On the flip side, there are too many users today that rely upon fairly complex computer programs and knowledge. That is never going to go away, in fact quite the opposite. There is always going to be a huge market for the power user, gamer, programmer.
I don't think the point was that everyone will drop their powerfull computers for the iPad. The point, as I read it, was that once people get used to the streamlined iPad way of doing things they will not want to go back to conventional OSs with their old-style file systems and such. They will instead clamor for more powerful iPad-like systems and eventually people will be running Photoshop and other "pro" apps on "power user" capable iPad-like devices.
It is interesting to think of such things, but I think it is a little early to draw these conclusions. I mean, give people a few days at least to try the iPad before declaring it The Future Over All Others
That being said there's nothing to stop Apple building their own Intel based processors and showing the computing world how it should be done. Apple would simply only need to create its own drivers for their own chipsets which is does in BootCamp anyway so backwards compatibility isn't really san issue.
Presently Apple does not have the capability to manufacture their own chips. PA Semi Conductor was a design company. Apple could team with AMD to design and produce "Intel" based processor, but watch out for patents. But why would Apple want to leave Intel?
Or maybe it is a surprise about people, that is the huge number of people buying this thing with no idea how much RAM the device has. That perplexes me to no end.
In the context of this A4 thread I think it is more of an issue than the tight reign on information about the A4. As a techie I'm very interested in the A4 chip and really want to know what makes the iPad tick but that is me and isn't as likely to be important to the average user. RAM on the otherhand should be an issue.
In any event this thread is kinda a waste of time. We will either see the details real sone or we might never. Considering product debut is hours away the article here is really a waste.
Or maybe it is a surprise about people, that is the huge number of people buying this thing with no idea how much RAM the device has. That perplexes me to no end.
It's fast, that's all the average user cares about, or needs to know.
Pure evil? Maybe not pure. I mean wanting to control every aspect of everything you can get your hands on so as to increase your own wealth stems from greed, which is an evil characteristic, but does it make someone pure evil?
If you think Jobs is solely in it "for the money" you haven't been paying attention much. Products like the iPad don't come from companies who are focused on profit first- things like Windows tablet PC's do. The iPad, despite the launch hype, is quite a risk. If you use it for more than 10 minutes it's obviously a labor of love. Just look at the comments about it's internal construction from the iFixIt guys. I doubt any other company would have tried it - indeed, no one else has tried to make a new platform like it before. Plenty will be willing to now follow in apple's wake, however. The days are counting down until the Zune tablet announcement
Or maybe it is a surprise about people, that is the huge number of people buying this thing with no idea how much RAM the device has. That perplexes me to no end.
What perplexes me is why anyone other than a programmer would care. I don't know how much RAM is in my microwave or car's ECU, and I don't care. Nor do I care how much RAM is in my iPad. It either works or it doesn't. So far it has exceeded my wildest expectations.
What perplexes me is why anyone other than a programmer would care. I don't know how much RAM is in my microwave or car's ECU, and I don't care. Nor do I care how much RAM is in my iPad. It either works or it doesn't. So far it has exceeded my wildest expectations.
This is especially true for a new device like the iPad.
With a Mac or a Windows computer, we all have experience with not having sufficient RAM and have seen performance boosts when such defficiencies are fixed by adding more RAM. However, with the iPad, we just assume more RAM will speed things up (especially because by computer standards 256 MB seems rediculously low) but as of yet, there is little to no real evidence of this.
People who are complaining about this now are doing so on a purely speculative basis.
OTOH, I am likely to be a second gen adopter, and I would be pleased to buy one with more RAM!
iPhone and iPad are running OS X, just with a different UI layer (Cocoa Touch vs Aqua/Cocoa).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data
x86 code reuse and the move to Intel processors has definitely seen the revival of the Mac platform or at least accelerated growth and I doubt Apple would want to risk that moving to ARM for seemingly little benefit.
The benefit is huge if the above link is correct. Apple have the IP to push CPUs beyond waiting on Intel and their politics with GPU manufacturers, even though they haven't built the CPU yet, which comes from Samsung. Plus they'd have a common architecture with their mobile devices.
A performance-per-watt advantage of 5-8 times is surely enough to warrant consideration of switching when that's the reason they jumped to Intel.
Certainly some optimizations on the x86 chips can be reused sticking with Intel but they can bundle 5-8x the power in the same package to boost every app, not just optimized ones.
The desktop/laptop model is still tricky because of end users having to get new binaries all over again but devices like the ATV and even the XServe could go to ARM for ultra-low power usage. Most servers would run better with huge amounts of lower clocked chips than fewer fast ones - obviously depends on tasks run and more of both clock and cores is good.
Servers don't have many apps to run like a desktop/laptop, same with the ATV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdubb
A4s do not run at 3ghz... required to run applications of any serious size (e.g Photoshop)
A4s do not have multiple cores... standard on desktops today
A4s do not bridge with desktop GPUs... required to run displays of the sizes seen in MacBook Pros
A4 is based on the Cortex A8 and wouldn't be a reference for a desktop/server chip - its been chosen for its purpose. The A9 supports multiple cores (tested up to 8) at speeds of 2GHz. ARM CPUs have also been used with NVidia GPUs in the Tegra platform:
It's far from the desktop/laptop models but supports 1080p output. NVidia would have to make a new model fit for purpose, possibly after an Apple purchase or whatever.
