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 3

post #81 of 222
The fundamental disadvantage of outsourcing your OS (or, in general for any industry, pursuing non-integrated design and development of your major components) is that eventually, the intensity of competition will impel you to seek out every possible ounce of additional performance by tweaking and refining those components so as to optimize their interaction. It is much easier to tweak an OS when you are optimizing it for 3 basic models versus 20, much less a hundred. A generic OS might be able to compete with a model-optimized one early on but eventually we will see some separation. (Google and Microsoft know this, they confront it everyday hence the Moto and Nokia acquisitions.) I believe with the A7, significant separation between iOS and Android has begun.
post #82 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShepherd View Post
 

I'm glad that we have DUD telling us how it is and not those other experts.

 

I've seen no expert opinion on the topic. Everything said comes from tech journalists, most of whom are totally incompetent.

 
On the other hand, a lot of people are now touting how 64-bit Android is coming soon. And I've read a couple of articles (a few months old) on how beneficial 64-bit Android will be.
 
Now, fandroids should make up their minds. 64-bit is either pointless, or there are benefits. Or maybe 64-bit CPU will only be good for Android, not for iOS?

Edited by capasicum - 9/17/13 at 9:05am
post #83 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.

I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.

Wow, talk about reality distortion. The tech media is shooting FUD at Apple's real 64-bit iPhone while you're telling us that your faith in Google is unshakeable? Are you kidding me? Between Apple and Google only one of those companies is selling a 64-bit phone this Friday, and the other has nothing, not even a promise, and you know how much Google likes to show off its half-baked beta products for the tech media to adulate. If they haven't bragged about 64-bit already it's because they're not working on it. (But I can believe it's about to suddenly get real, now that Apple has shown the way.) Now taste the FUD.

"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 #84 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Re-read what DED wrote. He said that no-one even predicted that there would be a move to 64-bit processors for smartphones.

EDIT: If you want proof, here's a presentation from ARM engineers written in 2011. ARM has been working on 64-bit CPUs since 2007 and one of the prime motivations is "a future need in ARM’s traditional markets" (e.g. smartphones, not servers).

From an online article dated Oct 2012. The a53 is 64-bit.



ARM Cortex-A53 processor core is the most efficient ARM application processor ever, delivering today’s superphone performance while using a quarter of the power, thus enabling low-cost advanced smartphones of tomorrow. The core also incorporates reliability features that enable scalable dataplane applications to maximize performance per mm2 and performance per mW. The Cortex-A53 is optimized for throughput processing for modest per thread compute applications.

Also an article from The Verge "predicting" the tremendous performance advantages of moving to 64 bit arm for smartphones.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/30/3576560/arm-cortex-a57-cortex-a53-cpu-core
post #85 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post
 

 

Re-read what DED wrote. He said that no-one even predicted that there would be a move to 64-bit processors for smartphones.

 

EDIT: If you want proof, here's a presentation from ARM engineers written in 2011. ARM has been working on 64-bit CPUs since 2007 and one of the prime motivations is "a future need in ARM’s traditional markets" (e.g. smartphones, not servers).

 

You know ARM doesn't sold CPU, they sold IP , in 2011 Symbian was already dead.  ARM has finalize their AArch64 spec in mid 2012 and Apple is currently the only one with a ARMv8 in commercial production.  

 

Will I agree, someone could a predicted the 64bit switch, neither Microsoft or Android has put their effort there yet, no AArch64 version of Android (official of not) has ever been seen on the net, no phone mfg has ever talk about 64 Bit SoC before Apple last week announcements.  Everything else is only speculation.

post #86 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

Someone here, I believe, worked at NeXT and therefore could correct me.

Mdriftmeyer
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #87 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Terrible, baseless FUD on Android. 64-bit mobile ARM processors have been in the pipeline for a long time. Everyone in the industry has known this because ARM are very good at communication their long-term strategy. If you don't think that Google has been aware of this coming event for many years then you're highly deluded. Google and ARM both have large dev teams in the UK and there's a lot of staff who've worked for both organisations.

I'm certain that Google has been building and testing a 64-bit version of Android for years, just like they've been doing with their x86 port.

