or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Inside Apple's 64-bit iOS 7 and the prospects for a 64-bit Android
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inside Apple's 64-bit iOS 7 and the prospects for a 64-bit Android - Page 4

post #121 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX View Post
 

I'm interested in reading a good honest article about 64-bit and what this means for Apple vs Windows vs Android, unfortunately this DED guy is really crazy and I can't trust a single word he says. Actually I just couldn't read more than a few paragraphs. He makes me sick.

 

It's not easy to explain when and how 64-bit are good or bad.

 

Often 64-bit architectures are presented using concepts valid many years ago, when 16-bit was cutting edge. In those years 16-bit CPUs basically had a 16-bit memory bus, a 16-bit instruction set, 16-bit internal data paths, 16-bit internal registers, 16-bit arithmetic logic units, 16-bit address space.

 

Modern 32-bit CPUs are quite different. External memory bus could be 64-bit or more, instruction set is much more complex and has SIMD extensions capable of handling vectors of data (not a single 32-bit number), internal data paths are insanely large, internal registers are definitely bigger than 32-bit, there are multiple ALUs of different kinds with SIMD capabilities. And some 32-bit CPUs are capable of handling more than 4GB of RAM through PAE support (basically an artificial extension of the addressing bits).

 

So, what is a 64-bit CPU ? 64-bit is basically a reference to the addressing space, pointers to memory locations have that size.

 

Advantage) 64-bit CPUs allows to natively address more than 2^32 = 4GB of RAM. Note that some 32-bit architectures have physical address extensions (PAE) to partially address this 32-bit limitation.

 

Advantage) Even if only 4GB (or less) are present, the 64-bit CPU still has a 64-bit virtual address space, that allows much more flexibility in memory mapping of large datasets (numerical analysis, movie and image processing, ...)

 

Disadvantage) Extending internal registers and path to support 64-bit address space has a small cost in term of silicon area and power consumption.

 

Myth) 64-bit CPUs do not have double processing power with respect to 32-bit one with the very same Arythmetic Logic Unit. Remember that 64-bit are only for the address space, the internal number crunching units are not changed by 32-bit to 64-bit transition.

 

Myth) While 32-bit means 2^32 = 4 GB support, this is not true for 64-bit. Current 64-bit architectures do not support 2^64 = huge_amount of memory. For example AMD64 architecture supports only 2^48 = 256TB of physical RAM, reserving remaining bits for improvement in the future. I am not sure about ARMv8, but I think 2^39.

 

 

Sorry for the wall of text. I hope it can help to clarify some marketing techno-bubbles.

post #122 of 221
Great write-up as always! But for some the new 64-bit A7, M7 co-processor, improved camera and Touch ID sensor is just a list of meaningless words. And people shouldn't underestimate that with the 5C:

http://iphone-inventory.blogspot.ca/2013/09/why-analysts-are-wrong-about-iphone-5c.html

It's about riding the launch hype and using the "Halo-Effect" to sell 5C devices.
post #123 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

"64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time" is somewhat true, but you're missing the fact that they were targeting server applications. Nobody had any inkling of putting a 64-bit SoC in a phone.
Actually it has been talked about, I'm on record someplace here as saying that iPad needs such a transition as soon as possible. That was widely dismissed. The problem here is that people don't understand system archecture nor where hardware will be 2 years down the road.
Quote:
That's why the tech media refused to believe it was real, and why exVPs from AMD rushed out to say it was hogwash and made no sense to attempt.
I think many people just don't grasp the value of a move to 64 bit especially with the transition to 14 mm processes so near. The extra space 14nm provides means that developers have to find the best way to leverage that space. The architectural enhancements to Arch64 is one way to gin significant advantage while saving space on die for other architectural advancements. Beyond that large RAM systems are not far away at all, using memory mapped I/O means that the real RAM barrier on 32 bit hardware is someplace in the 2-3GB range. Frankly it is no surprise that we have ex-VP saying such foolishness as AMD wouldn't want such stupidity in their organization when it is trying to recover.

Look at it this way even if it takes two more years to get to 14nm Apple already has the infrastructure in place to leverage the advantages those shrinks will provide. It also means that Apple will target 14nm with an enhanced or updated 64 bit complex rather than their first effort at 64 bit. They will have intrinsic knowledge of where the processor and support electronics need to be improved to best support iOS and its apps. In simple terms 64 bit is huge for Apple and its users and has put them well ahead of the pack.
Quote:
If you've been paying attention, you'll recall this all happened before when Apple released the iPhone. RIM BB & Microsoft scoffed at the idea of putting a desktop OS on a high end mobile phone. A mixture of contempt and disbelief.
Many RIM engineers where in fact on record expressing disbelief that Apple was able to pull off what they did with iPhone 1. That just highlights the lack of forward thinking or the ability to grasp where silicon process shrinks are taking us. It literally is the same non sense all over again.
Quote:
Also: does Google have its own x86 port of Android or was that just an effort by Intel to enter the mobile market? Who uses it?