There's absolutely no reason to consider any possibility of Apple switching to ARM soon as people have said but you can't tell what will happen in the long term. Apple ship just over 10 million Macs a year now and with an install base of 70 million iPods/iPhones, there's a very real possibility that there are more people in the world who own an ARM-based Apple product than an x86 one, especially considering there are a lot of PPCs out there still.
So consider if ARM have 5x better performance per watt now than Intel and say 3 years down the line, they produce 16-32 core 2-3GHz ARM Cortex A10 or A11, what difference would it make if it had to emulate a few things here and there? We had to do it for the x86 transition via binary translation on slower hardware.
The only legacy binary apps you get that are difficult to port are the Adobe Suite, Microsoft Suite, some games and Windows. I doubt Apple care much about Windows usage, Adobe and MS would just have to port the suites over and Apple's dev tools would offer an easy path to target ARM. Apple could use ARM as a co-processor.
I can believe the iPad could be the start of rethinking the computer in anticipation of becoming its replacement. More people dislike computers than their sales would have us believe and they do have barriers. There needs to be a bridge though. The simplicity can't hold back functionality and currently the iPad does. OS X is far simpler than Windows/Linux yet just as powerful. Rather than diverge, I think OS X and iPhone OS will converge to reach the best of both. They may never meet exactly due to the UI and usage differences though.
There was a day we thought Apple would never switch from IBM after using them for 19 years and they did. Didn't see a unix system coming after using the old Mac system for 16 years but here we are. Apple have been using Intel for a grand total of 5 years now and we just can't say for certain that they will continue to in say 5, 10, 15 years from now. We might all be running an OS that is architecture agnostic, we might all be running our lives from our phones. I really think the latter is going to happen one day - mobile is the future of everything.
Comments
On the flip side, there are too many users today that rely upon fairly complex computer programs and knowledge. That is never going to go away, in fact quite the opposite. There is always going to be a huge market for the power user, gamer, programmer.
I don't think the point was that everyone will drop their powerfull computers for the iPad. The point, as I read it, was that once people get used to the streamlined iPad way of doing things they will not want to go back to conventional OSs with their old-style file systems and such. They will instead clamor for more powerful iPad-like systems and eventually people will be running Photoshop and other "pro" apps on "power user" capable iPad-like devices.
It is interesting to think of such things, but I think it is a little early to draw these conclusions. I mean, give people a few days at least to try the iPad before declaring it The Future Over All Others
Apropos . . . here's something interesting:
http://gizmodo.com/5506692/ipad-is-the-future
Why Apple?s iPad will kill today?s computers
Friday, April 02, 2010
Diaz writes, "Everyone will be using computers similar to the iPad. Not in terms of hardware, form factor, and specs. But on its philosophy."[/I]
So every one will still be using computers, they will just be somewhat different. WOW what a prescient and profound idea! Earth shattering.
His own last sentence contradicts his headline. He said absolutely nothing.
I really do not LIKE getting sarcastic. But....
That being said there's nothing to stop Apple building their own Intel based processors and showing the computing world how it should be done. Apple would simply only need to create its own drivers for their own chipsets which is does in BootCamp anyway so backwards compatibility isn't really san issue.
Presently Apple does not have the capability to manufacture their own chips. PA Semi Conductor was a design company. Apple could team with AMD to design and produce "Intel" based processor, but watch out for patents. But why would Apple want to leave Intel?
Apple is opposed to jailbreaking because the company says it results in floods of error messages and user dissatisfaction...
Jailbreaking is a result of user dissatisfaction, not the other way around.
Jailbreaking is a result of user dissatisfaction, not the other way around.
AI had a great discussion about jail breaking the iPad @http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=108097
In the context of this A4 thread I think it is more of an issue than the tight reign on information about the A4. As a techie I'm very interested in the A4 chip and really want to know what makes the iPad tick but that is me and isn't as likely to be important to the average user. RAM on the otherhand should be an issue.
In any event this thread is kinda a waste of time. We will either see the details real sone or we might never. Considering product debut is hours away the article here is really a waste.
Dave
Or maybe it is a surprise about people, that is the huge number of people buying this thing with no idea how much RAM the device has. That perplexes me to no end.
It's fast, that's all the average user cares about, or needs to know.
It's fast, that's all the average user cares about, or needs to know.
My wife has no idea what RAM is. Neither does my mother. Or my brother.
They'll all use the iPad if it's simple though.
Pure evil? Maybe not pure. I mean wanting to control every aspect of everything you can get your hands on so as to increase your own wealth stems from greed, which is an evil characteristic, but does it make someone pure evil?