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.

post #88 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxiking View Post

I think people don't get the "64-bit in a phone" thing:
This is about transitioning up a base of thousands of developers to a brave new world:

iPhone:
- 2013: 64-Bit in 5S, 2014: 64-Bit in 6C, 2015: All iPhone lineup is A7/64-bit minimum
- iPhone/iOS 10 (2016/2017) when high-end phones have more than 4GB RAM, Apple can push a 64-Bit only iOS on pretty much all iPhones that are younger than 3 years (5s or higher)
- At the same time Android wills till be all over the shop with different processors, different bitness, different graphics architectures, screen sizes, co processors - you name it.

iPad:
2013: iPad 5 in 64-Bit, 2014 64-Bit in iPad mini, 2015 Apple requires all iPad apps to have a 64-bit fork in the fat binary to get the last developers understand the importance.

AppleTV 4
2014: Apple TV 4 with A7 and 64 Bit with the ImagTech graphics engine
- New Apple TV App Store
- Positioned as casual game console
- Developers can port iPad/iPhone games to the big screen with no ramp up time
- Controlled via iPhone/iPad, new Apple Game controller or 3rd party Controller via BT

Macbook Air (ARM Edition) --> Think Chromebook, just in useful and with software
2015:
- Apple announces new Macbook Air with MacOS for ARM on A8 processor (8GB RAM) & touchscreen
- All new Mac Appstore applications need to provide fat binary (x86, ARM)
- Can run iPad apps in a window.
- Roadmap for all Mac to transition to ARM architecture until 2018

Okay. This is all a bit over the top, but this is what I believe the A7 stands for: An unprecedented move to a unified eco system of phone, tablet, set top box and desktop OS.

One company doing it all with the biggest developer community getting one 64-bit architecture for processor and graphics for all platforms with minimum transition time, QA & testing obstacles and supported by 500M credit cards registered by Apple.

Take that, Microsoft, Google and Samsung.

Cheers Max

I suspect you are pretty close to the mark. You left out take that Intel!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #89 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


JavaME had also existed for years when Android was conceived ~2005, but it still took 3 years to get Android into production.

Also, 64-bit Java is not designed with any intent to run on mobile devices. It runs like crap on desktop PCs, making the platform only ever successful in server deployment.

Also: let me remind you about Adobe Flash, which similarly "existed" years before Google & Adobe decided to make it work on mobiles. After years of trying 2008-2011, they shipped something but then abandoned it because it made no sense.

You also forget that the technical "realm of possibility" needs a viable business model backing it up.

Hopes and dreams of Android fans haven't resulted in app sales, And it's not enough to replicate the work of a company making 75% of the profits of the mobile industry.

 

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.
 
4.  For Google, "Keeping Up with the Apples" is a good enough business model.
 
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.

Edited by Sevenfeet - 9/17/13 at 9:20am
post #90 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

Of course ARM (a corp co-founded by Apple and Acorn Computer) discuss a lots with their partner, since they doesn't sold any hardware, they only licences their hardware to anyone who want to mfg.  Problem is Google doesn't do any ARM development internally, they got no production hardware to work on a 64 bit version of Android and Samsung and Qualcomm, 2 of the most prominent ARM SoC maker chooses the cores multiplication way, look at the Exynos 5 Octa non-sense. 

It's a good thing you are working right there at Google's most secret facilities and you can tell us with certainty what Google is working on.

post #91 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post

I've seen no expert opinion on the topic. Everything said comes from tech journalists, most of whom are totally incompetent.
 
On the other hand, a lot of people are now touting how 64-bit Android is coming soon. And I've read a couple of articles (a few months old) on how beneficial 64-bit Android will be.
 
Now, fandroids should make up their minds. 64-bit is either pointless, or there are benefits. Or maybe 64-bits will be only be to Android, not for iOS?

Apple haters will say its pointless until they have it, then they will all believe they had it first and theirs is better.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #92 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post
 

 

I've seen no expert opinion on the topic. Everything said comes from tech journalists, most of whom are totally incompetent.