(Crickets)
Who cares? Really people see Android as Apples competition here but I don't think that is actually the whole ball of wax. Apple is really going after established PC architectures here, Windows and the like. I was reluctant to believe in the post PC era but I do believe they are onto something here. IOS, iPad and iPhone are just starting to mature to the point where they are good enough to truly impact the PC world. 64 bit hardware just removes one obstical in that undermining of the PC world.
post #124 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

OK, enlighten me as to what is going to be in Android 5.0 then?

64-bit viruses and malware lol.gif

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #125 of 221

well, we certainly have dueling"experts" here today. but it all comes down to this:

 

- either Google ships a finished 64 bit version of Android in 2014 (not yet another pure hype test beta) along with upgraded Google apps for both smartphones and tablets, or it doesn't.

- if yes, either that 64 bit Android actually improves performance and/or supports new features, or it doesn't.

- if it does, either those 64 bit chipset high-end Android smartphones/tablets sell well in direct competition with the iPhone/iPad, or they don't.

- if they do, either developers also produce updated 64 bit apps for them, including tablet versions, or they don't.

- and if they do, either those owners actually buy those upgraded apps, or they don't.

 

there are a whole lot of "doesn'ts/don'ts" on this list - and like Sam Spade said, "look at the number of them." and then ...

 

- in any event, either Samsung formally forks its version of Android away from Google and/or launches Tizen, either with 64 bit, or it doesn't.

- either Google sidetracks Android (still at 32 bit?) and applies Chrome OS to its own brand of smartphones as its future priority, or it doesn't.

 

i wish there was a way to bring this thread back a year from now, where we could nail down which "expert" got it right - and how everything 64 bit actually turned out.

 

but what we do know for sure now is:

 

- Apple is shipping 64 bit iPhones today with upgraded Apple apps, with iPads sure to follow next month.

- This already improves performance and supports new features (like the major advances in the camera app).

- They will sell 100+ million 64 bit iPhones/iPads in the next year.

- so developers will rush to produce upgraded/enhanced 64 bit apps for iPhone/iPad, because ...

- iPhone/iPad owners will pay for noticeably enhanced apps.

 

basically, everything the Android fan people here are saying boils down to "coulda, woulda, shoulda." but the truth is, Apple just cleaned Android's clock, and they know it.

post #126 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post


OK, enlighten me as to what is going to be in Android 5.0 then?

 

Have a break, have a KitKat :)

 
Google is currently working on Android 4.4, soon to be released. They've announced 5.0, and are obviously working on it. Whether they've already made it 64-bit, or will make it for the final release, is totally irrelevant.
 
As I said in an earlier post:
If 64-bit is insignificant, why did Samsung CEO pledged 64-bit support? Why would be Google making Android 64-bit? RAM? Most Personal Computers do just fine with 4GB RAM. Running MacOS X or say latest Fedora Linux (with KDE) requires less than 2GB in general. 
 
Most high-end Android devices compete on specs, and that's why they pack 3GB of RAM. So, that's a barrier reached due to that being possible (and looks nice on a spec sheet), not because of necessity.

Edited by capasicum - 9/17/13 at 11:07am
post #127 of 221

In defense of Apple, 64 bits and the A7 processor


There is a lot of confusion about why Apple decided to go to a 64 bit ARMv8 architecture for their A7 processor in the iPhone 5S. There is also a lot of doubt about their claim of double CPU performance. I know that 64 bit is essential for further progress in mobile computing and expect that the double performance claim will prove to be accurate. Here is why.

 

Let's start with the performance claim. The A7 processor has twice the floating point and general purpose registers. This means it can perform math a lot faster. The problem is that in order to fully utilize these new abilities you need to compile code that takes full advantage of it. That code cannot run on earlier processors so you also need a fat binary to support earlier iOS devices. Until a developer compiles their app with 64 bit support they won't see a big speed increase (perhaps the 30% seen in earlier reports). It is not the 64 bit that is giving the 2x speed, it is the code compiled for the A7's new instruction set.

