storage capacity for iPods, as they were one of the first companies to sell large-capacity MP3 players (although that's a different type of memory storage). Why did they do down that path? Because they saw a real demand (although I did not believe it at the end) to store that many songs on a portable device.

The neat thing about Apple is that they make their own software and hardware. So we should trust that they know how much memory their software needs.

Motorola is a pure hardware company. So they have to distinguish themselves by brandishing specs that may or may not be essential.

Finally, there is the cost factor. Apple is *cutting some corners* to keep their price lines where they are. I say that not in a derogatory way. They could have added a better rear camera, more RAM or try to out-brawn others in processing power, USB, micro-USB, SD slot or perhaps add a 128 GB version. But the configuration we see is the best compromise between design, usability, manufacturability and cost. Not just the best compromise for Apple. But clearly the best compromise anyone has yet to conjure up.
post #106 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoogH View Post

WOW, people have no idea how technology works in this thread... I am no expert, but I do have a CS degree...

iOS does NOT store multiple applications in memory, or running simultaneously on the processor. You may ask "Then how does it multi-task". The short answer is "It doesn't" in the common sense of the word.

When you switch to another application, the iPad uses the advantage of a solid state drive. It freezes the application and stores its current state to the SSD. This means, what the user sees is a very fast resume and the APPEARANCE of multitasking. While it is true that applications can request to background process, nearly NO app does this. Even calendar applications simply add events to the system scheduler, rather than multi-tasking. It's a brilliant way to give the consumer what they want while preserving battery life and performance.

That being said, only one application and parts of the OS are actually stored in memory. That means, unless you are running a singular application that needs that memory, MORE does NOT help. Like the poster above me, the system-on-a-chip technology has insanely fast bus speeds. Even if the OS has to retrieve information from the hard-drive, it's an SSD, which is VERY fast compared to a traditional HD.

My point: The pauses, slow down, etc. are due to iOS bugs more so than lack of memory. 512MB of RAM is MORE than enough for the way iOS works. The iPhone 4 uses the same chip and has nearly the resolution of the iPad; it works fine.

That's not entirely true. iOS does not swap ANY memory to disk. When the system needs more memory, first it sends a message to an app telling it to free up any non-critical memory. If the system still needs more memory, then it tells an app to prepare to be killed. This gives the app an opportunity to save its current state.

iOS's multitasking services are only for CPU allocation purposes, not memory management.

The application still has to exist in memory for any background processing to occur, so it cannot be offloaded to the disk. When an application requests a background service, it tells the system that it will need to handle specific tasks while it is in the background. The system then wakes the application up and send it the appropriate messages for whichever backgrounding task is requested.

Every app that is put in the background is fair game for being purged from memory, not swapped out of memory, but completely killed. As of iOS 4, before this happens all apps are woken up and sent a message telling it to prepare to be killed, so that it can save its state if necessary and given a set amount of time to complete that task.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #107 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by randyhyde@me.com View Post

If you travel quite a bit, it is sometimes nice to load up movies on an iDevice and play them back on the flat panel in a hotel room. Granted, 720 works just fine for that purpose.

Yes, that 720 is just fine was my point. Not only is it just fine, but no one would ever be able to tell the difference on a screen that size. (And, if you say you can, you're talking BS.)
post #108 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Yes... but will it stop the bitching... knowledge, reason and logic seem to have absolutely no effect on the bitch quota...

That's because many people who post here have no interest in knowledge, reason, logic, truth or honesty. They are here to promote competing technology or to specifically disparage Apple, and they aren't about to let reason and facts get in the way.
post #109 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

It does not work fine, at least from my experience and a lot of my friends' experience. Apps shut down randomly, battery drains much faster, some apps would open and then close in 10 secs, etc.

People keep forgetting that when you've 512MB, about 1/4-1/2 of that is already being used by the OS itself and phone/email/iPod. Also I'd willing to bet that iOS5 which is around the corner will increase the amount of ram needed for the OS itself.

It does work fine, I've USED a friend's iPhone 3G and it was fine. It was only slightly slower than my 3GS which I use all the time with only 256MB and a 600MHz CPU.

iOS does not use that much memory, if you knew ANYTHING about how memory management works in iOS, you would KNOW that.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #110 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

It does work fine, I've USED a friend's iPhone 3G and it was fine. It was only slightly slower than my 3GS which I use all the time with only 256MB and a 600MHz CPU.

I owned the 3G, 3GS and now use the iP4, and having had a full year (nearly so with iP4), I tell you with absolute certainty that the speed improvement with every generation is very noticeable.
post #111 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

Agreed! One of the very few enlightening posts on the subject thus far.

Thanks, I tried to explain it as best I could.

Quote:
That's not entirely true. iOS does not swap ANY memory to disk. When the system needs more memory, first it sends a message to an app telling it to free up any non-critical memory. If the system still needs more memory, then it tells an app to prepare to be killed. This gives the app an opportunity to save its current state.

Actually, this is not right. iOS doesn't notify the app before it kills it - It just kills it right then and there. Apps are supposed to save their states before they are closed out by the user. E.g., the user pressing the home button.
post #112 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post


People keep forgetting that when you've 512MB, about 1/4-1/2 of that is already being used by the OS itself and phone/email/iPod. Also I'd willing to bet that iOS5 which is around the corner will increase the amount of ram needed for the OS itself.