 
On the other hand, a lot of people are now touting how 64-bit Android is coming soon. And I've read a couple of articles (a few months old) on how beneficial 64-bit Android will be.
 
Now, fandroids should make up their minds. 64-bit is either pointless, or there are benefits. Or maybe 64-bits will be only be to Android, not for iOS?

 

Android will have to move to 64-bit sooner or later, because some of the high end devices have RAM creeping uncomfortably close to 4gb. The Moto X, Nexus 7, and pretty much every other flagship phone or tablet all have 2gb RAM. The Galaxy Note 3 has 3gb RAM. A transition to 64 bit would happen primarily for memory reasons, not for some magic performance increase.

post #93 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post


Will I agree, someone could a predicted the 64bit switch, neither Microsoft or Android has put their effort there yet, no AArch64 version of Android (official of not) has ever been seen on the net, no phone mfg has ever talk about 64 Bit SoC before Apple last week announcements.  Everything else is only speculation.

Where's your evidence neither Google or Microsoft are not working on 64-bit. Until a few days ago there was no evidence apple were working on it either.
post #94 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Android will have to move to 64-bit sooner or later, because some of the high end devices have RAM creeping uncomfortably close to 4gb. The Moto X, Nexus 7, and pretty much every other flagship phone or tablet all have 2gb RAM. The Galaxy Note 3 has 3gb RAM. A transition to 64 bit would happen primarily for memory reasons, not for some magic performance increase.
It will be that plus a natural progression to a more efficient process and core. There's no rush.
post #95 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

iOS, as a platform for webapps?  Give me a break!

There's no limit to the stupid.

"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 #96 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

Yes, that was SJ's original plan and this is how he sold it to developers (from 9to5mac . com):

 

Only later was he persuaded to change his mind.

 

That's not completely true.

 

He did say that the only way at the time to create 3rd party apps was to write web apps.

 

He also said that they would like to offer a native SDK, when they can figure out how to do it right

 

He never had to be persuaded to change his mind. People who like to make up history by following events rather than details always argue that the jailbreaking community forced Apple to release an SDK. The fact is, Apple has always tested APIs in the wild before releasing them to developers. There are many private APIs that eventually become available to developers once Apple has run them through their course and finalized them - the reason for not letting developers use them, is because Apple may determine to deprecate them or change them for whatever reasons, which would break apps when users upgraded the OS on their devices.

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 #97 of 222
"built the company a fan base of users who don't like to pay for things, and in particular, software." -speaking of Google's Android platform.

DAMN, you hit the nail RIGHT on the head with this one! It's funny because ALL Android lovers I know are cheap bastards and is EXACTLY the reason they swear by Android and talk trash about iOS. Because they want sh** for free. How about their boss says "I want you to do this, that and the other for me everyday, M-F, 9-5....for FREE! I'm not paying you for it." Hmmm....
post #98 of 222

I am personally stoked to see that my new phone will be 64-bit. That was the big one on my wish list. The moment I read it from the live blogs I literally shouted "fuckin' eh"!

 

I don't understand how people argue that 64-bit will is not monumental in its scope. Saying that it's just a little bump up and that it won't see any big developments compared to their 32-bit counterpart is completely short sighted. I ask you what differences did one see from the original 4-bit atari to the 8-bit nintendo to the 16-bit super nintendo to the 32-bit playstation to current gaming consoles? If anyone argues that the changes weren't staggering, then to the ignore list you go.

 

If the gaming arguenment still doesn't do it for you, then I direct your attention to word processing. Why is it that programs today are leaps and bounds better than years past? Is it more creative code writing that has made these significant improvements or is it that there are more possibilities to describe shadows, textures, fonts, graphics, links, etc only possible by 32-bit and even greater in 64-bit machines. I would agree that we have only started to see the benefits to 64-bit programming on the PC side of things. But what's been learned thus far is easily transferred to the mobile landscape.