 

So why 64 bits? After all the iPhone 5S has just 1GB of RAM which is much less than the 4GB address limit for a 32 bit app. As it turns out the address space is the biggest limitation for a 32 bit app not the RAM size. iOS has a fully featured operating system and can read large files by addressing them as if they were loaded into memory. This trick allow apps to make optimum use of the available RAM (which is less than 512MB) by using the operating system's ability to keep around just the pages that are in use and load others as they are needed. The problem is that it may not be possible to get large contiguous blocks of address space once it becomes fragmented. In addition the operating system itself is using a lot of the virtual address space for the various services it is providing to the app such as maps or the web browser.

64 bit solves all this by providing what may as well be an unlimited amount of address space. My own 3D mapping apps can now address their large map files as a single block of address space. The USA takes up about 6 GB at the best resolution. With 64 bit addressing, it would be possible to drive coast to coast without having to load any additional files because they would all be loaded into the virtual address space and then paged efficiently into the available RAM.

 

In the future you can expect to see amazing increases in flash memory performance. Apple will be able to blur the distinction between physical RAM and virtual address space. That means that apps will be able to allocate as much memory as there is available flash storage. This will make video editing, 3D rendering and other data intensive tasks traditionally performed on desktop computers possible to do on a tablet or even an iPhone.

 

This is my point: Don't treat the A7 processor and 64 bits lightly. Apple's processor group is firing on all cylinders and continues to amaze with 2x speed increases year after year at a time when Intel can barely squeeze out 5 or 10% speed increases on desktop CPUs. Samsung and the other smart phone makers must now scramble to catch up with the A7's advanced 64 bit architecture and blazing performance. The A7 with its dual cores will be out performing other processors with 8 cores and that performance will be visible in all apps not just the few that can take full advantage of many threads.

post #128 of 221

One of the underrated disasters of using 32-bit integers is that they are just big enough to work as counters for a while only to overflow at some future date.  There is therefore an endless possibility of Year 2000 type problems and it also complicates the code to have to constantly check for overflow, with resulting bugs from that code.

post #129 of 221
I always enjoy articles like this one. Good job.
post #130 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenfeet View Post
 

 

1.  Google didn't use JavaME.  They rolled their own.  That takes time.  Not to mention the development time in building a phone, then changing course and revamping the design when the iPhone launched.

 
2.  I could say that OS X wasn't designed for a phone either.  I'm sure the Rhapsody teams were really focused on mobile in 1997.  And Java is still used in servers because server architectures are not homogeneous.  You might need to run on POWER (AIX), SPARC (Solaris), PA-RISC (HP/UX), Itanium (Windows or Linux) or Intel (Windows or Linux). So it makes sense there.  The desktop is one environment...x86.  So writing a native application will run faster and deploy most everywhere, especially since most people aren't running Java on the desktop.
 
3.  Flash had a lot of design problems limiting its success on mobile.  I think it's safe to say that Google has been pretty successful on the whole Dalvik thing.
 
5.  The reason while app sales in the Android universe are lousy (versus free apps) is because Android customers are poor customers in general.  Once they buy a phone, they don't like opening their wallets for anything else.  And they are much more likely to pirate a release.

2. The nice thing about NeXTSTEP kernel was that it DID run on most of those platforms you listed;-), and was pretty full functioned as a microkernel.   It moved up to OSX nicely, but it's still there.  Moving to ARM and then building a new UI on top of that (not using OSX's APIs and forcing it into a small 1/2GB RAM footprint.  It may have not been designed for smartphones, but it was a microkernel from the CMU days, and therefore wasn't like an NT based solution (or a Linux+Interpreter) where there are 

 

4.  again, Google is focussed on maintaining visibility and viability of their revenue touch points.   They saw that Apple was really spinning towards a fully closed system (absorbing of key services, such as search or ads or maps or email).  This is less about keeping up, and more about keeping eyeballs on googles revenue streams… But I do think #5 is where google is failing

 

5.  Google's PROBLEM is that they are getting the wrong eyeballs because of the Android model.  Giving away an OS to phone makers is a race to the bottom for 'cheap' phones.  Yeah a couple huge tech phones are released, but to sell a 3 year old phone that has fully amortized it's R&D (pure profits) is not a Google decision, but a carrier/HWbuilder problem.     Eventually, the are getting the 'cheap' eyeballs, those who want to do 'one thing' that their feature phone did, but it's not sold anymore (say, calendaring and contact list sync).  Why buy anything else?

post #131 of 221
I'm glad I'm not the only one that reacts to DEDs articles that way. I have big problems with reading most of his articles. I could be standing in a stock yard and not be surrounded with so much BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX View Post

I'm interested in reading a good honest article about 64-bit and what this means for Apple vs Windows vs Android, unfortunately this DED guy is really crazy and I can't trust a single word he says. Actually I just couldn't read more than a few paragraphs. He makes me sick.
All you really have to do is look at where Mac OS is today. Basically it is all 64 bit and that gives Apple a stable platform for APIs and he like for a decade or more.