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 ...
post #113 of 264
May be I'm completely wrong but wouldn't Android based devices require much more ram because of the need to keep Dalvik VM in ram? While iOS provides native interface. So 1Gb on Android and 512Mb on iOS don't translate directly to how much RAM individual app can use?
post #114 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.

Right..... and we are talking here about an iPad, for surfing the net and playing some games at 1024x768 with a fraction of textures that the PS3 and XBOX 360 process, and you think the iPad is lacking RAM...

You are delusional....
post #115 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

Rant- skip buy if you are anti-rant.

Come on, don't use patronizing arguements, you can do better than that. By your logic, you dont have any right to complain or suggest improvements to any thing someone has bought unless they design it themselves, thats silly.

To dismiss the post you responded to, as patronizing, and possibly silly may*** in itself be patronizing. The prior post is not so much about logic, as you construed, but more a sense of dismay, desperation of what this forum, and many internet forums have become.

It is emblematic of current social discussion -- it is rare to find "talk shows" or community forums, that are guided by civil discourse. And when I state civil discourse, it is not about niceties -- even ridicule or sarcasm has a role sometimes-- but more that there must be a goal to find eventually what is true and factual.

Instead, internet forums have become simply places for "stating contrasting or opposing positions", stating them as loudly and as often as we can. And, see who can have the last say; or both sides simply stop from exhaustion or lack of time, only to state the same opposing positions again, in various guizes in other threads?

Take the time, to read through the posts of the same people in this forum thread for example, and the essence of their posts in other threads. You will find two extremes:
  1. Those who believe everything Apple/Steve Jobs good and superior
  2. Those who find everything Apple/Steve Jobs bad to be bad and inferior. This group also has the mindset that anyone who uses any Apple product must be a "fanboi".

and many others in-between


I am not too surprised about the first kind. After all this is an Apple-centric site.

But, if you examine those of the second group, they hate everything Apple/Steve Jobs so much, and yet, some of them have hundreds, thousands, some 5,000 or more posts. Many have multiple posts in a single thread. Take one poster, and take the time to read their postings in quite a number of different posts over the years.

How many of them can you really claim to be motivated by logic and the goal to search for what is true and factual?

I will respond to your other points separately.

CGC

*** the operative term is "may"
post #116 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...

Thanks for writing this. It seems to confirm my perceptions of the problems I've been seeing with memory and gives me hope that 512 is enough to fix them. The problems I've seen with some of the comic book readers not saving the app state seem likely related to bad coding and a memory leak. The fact that the apps sometimes freeze and crash is also a clue.

Pages not saving it's state seems directly related to the iOS system "giving up" the memory when other memory intensive apps request it, which is pretty much exactly as I said it was and will likely be "fixed" by the fact that the memory will be doubled on the new model.
post #117 of 264
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? Please don't get me wrong I have no bias either way. I have an ipod touch 32g and an android phone and I like both.
I just wonder why you would jump on something so fast without checking all the options. I see it the same as anything else, I don't buy for name whether it be a fridge a tv or a car I will always see whats on the horizon before I invest now.
Seems to me that waiting would be prudent in this case if you already own an ipad. Unless you are buying on brand name alone, then I understand. I'm just saying with the explosion in the tablet market right now why jump early ?



I will be getting a tablet in 2012 when I can see all the players cards.

ps. if my grammar is a problem get over it ! I didn't like my English teacher...lol
post #118 of 264
Not being technical from an IT or C/S-Eng perspective...I have a feeling that the RAM debate between 512GB on an iPad2 and 1GB on a XOOM (or other Android tablet devices) can be best described by the following interview...

The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven. Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where? Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
-Nigel Tufnel

A proud owner of Apple stock since my Apple IIe
Reply
A proud owner of Apple stock since my Apple IIe
Reply
post #119 of 264
With all this talk about 512 MB, does anyone know if this iPad 2 thingie comes with dedicated RAM for graphics and video?

Jobs talked about boosting graphics processing 9X. They also showed Photo Booth with 9 videos *streaming*. I wonder if there is dedicated VRAM or frame buffer. After all, it would be a natural evolution of smartphone/tablet design to follow the path of PCs.
post #120 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

I owned the 3G, 3GS and now use the iP4, and having had a full year (nearly so with iP4), I tell you with absolute certainty that the speed improvement with every generation is very noticeable.

Never said there wasn't a noticeable speed improvement, just said the 3G works fine with iOS 4. It doesn't multitask, but it is perfectly capable of running apps. I used an original iPhone for two years, it had iOS 3 on it and ran fine as well. I definitely noticed a speed up when I moved to the 3GS, but that didn't render my original iPhone completely unusable.

The problem some people are having is trying to gauge the usability of a device based off a metric (RAM) that doesn't really apply across operating systems and platforms. Each operating system handles memory management differently. Apple completely redesigned OS X memory management to handle very low memory limitations. iOS overhead is almost half of Android, which means it leaves more memory for running apps. This is why the original Android phone (the G1) debuted with 192 MB, because it couldn't fit in 128 MB of memory and why all Android 3.0 devices are being released with 1GB RAM.

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.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
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