 

Apple gets this, they've started to utilize that in their camera app. Yes some of the things seen can be done on a 32-bit processor but one can't argue the benefits to utilizing those benefits in 64-bit. Just imagine taking a picture in 16-bit. You get a whopping +65 000 colours. With 32-bit you get the full +16 million colors plus other bits to play with. (i.e. face recognition, geotagging, etc). If you try to do geo-tagging with a 16-bit camera you will inevitably lose some of the already few +65 000 colors. Bringing things into the 64-bit range will allow everything you can do with 32-bit and a whole lot more. One of the additions I already want apple to incorporate is the ability to voice tag photos. You've just taken some photos of a particular site where something funny happened, let's say your significant other just fell in the water. The (32-bit and 64-bit) camera has taken the date, time, place, and face of that particular photo. You then tag with your voice on your (64-bit) camera, "Sue completely bailed off of the dock, she looks hilarious. I don't know where we'll be able to dry off". Those tags can now be used for later. Flash forward 8 years, you're reminiscing about that vacation and you laugh at that memory. Instead of wasting time looking for the photo all you have to do is say, "Sue falling off the pier." and the memory (picture) is displayed.

 

64-bit is going to be awesome! 128-bit will be out of this world!!!!!

post #99 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

Android will have to move to 64-bit sooner or later, because some of the high end devices have RAM creeping uncomfortably close to 4gb. The Moto X, Nexus 7, and pretty much every other flagship phone or tablet all have 2gb RAM. The Galaxy Note 3 has 3gb RAM. A transition to 64 bit would happen primarily for memory reasons, not for some magic performance increase.

 

It's not magic, data can be processed faster. Instead of 32-bits per cycle the CPU processes 64-bits. Is it a huge increase in speed, no it's not. I think when Intel Macs went from 32-bit to 64-bit, the OS saw an overall increase of 10-15%.

 

A 64-bit CPU can process twice as many bits as a 32-bit CPU. Addressing is NOT what determines the "bitness" of a CPU, it's how many bits of data it can process per cycle. This also has a side effect of making the CPU more efficient, requiring less power.

 
The ARMv8 ISA only uses a 48-bit addressing space (256TB), but it is in fact a 64-bit processor.
 
It's too bad EVERYONE just focuses on the "64-bit" part of the A7 when there's so much more to it that can and will increase the speed of apps optimized for it.
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 #100 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by sagan_student View Post

I am personally stoked to see that my new phone will be 64-bit. That was the big one on my wish list. The moment I read it from the live blogs I literally shouted "fuckin' eh"!

I don't understand how people argue that 64-bit will is not monumental in its scope. Saying that it's just a little bump up and that it won't see any big developments compared to their 32-bit counterpart is completely short sighted. I ask you what differences did one see from the original 4-bit atari to the 8-bit nintendo to the 16-bit super nintendo to the 32-bit playstation to current gaming consoles? If anyone argues that the changes weren't staggering, then to the ignore list you go.

If the gaming arguenment still doesn't do it for you, then I direct your attention to word processing. Why is it that programs today are leaps and bounds better than years past? Is it more creative code writing that has made these significant improvements or is it that there are more possibilities to describe shadows, textures, fonts, graphics, links, etc only possible by 32-bit and even greater in 64-bit machines. I would agree that we have only started to see the benefits to 64-bit programming on the PC side of things. But what's been learned thus far is easily transferred to the mobile landscape.

Apple gets this, they've started to utilize that in their camera app. Yes some of the things seen can be done on a 32-bit processor but one can't argue the benefits to utilizing those benefits in 64-bit. Just imagine taking a picture in 16-bit. You get a whopping +65 000 colours. With 32-bit you get the full +16 million colors plus other bits to play with. (i.e. face recognition, geotagging, etc). If you try to do geo-tagging with a 16-bit camera you will inevitably lose some of the already few +65 000 colors. Bringing things into the 64-bit range will allow everything you can do with 32-bit and a whole lot more. One of the additions I already want apple to incorporate is the ability to voice tag photos. You've just taken some photos of a particular site where something funny happened, let's say your significant other just fell in the water. The (32-bit and 64-bit) camera has taken the date, time, place, and face of that particular photo. You then tag with your voice on your (64-bit) camera, "Sue completely bailed off of the dock, she looks hilarious. I don't know where we'll be able to dry off". Those tags can now be used for later. Flash forward 8 years, you're reminiscing about that vacation and you laugh at that memory. Instead of wasting time looking for the photo all you have to do is say, "Sue falling off the pier." and the memory (picture) is displayed.