Initially that is what 64 bit will bring to iOS, a stable platform for APIs. This means that going forward they can concentrate on features, performance and other things instead of the complexity of multiple APIs. The next advantage will be more addressable memory, it isn't the 4GB barrier either that some allude to. Rather it has to do with the I/O memory map and how that 4GB / 32 bit address space gets split up. Of course we don't have specifics on this hardware design but it will now be possible to use all RAM installed even if it is less than 4GB.

It really isn't an issue of Apple vs XYZ. Everybody will eventually move to 64 bits so even if people try to twist the discussion around the competition with Android, it really isn't as important as it is to Apples future with iOS. 64 bit removes obstacles to evolving iOS in the way Apple wants too. This is perhaps the biggest deal with this 64 bit transition. 64 bit effectively frees Apple from past limits on iOS devices.
post #132 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post

Have a break, have a KitKat 1smile.gif
 
Google is currently working on Android 4.4, soon to be released. They've announced 5.0, and are obviously working on it. Whether they've already made it 64-bit, or will make it for the final release, is totally irrelevant.
 
Sure it is irrelevant but not because of what you think. The fact is Apple is on a different path than Android, Android could stay 32 bits forever and it wouldn't matter for either platform. Android won't of course for the same reason Apple hasn't, and that is because it is an excessive limitation for the platform.
Quote:
As I said in an earlier post:
If 64-bit is insignificant, why did Samsung CEO pledged 64-bit support? Why would be Google making Android 64-bit? RAM? Most Personal Computers do just fine with 4GB RAM. Running MacOS X or say latest Fedora Linux (with KDE) requires less than 2GB in general. 
That idea that Mac OS runs fine on just 2GB is false and obviously so. It has been well known for years now that 2GB is a minimal allotment of RAM for Mac OS.
Quote:


 
Most high-end Android devices compete on specs, and that's 
why they pack 3GB of RAM. So, that's a barrier reached due to that being possible (and looks nice on a spec sheet), not because of necessity.

While I can't argue that Androids are often sold to the spec obsessed, the funny thing here is that most of those phones are terrible performers compared to iPhones. Some people seem to not grasp the difference between real world usability and performance vs the spec sheet. As to necessity you do mis one thing, in the beginning Android phones actually did need that extra RAM verses the iPhone to work correctly.
post #133 of 221
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... Google itself is turning its attention to Chrome, rather than doubling down on Andy Rubin's Android-centric strategy, which so far has primarily amassed significant legal problems related to its cavalier approach to intellectual property and built the company a fan base of users who don't like to pay for things, and in particular, software.

 

Not to mention amassing the $12.5 billion boat anchor called "Motorola Mobility."

Yes, an integrated hardware + software business could help Google control their own destiny.

You know, like Apple.  But that's only part of the story.  You need vision and commitment.

Evidently Rubin's Android-centric vision didn't extend beyond patching legacy Android issues.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #134 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

Think bigger.  PadBookAir (13" retina touchscreen, SSD,  Thunderbolt, LTE, 'ac',  iPad and integrated keyboard/trackpad, TouchID).
 
PadBook? No way. A real laptop with a real OS though on ARM hardware would be nice indeed.
Quote:
I agree the AppleTV is a platform that can use more power… but… an ARM iOS laptop… no Intel (and that $100+ tax on their chipset), and no Samsung. Sell it with either Mac OSX or iOS on it.   
 
The "TAX" on those Intel chips is likely much higher than $100. It is hard to tell with the foundry business, but it likely costs Apple someplace between $25 and $50 for each A7 out the foundry door. Then you have to add fees for each chip paid to ARM, Imagination and other IP suppliers, in the end the max prices is probably around $75 so Apple could actually save $200 to $300 per machine. With other economies they could be selling an A7 based laptop for $500. Note that is $500 for a high quality machine.
Quote:
...and everything Surface wanted to be but couldn't  (you want desktop or mobile OS… Or even dual boot/emulation… yeah, we got it.)