If you think Jobs is solely in it "for the money" you haven't been paying attention much. Products like the iPad don't come from companies who are focused on profit first- things like Windows tablet PC's do. The iPad, despite the launch hype, is quite a risk. If you use it for more than 10 minutes it's obviously a labor of love. Just look at the comments about it's internal construction from the iFixIt guys. I doubt any other company would have tried it - indeed, no one else has tried to make a new platform like it before. Plenty will be willing to now follow in apple's wake, however. The days are counting down until the Zune tablet announcement
Or maybe it is a surprise about people, that is the huge number of people buying this thing with no idea how much RAM the device has. That perplexes me to no end.
What perplexes me is why anyone other than a programmer would care. I don't know how much RAM is in my microwave or car's ECU, and I don't care. Nor do I care how much RAM is in my iPad. It either works or it doesn't. So far it has exceeded my wildest expectations.
What perplexes me is why anyone other than a programmer would care. I don't know how much RAM is in my microwave or car's ECU, and I don't care. Nor do I care how much RAM is in my iPad. It either works or it doesn't. So far it has exceeded my wildest expectations.
This is especially true for a new device like the iPad.
With a Mac or a Windows computer, we all have experience with not having sufficient RAM and have seen performance boosts when such defficiencies are fixed by adding more RAM. However, with the iPad, we just assume more RAM will speed things up (especially because by computer standards 256 MB seems rediculously low) but as of yet, there is little to no real evidence of this.
People who are complaining about this now are doing so on a purely speculative basis.
OTOH, I am likely to be a second gen adopter, and I would be pleased to buy one with more RAM!
I wonder if the ARM architecture is capable of running a full OS like Windows or OS X.
The company wants to move into that space:
http://www.greenm3.com/2009/09/arm-p...e-designs.html
iPhone and iPad are running OS X, just with a different UI layer (Cocoa Touch vs Aqua/Cocoa).
x86 code reuse and the move to Intel processors has definitely seen the revival of the Mac platform or at least accelerated growth and I doubt Apple would want to risk that moving to ARM for seemingly little benefit.
The benefit is huge if the above link is correct. Apple have the IP to push CPUs beyond waiting on Intel and their politics with GPU manufacturers, even though they haven't built the CPU yet, which comes from Samsung. Plus they'd have a common architecture with their mobile devices.
A performance-per-watt advantage of 5-8 times is surely enough to warrant consideration of switching when that's the reason they jumped to Intel.
Certainly some optimizations on the x86 chips can be reused sticking with Intel but they can bundle 5-8x the power in the same package to boost every app, not just optimized ones.
The desktop/laptop model is still tricky because of end users having to get new binaries all over again but devices like the ATV and even the XServe could go to ARM for ultra-low power usage. Most servers would run better with huge amounts of lower clocked chips than fewer fast ones - obviously depends on tasks run and more of both clock and cores is good.
Servers don't have many apps to run like a desktop/laptop, same with the ATV.
A4s do not run at 3ghz... required to run applications of any serious size (e.g Photoshop)
A4s do not have multiple cores... standard on desktops today
A4s do not bridge with desktop GPUs... required to run displays of the sizes seen in MacBook Pros
A4 is based on the Cortex A8 and wouldn't be a reference for a desktop/server chip - its been chosen for its purpose. The A9 supports multiple cores (tested up to 8) at speeds of 2GHz. ARM CPUs have also been used with NVidia GPUs in the Tegra platform:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_tegra_apx_us.html
It's far from the desktop/laptop models but supports 1080p output. NVidia would have to make a new model fit for purpose, possibly after an Apple purchase or whatever.
There's absolutely no reason to consider any possibility of Apple switching to ARM soon as people have said but you can't tell what will happen in the long term. Apple ship just over 10 million Macs a year now and with an install base of 70 million iPods/iPhones, there's a very real possibility that there are more people in the world who own an ARM-based Apple product than an x86 one, especially considering there are a lot of PPCs out there still.
So consider if ARM have 5x better performance per watt now than Intel and say 3 years down the line, they produce 16-32 core 2-3GHz ARM Cortex A10 or A11, what difference would it make if it had to emulate a few things here and there? We had to do it for the x86 transition via binary translation on slower hardware.
The only legacy binary apps you get that are difficult to port are the Adobe Suite, Microsoft Suite, some games and Windows. I doubt Apple care much about Windows usage, Adobe and MS would just have to port the suites over and Apple's dev tools would offer an easy path to target ARM. Apple could use ARM as a co-processor.
I can believe the iPad could be the start of rethinking the computer in anticipation of becoming its replacement. More people dislike computers than their sales would have us believe and they do have barriers. There needs to be a bridge though. The simplicity can't hold back functionality and currently the iPad does. OS X is far simpler than Windows/Linux yet just as powerful. Rather than diverge, I think OS X and iPhone OS will converge to reach the best of both. They may never meet exactly due to the UI and usage differences though.
There was a day we thought Apple would never switch from IBM after using them for 19 years and they did. Didn't see a unix system coming after using the old Mac system for 16 years but here we are. Apple have been using Intel for a grand total of 5 years now and we just can't say for certain that they will continue to in say 5, 10, 15 years from now. We might all be running an OS that is architecture agnostic, we might all be running our lives from our phones. I really think the latter is going to happen one day - mobile is the future of everything.