64-bit is going to be awesome! 128-bit will be out of this world!!!!!

ROFL
post #101 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post


Where's your evidence neither Google or Microsoft are not working on 64-bit. Until a few days ago there was no evidence apple were working on it either.

 

Apple is secretive. Google and Microsoft are show-offs.

 

So, yes, both Google and Microsoft would have shown something like 64-bit OS, just to beat Apple to the punch. They didn't.

post #102 of 222
To be clear, the article seeks to mislead and bamboozle with jargon; Windows does not have a 'limited' 64-bit capability.

Very simply, Microsoft added a new integral datatype called longlong and made the long type, which is traditionally the 64-bit type, as 32-bits. They just added a datatype instead of break the existing one. That's all.

If you have a large amount of data to address, store or compute, then you use longlong. Arrays can be indexed using longlong and thus hold just as much data as any other 64-bit structure on any other system.

If you port an UNIX application to Windows, you just have to remember to use longlong, not long.

Thus Microsoft or Windows does not have a legacy 32-bit compromise.
post #103 of 222
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.

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.
post #104 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post

Apple is secretive. Google and Microsoft are show-offs.


So, yes, both Google and Microsoft 
would have shown something like 64-bit OS, just to beat Apple to the punch. They didn't.

OK, enlighten me as to what is going to be in Android 5.0 then?
post #105 of 222
AllThingsD: “Because Apple makes the development environment and has updated those tools for 64-bit architectures, a developer only really needs to recompile their application to make it 64-bit compatible — assuming they haven’t done anything non-standard with their code,” said Howe. “This will not be true with Android, by the way. The Android Java app and native app environment will need support from Oracle, who owns the Java environment, as well as 64-bit support from the Android kernel. Android has a lot more moving pieces to coordinate, and will take longer to go to 64-bit.”

http://allthingsd.com/20130913/apples-iphone-5s-the-a7-chip-and-that-64-bit-question/
Edited by reydn - 9/17/13 at 10:10am
post #106 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Mdriftmeyer

I was hoping to read Mdriftmeyer's take on this. He is always very insightful.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #107 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post
 

 

That's not completely true.

 

He did say that the only way at the time to create 3rd party apps was to write web apps.

 

He also said that they would like to offer a native SDK, when they can figure out how to do it right

 

 

The key issue is the timing. SJ announced in June 2007 that the iPhone would run 3rd party web apps in safari. He introduced the original iPhone to the world primarily as a fixed function device, namely, "an iPod, a phone, an internet communications device".  Apple started talking about a third party SDK in October 2007, and rolled it out in 2008 with iOS 2.0, together with an infrastructure for running third party apps securely. No one questions that iOS has since become much more of a platform for full-blooded third-party applications. My original claim was made with respect to the original iOS.

post #108 of 222

re-posted below.

post #109 of 222
Enjoying yet another well-written and super informative article by AI and forgot to thank Daniel.

Much appreciated, Sir.

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #110 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post


ROFL

 

Please correct my thinking. I'm open to other points of view.

post #111 of 222
Thanks for an excellent article. I for one can't wait to see the back of Android, and lately there are so many new job opening for Android developer. Despite the fact that I don't know anyone doing pay-for-app making any money from that pit (advert app is a different story) I guess it's some people can't held on to their nerve, and keep hearing scrum bags chanting Apple is doom all day long. Well, if you tell a lie repeatedly, at some point might make someone believe it's true.

Anyway, Apple just lift the curtain of a new era (again for the n times) it will be very interesting to see what happen in the next 2-3 years. I don't think Android is going to survive that long. Smaller player, such as Ubuntu might be able to fill in that gap rather quickly. Most of the people who buy Android purely because it's cheap, it has internet and a camera. They don't really care all that much. So there is no different to them be it an Android or anything else.