I'm actually in line for the A7X iPad! It should be a huge step up from my iPad 3. However this would cool my interest in a A7X based laptop running Mac OSX. The reality is I use the iPad in ways different from a laptop, one doesn't necessarily replace the other. Oh by the way that ARM based laptop would have to be as open as the current I86 based laptops from Apple.
post #135 of 221
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
[...] While I can't argue that Androids are often sold to the spec obsessed, the funny thing here is that most of those phones are terrible performers compared to iPhones. Some people seem to not grasp the difference between real world usability and performance vs the spec sheet. [...]

 

The average Android user either lacked the negotiation skills to get an iPhone at their neighborhood cell phone store or simply didn't know any better.  To them, the bigger number is always better, so 64-bits trumps 32-bits.  Boom.

 

The average Android troll on Apple Insider previously had only two angles from which to attack Apple: technical specs and "market share."  But no longer.  The tech spec angle is nearly gone.   Android trolls have totally switched from attacking Apple with meaningless specs to desperately trying to spin the A7's superior specs and performance.  They're so shell shocked that they've nearly forgotten the old third-world "big screen" angle.  And it will be months before they can resume that tactic, with the inevitable cascade of iPhone 5C news: unboxing porn, first impression reviews, extremely impressive benchmarks, iOS 7 reviews, huge sales figures, and then the inevitable holiday season sales spike.  Try spinning all of that.

 

No, the Android vs. iPhone spec war is over.  iPad will soon be 64-bit capable as well, with the A7X.  Boom.

Oh, and as for the Android troll "market share" angle, some share is worth more than other share.

One picture is worth a thousand words:

 

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #136 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

To be fair, iOS was also designed initially for low-memory low-powered devices like the original iPhone. Moreover, it debuted mainly as a platform for web apps, and only later were provisions for third-party apps added in.

 

To be correct, Apple released iOS before it was mature and its OS X underpinning fully ported, thus the reason for not having fully mature APIs and modest power allocation, not because it ever was by design.

post #137 of 221
This analysis is pretty bad.

First, on the advantages of 64 bit to iOS, most of the analysis focuses on features of the 64 bit chip that are unrelated to the fact that it is 64bit. You could have those same features on 32 bit. Hence it is really discussing the advantages of a 64 bit ARM in particular, not 64 bits.

There are a couple of advantages to 64bit that are barely mentioned: faster at high precision math, and faster at handling >4GB memory in a single application.

Whoopee. For a few apps, the math is a big deal. In the future, >4GB memory will be of some interest.

The Android analysis gets an F- - it is extremely wrong.

I won't go into all the errors - it would take to much work.

Critically: the assertion is that it would be harder to port Android (and Android apps) to 64 bit. The opposite is true!

Porting Android requires porting *one* piece of code: dalvik. Applications don't have to even be touched, and there's no cost (unlike iOS) for using apps targeted at 32 bit.

If we were to believe the author's bizarre argument (apps aren't native code so they are harder to port), we'd have to turn upside down the whole reason people went to high level languages and VM's!

In fact, it is the apps that use native code (C) that might, depending on the app, require some porting if they were to run as 64 bit apps. This is just like *all* Objective C apps - every one has the potential to require code changes for 64 bit. Some will actually require it even though they don't need 64 bit at all.

The erst of the Android stuff may sound fine to Apple fan bois, but to those of use working in the Android space, it's just nonsense.
post #138 of 221
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

For Intel's x86, however, the move to 64-bit x86 processors also brought with it a solution to a long-standing issue of being "register starved," because the x86 family had originated as a 16-bit architecture that was incrementally enhanced into a 32-bit CPU. By the time 64-bit PCs arrived, the x86 design was nearly 25 years old.

 

Microsoft and Intel are literally made for each other.  For decades, they've milked the corporate IT market with as little technological innovation as they though they could get away with.  Instead of completely re-engineering their x86 processors (after having failed to persuade Microsoft to commit to a RISC version of Windows) Intel did the easy thing.  They just bolted on a few improvements to x86, released the new compiler, forced PC makers to slap "Intel Inside" stickers on their sheet metal, and called it a day.

 

Meanwhile, Microsoft's last technical "innovation" was putting the NT kernel in a consumer OS.  The result was Windows XP, which is still "good enough" for a huge chunk of Microsoft's corporate and home user base.  And that was way back in 2001.  They've trained a generation of Windows users to expect frustration, inconvenience, and poor taste.  Corporate and home users won't upgrade a PC until they're forced to, and only because of malware infestation or hardware failure.  So Microsoft isn't just attempting to fight Apple and Google.  They're also wrestling with their own negative image.  An image they've built since the early days of DOS.