BTW, I think Apple insider should start a new section on tracking those anal-ylist performance. This might be quite a good money spinner in the long run 1smile.gif
post #112 of 222

I have no idea what these babys cost, but assuming that its in excess of $100.00, it makes little sense to put $100+ chip in a $200.00 phone! Which make up the majority of android devices!

post #113 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post
 

 

It's not magic, data can be processed faster. Instead of 32-bits per cycle the CPU processes 64-bits. Is it a huge increase in speed, no it's not. I think when Intel Macs went from 32-bit to 64-bit, the OS saw an overall increase of 10-15%.

 

A 64-bit CPU can process twice as many bits as a 32-bit CPU. Addressing is NOT what determines the "bitness" of a CPU, it's how many bits of data it can process per cycle. This also has a side effect of making the CPU more efficient, requiring less power.

 
The ARMv8 ISA only uses a 48-bit addressing space (256TB), but it is in fact a 64-bit processor.

 

Yes, "a 64-bit CPU can process twice many bits as a 32-bit CPU", but only if you give it twice as many bits to process. If your program is CPU-bound and handles a lot of 64 bit integers, such as if you are using the GMP bignum library, it will benefit directly from being able to fit 64 bit integers into a single register. Otherwise, the 64 bit registers alone will contribute little to no improvement in performance.

Quote:
 It's too bad EVERYONE just focuses on the "64-bit" part of the A7 when there's so much more to it that can and will increase the speed of apps optimized for it.
This is very true.
post #114 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShepherd View Post
 

I'm glad that we have DUD telling us how it is and not those other experts.

 

Hasn't he finished his term papers yet?   

post #115 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by reydn View Post

AllThingsD: “Because Apple makes the development environment and has updated those tools for 64-bit architectures, a developer only really needs to recompile their application to make it 64-bit compatible — assuming they haven’t done anything non-standard with their code,” said Howe. “This will not be true with Android, by the way. The Android Java app and native app environment will need support from Oracle, who owns the Java environment, as well as 64-bit support from the Android kernel. Android has a lot more moving pieces to coordinate, and will take longer to go to 64-bit.”

Howe is talking through his a$$ on this one.
post #116 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by abazigal View Post

I won't pretend to be a tech genius. I have no idea how exactly 64-bit will benefit IOS. What I do believe, however, is that Apple no doubt has big plans for this.

Apple has traditionally been very conservative with specs. They are not going to spend so much resources moving their OS over to 64-bit purely for marketing reasons if it did not fit in their long-term roadmap.

Well consider that:
- Chrome, Firefox, Opera and MSIE on Windows are only distributed as "32-bit" because they erroneously assume that nobody uses more than 4 tabs. (64-bit versions of firefox nightly let you open hundreds of tabs, why you need that many, who knows.)
- Adobe didn't make their CS suite completely 64-bit until CC in 2013 (and even then I'm not sure all the applications are 64bit as I refuse to rent software.) The first and only application to go 64-bit was Photoshop, in CS4.

The only OS's where you can get a "pure" 64-bit experience are OS X, and FreeBSD, since the former comes with a 64-bit browser, and the latter will let you compile one (because you can't assume it's safe to run 32bit software.) Linux is a bit of a hit and miss, on Gentoo where you can compile everything, you can make sure everything is 64-bit, but on most binary-distributed (RPM/DEB) you can't even guarantee any binary distribution will run.

Developers consistently make mistakes under assumptions that they can fix it later, when that has never EVER been the case. Windows 64-bit state is a good example, if I check the process list, everything running except notepad and the OS itself, is 32bit. Even the browser. When you run MSIE on Windows 7, it loads a 64-bit parent process, but all the tabs are 32-bit.

Now on OSX... Just about everything in the OS is 64-bit. (The current iPhone simulator, for iOS6 is not) however
- Safari is 64bit
- Chrome is 32bit
- Firefox is 64bit
- Opera is 32bit

So on OS X, your best options are to use Safari or Firefox. Where as on Windows, there are no (non-beta quality) 64-bit browsers.