 

So here we are.  We're living in the post-PC, mobile, interconnected, ecosystem-integrated 21st century.  And what are Microsoft and Intel doing?  They're dribbling out incremental improvements to legacy Windows and x86.  They're going through the motions of existing in the 21st century by releasing lifeless me-too products (Zune, KIN, Surface, Windows RT, Windows 8, and this year's iteration of legacy x86.) 

 

Intel, to their credit, is seeing the light.  The mindless "megahertz race" is over.  Efficiency is the new battleground.  Battery life trumps raw processing power, and Haswell is the proof.  Too bad for Intel that no amount of optimization will make x86 work in iPhone clones or iPad clones.  There's a trillion dollar mobile post-PC market out there, and it's out of both Microsoft's and Intel's reach. Far out of reach.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #139 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post
 

Is that really true?

 

I realize common lore says Apple acquired NeXT and subsumed NeXTSTEP into Mac OS X. But it's more nuanced than that. Someone here, I believe, worked at NeXT and therefore could correct me.

 

SImple to look up. The original NeXTcube was a 25 MHz 68040. NeXTstep was designed around the Motorola 680x0 family and ported to Intel a few years later.

post #140 of 221
It's simple. When Apple released Siri, Andy Rubin said we shouldn't be talking to our phones. Then Google integrated voice search and they stopped saying crap like that.

I expect the Fandroids to stop saying 64-bit is useless or magically faster as soon as Android moves to 64-bit, then it'll be awesome and innovative.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #141 of 221

As an aside, someone (Russ Fischer to be precise), speculates that Intel may be behind the production of the A7, not TSMC: see http://bit.ly/167LaOp (found via Gruber/daringfireball.net).

 

Now, to be fair, Mr Fischer writes this for seekingalpha.com, so he might have financial reasons to stir the pot...


Edited by basjhj - 9/17/13 at 2:07pm
post #142 of 221
Originally Posted by jphamlore View Post
One of the underrated disasters of using 32-bit integers is that they are just big enough to work as counters for a while only to overflow at some future date.  There is therefore an endless possibility of Year 2000 type problems and it also complicates the code to have to constantly check for overflow, with resulting bugs from that code.

 

Specifically the Year 2038 bug. I honestly DO believe that there will be a large number of 32-bit machines and software, Windows or otherwise, left in important use in 2038. Mostly because Microsoft refuses to actually do anything for the betterment of mankind.

 

Of course, 64-bit also has this problem. And yes, I do believe humanity could very well be around that long.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #143 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

It's not critical for creating or running an app, but we were talking about whether the original iOS was intended to run third-party apps, not whether it was technically capable of doing so.

 

No, iOS 1.0 did not support 3rd party apps. As was indicated, Apple was running out of time and wanted to ship the iPhone. If they knew that they were not putting out an API yet for 3rd party developers, why worry about quickly putting in a sandbox before it was needed? Just because the sandbox was not there does not mean they had no intention to support 3rd party apps…

 

There were 3rd party apps for the iPod (the click wheel one). Don't you think those were to test the waters?

 
If you read Walter Isaacson book you will see that Jobs was the ONLY one on the board and leadership team who was opposed to Apps, and his initial resistance was based more on wanting the team to finish and that they did not have the bandwidth to figure out all the complexities involved in creating a dev API and policing the store. He wanted focus. And therefore, did not want to talk about it. As soon as the iPhone shipped, he reopened the discussion and the API shipped in less than 8 months.
 
So, do I think STEVE may have intended 3rd party apps to run on it when the iPhone was brewing? Maybe he was not, but I am sure many people on the team were seeing that as an eventuality, and I cannot imagine Steve not being smart enough to realize it might happen. He just wanted the team to focus on shipping it.
post #144 of 221

The move to 64 bit may not have many advantages in mobile phones, however ramping up production of a 64 bit chip (which as mentioned is most beneficial to games) while introducing the technology to developers, places them in a great place to introduce a next generation gaming console; which are all 64-bit. This combined with the controller designs presented by apple this summer further indicates the release of a full fledge 64 bit, with over 4 gb of ram, dedicated gaming console.

 

Why wouldn't Apple introduce a lower-cost gaming platform with a plethora of apps which can be ported over with little frustration at the same time they bring out the next iPad. I would argue that the move to 64-bit may have been a little premature in the mobile industry however it is essential to entering the gaming market.

post #145 of 221
Originally Posted by animositee View Post

Why wouldn't Apple introduce a lower-cost gaming platform with a plethora of apps which can be ported over with little frustration at the same time they bring out the next iPad.

 

Because they already have one, contained in all iDevices.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #146 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post
 

 

More bullshit from you, Daniel. Even the long dead Symbian had a 64-bit roadmap.

 

It did? Please show some proof of that...

post #147 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Because they already have one, contained in all iDevices.

But not for my tv. And using airplay to run games doesn't have the same feel that my PS3 or XBOX 360 has. Besides why would apple introduce the design for a standalone controller if they weren't looking to expand into TV gaming.

post #148 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


There's a picture on the web of an Intel IDF banner with a icon saying "64-bit" next to a picture of the Green Android Robot. That's probably what you were looking for.

Looking at it will probably make you feel less sick.

 

Probably right that it will apply to ARM as well, but that was IDF, not Google/IO. Intel makes 64 bit CPUs. By the time Android was ported to Intel, it was pretty much exclusive 64 bit CPUs. Of course the INTEL version of Android support 64 bit. I don't think there are any Intel-32 Android devices...

post #149 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


"64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time" is somewhat true, but you're missing the fact that they were targeting server applications. Nobody had any inkling of putting a 64-bit SoC in a phone.

Intel's Merrifield (64-bit x86 Silvermont) was planned for smartphones for quite a long time. 

 

If I'm not mistaken the roadmap was first revealed in May of 2012:

344958-smartphone-roadmap-intel-2012__1__large_verge_medium_landscape.jpg

Bay Trail is coming out in October for tablets and Merrifield is coming in Q1 2014. 

 

I don't expect Merrifield will have much of an impact in the smartphone market, but its bigger brother Bay Trail [Z3740/Z3770] already has a lot to offer.  Bay Trail allows for a Windows 8.1 (and/or Android dual boot) tablet to have a 10~11 hour battery inside of a chassis thinner and lighter than the iPad 4, as well the complete API support (DX11, GLES3, GL4) you would expect from a desktop or laptop.  Performance has also seen a nice boost, finally allowing Windows 8.1 and 3rd party software to run on a tablet (it can even handle light PC games such as Team Fortress 2, Portal 2, Dota 2, etc.). 

post #150 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post
 

 

If 64-bit is insignificant, why did Samsung CEO pledged 64-bit support?

 

Because Apple announced a 64-bit CPU, and Samesung does not want people to think they need longer than a year to copy others? I didn't see the CEO pledge "64-bit support". He pledged a 64 bit CPU in a flagship phone in a year. For all we know it could run all 32 bit but on a 64 bit CPU...

post #151 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAKings33 View Post
 

I don't expect Merrifield will have much of an impact in the smartphone market, but its bigger brother Bay Trail [Z3740/Z3770] already has a lot to offer.  Bay Trail allows for a Windows 8.1 (and/or Android dual boot) tablet to have a 10~11 hour battery inside of a chassis thinner and lighter than the iPad 4, as well the complete API support (DX11, GLES3, GL4) you would expect from a desktop or laptop.  Performance has also seen a nice boost, finally allowing Windows 8.1 and 3rd party software to run on a tablet (it can even handle light PC games such as Team Fortress 2, Portal 2, Dota 2, etc.). 

 

Wow so much expectation.  I won't hold my breath for an Intel CPU that could compete with ARM efficiency.  As much Intel would like, the expensive x86 architecture cannot match Ax lightweight power envelope of 1 watt.  Until Intel proves me wrong, the Bay trails is as much FUD than Tegra lineup with huge expectative but disappointing result at the end.

post #152 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

Wow so much expectation.  I won't hold my breath for an Intel CPU that could compete with ARM efficiency.  As much Intel would like, the expensive x86 architecture cannot match Ax lightweight power envelope of 1 watt.  Until Intel proves me wrong, the Bay trails is as much FUD than Tegra lineup with huge expectative but disappointing result at the end.

 

Bay Trail has already been reviewed and you've already been proven wrong.  

 
The cost for a Bay Trail Z3740 tablet is ~$299 with Windows 8.1 and MS Office.  Apparently the Z3740 only costs $32 USD and the Z3770 is $37 USD.

 

According to Anandtech, at load (during Cinebench) the single thread draws 800mW to 1.2W and the multi thread at load is 2.5W. 


Edited by LAKings33 - 9/17/13 at 2:14pm
post #153 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


There's a picture on the web of an Intel IDF banner with a icon saying "64-bit" next to a picture of the Green Android Robot. That's probably what you were looking for.

Looking at it will probably make you feel less sick.

Neah, don't worry! I just have to look at AAPL price and suddenly I feel great! It's soooo good to make money on the downside! :D

post #154 of 221
Originally Posted by animositee View Post
And using airplay to run games doesn't have the same feel that my PS3 or XBOX 360 has.