So what does this mean for 64-bit? Application developers are hesitant to switch to 64-bit development out of inertia and assumptions that the 32-bit mode will continue to exist in future versions of the operating systems. Given there's no reason to remove 32-bit mode (much like x86 chips can still run 16-bit 8088/8086/80286 software if you can find it) but future versions of the operating systems may remove 32-bit support (Windows removed 16-bit support in all 64-bit versions of Windows)

It's much like the existing problem of most applications, still assume there is only one CPU and the CPU will continue to get faster, when the opposite is true. The performance differential between the slowest CPU Apple puts in a non-iOS product and the fastest is (Passmark 1515(baseline Macmini/macbook Air) vs 2,068 (i7-3770)) is 27%, Yet the slowest part here is the same performance as the high-end 8-core FX part from AMD. If you use geekbench (which takes into account all the cores) The first-generation Macbook Air is roughly the same performance as the current generation iPad (both being dual-core parts.)

So 64-bit doesn't automatically make something faster, but aspects of the 64-bit software do. To put more than 4GB of ram in a device requires 64bit address pointers, in turn requiring 64-bit instruction sets. The less mode-switching that goes on, the faster the device remains, which I'm pretty certain is one of the reasons why Apple may turn off "32-bit" mode in a future OS release of OS X or iOS. There is precedent for this (Removing Rosetta and Removing Mac OS Classic support.)
post #117 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post


Well consider that:
- Chrome, Firefox, Opera and MSIE on Windows are only distributed as "32-bit" because they erroneously assume that nobody uses more than 4 tabs. 

Not quite. Chrome and IE assume that nobody uses more than 4gb per tab; each Chrome and IE tab runs in its own process. On the other hand, Firefox hasn't adopted the per-tab process model yet, so moving to a 64 bit build is a more pressing concern for that browser.

post #118 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

The only OS's where you can get a "pure" 64-bit experience are OS X, and FreeBSD, since the former comes with a 64-bit browser, and the latter will let you compile one (because you can't assume it's safe to run 32bit software.) Linux is a bit of a hit and miss, on Gentoo where you can compile everything, you can make sure everything is 64-bit, but on most binary-distributed (RPM/DEB) you can't even guarantee any binary distribution will run.

 

Most mainstream linux distributions release both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. The amd64 releases all track 64-bit software repositories by default, and most don't even have 32 bit libraries unless you go out of your way to install a third-party 32-bit application. Chrome has 64-bit builds for Linux. Do people actually still use gentoo these days?

post #119 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by crees! View Post
 

 

Think bigger. AppleTV.

 

Think bigger.  PadBookAir (13" retina touchscreen, SSD,  Thunderbolt, LTE, 'ac',  iPad and integrated keyboard/trackpad, TouchID).

 
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.   
 
...and everything Surface wanted to be but couldn't  (you want desktop or mobile OS… Or even dual boot/emulation… yeah, we got it.)
post #120 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

Android will have to move to 64-bit sooner or later, because some of the high end devices have RAM creeping uncomfortably close to 4gb. The Moto X, Nexus 7, and pretty much every other flagship phone or tablet all have 2gb RAM. The Galaxy Note 3 has 3gb RAM. A transition to 64 bit would happen primarily for memory reasons, not for some magic performance increase.

 

I don't argue the fact. I argue the attempts to downplay Apple's move to 64-bit architecture and it's benefits. 

 

Here is something to think about:

The 32-bit Windows Serve2000 Datacenter Edition could address up to 256GB RAM. How did they do it? 48-bit addressing (effectively using 38-bit physical address lane), similar to the way the Intel 80286 (16-bit) processor was capable of addressing up to 16MB RAM (24-bit addressing; 16-bit allows for only 64KB).

 

The 32-bit/4GB barrier could be crossed by paging the RAM in multiple 4GB pages. That, of course, requires OS support. In such a scenario, the OS could support more than 4GB RAM. Each application will be restricted to 4GB linear address space, but multiple applications could be hosted in different areas utilising all the available memory. Programs that require more RAM, should support paging.

 

So, 64-bit architecture is NOT a requirement for supporting more than 4GB of RAM. Due to the complications around paging+memory virtualization in the software and system libraries, however, that approach is generally avoided.

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