 

Should feel roughly identical.

 
Besides why would apple introduce the design for a standalone controller if they weren't looking to expand into TV gaming. 

 

Because they’ve done no such thing? Restricting developers to a set and configuration of buttons is exactly the opposite of the idea of iOS devices. 

 

I missed that on the first go-around. I like it, even if it’s outdated.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #155 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Because they’ve done no such thing? Restricting developers to a set and configuration of buttons is exactly the opposite of the idea of iOS devices. 

 

Actually, they have done such a thing. iOS 7 supports MFi and they have released both an API and reference specs for game controllers. Check your facts. I even have had app updates for games on my iPhone this morning whose changes state "Now with support for iOS 7 game controllers". I'd link to controllers advertising compatibility, but a simple web search will suffice...

post #156 of 221

It seems to me Apple's road map is to replace OSX where they make little money. Even Steve Jobs stopped kicking that dead horse with the Mac vs PC ads years ago. Market share will never rise above 7% because of the same old tired Apple policies surrounding it (too expensive, not expandable, or repairable etc). So they will move beyond it like they did with the Apple II replacing it completely with iOS which has a higher market share. To do that they need a faster processor and 64 bit addressing and true multi-tasking. Then they can start making laptops and desktops using their own chips. The first step is now in place. Unfortunately they are too late having made exactly the same mistakes with iOS as they did with Mac OS. They believe somehow their products are made of gold and they can charge a premium even if they are made of cheap plastic. They have been steadily losing market share to Android which is producing smartphones (not so much tablets yet) with higher resolution screens, a better GUI, better cameras, more features. In fact everything is better on the top models than Apple yet their prices are much lower.  This is a replay of the attitude that killed Macintosh and almost bankrupted Apple. They just can't learn from past mistakes and so are in the process of repeating them. If I am right about Apple's future plans they are wrong about them becoming reality. This time there is no Steve Jobs to pull their asses out of the fire.

post #157 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAKings33 View Post
 

 

Bay Trail has already been reviewed and you've already been proven wrong.  

 
The cost for a Bay Trail Z3740 tablet is ~$299 with Windows 8.1 and MS Office.  Apparently the Z3740 only costs $32 USD and the Z3770 is $37 USD.

 

According to Anandtech, at load (during Cinebench) the single thread draws 800mW to 1.2W and the multi thread at load is 2.5W. 

 

If the Bay trail is so great, why Anandtech gives absolutely no detail on battery life of actual product?  At 2.5 watts max the Z3740 it still 2.5 times more power hungry than Apple SoC.  And Anandtech doesn't count the whole system build around the Z3740, things like external RAM (the Z3740 SoC doesn't have ram) have impact on the battery drainage. 

 

So where is sources that been proven me wrong ?


Edited by BigMac2 - 9/17/13 at 3:22pm
post #158 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX View Post
 

Neah, don't worry! I just have to look at AAPL price and suddenly I feel great! It's soooo good to make money on the downside! :D

 

Since when Wallstreet is backing Apple decision?

post #159 of 221
Originally Posted by RealityField View Post
Market share will never rise above 7%

 

It’s over 15% and rising.

 
…because of the same old tired Apple policies surrounding it (too expensive, not expandable, or repairable etc).

 

The same policies that… aren’t true, you mean.

 
…true multi-tasking.

 

Hush.

 
Unfortunately they are too late having made exactly the same mistakes with iOS as they did with Mac OS.

 

Yeah, no.

 
They have been steadily losing market share to Android…

 

Yeah… no. Again. Just wrong.

 
In fact everything is better on the top models than Apple yet their prices are much lower.

 

“Everything is better”… If you’re an idiot, sure.

 
If I am right…

 

lol.

 

Go crap all over MacRumors. They prefer your drivel to real conversation.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #160 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

If the Bay trail is so great, why Anandtech gives absolutely no detail on battery life?  At 2.5 watts max the Z3740 it still 2.5 times more power hungry than Apple SoC.  

 

That was the Z3770 being tested at 2.4GHz (turbo).  Anand was using an Intel prototype, it will not be coming to market.  Final device specifications are up to manufacturers and they will be launching with improved drivers.  

 
The Clover Trail powered ThinkPad Tablet 2 was able to offer a ~10 hour battery life in a chassis thinner and lighter than the iPad 4.  Bay Trail is more powerful and more efficient than Clover Trail.  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Inside Apple's 64-bit iOS 7 and the prospects for a 64-bit Android