Somewhere in Apple's iPad Development & Design team:
Engineer 1: "Mmm. 256MB RAM should do the job"
Engineer 2: "NO, no. More, more we gotta have more RAM - 1GB at least"
E1: "Why?"
E2: "Well, all those games! Multitasking! You know".
E1: "Well, that would require more power to process all the extra data being moved around. And, err, we don't have multitasking for 3rd party apps anyway".
E2: "Yea, yea. But, we should though. How will people feel when they find their iPad is only 256MB?"
E1: "But we don't say how much RAM they contain on the product pages, only the data storage sizes"
E2: "Well we should, otherwise how can people do that comparison thing?"
E1: "More RAM will cost more, increasing the price and perhaps pricing out some customers. Then there's the effect on battery life too."
E2: "Well, only the ones that aren't serious. I mean who wouldn't want more RAM in their iPad to impress their mates who have less in theirs. And multitask all those apps - I need at least 4 or 5 running constantly"
E1: "I don't think you quite understand what we're trying to create here ..."
(Of course I can't imagine Apple being so foolish as to employ E2, but that's another matter!)
So the process goes:
My iPad is great, speedy, zippy, a joy to use and all those reviews seem to reckon so too.
How much RAM in it?
I don't know, why do you ask?
Just curious?
Hey guys, I've just found out that it's only got 256MB of RAM
Oh no! How could they? How could Apple have crippled it like that? Imagine how much better it would perform if it had 512MB? Or even 1GB? Then it would really scream - man they've shafted me. I'd never have bought it if I knew it had so little RAM, I mean that was a lot for a desktop maybe 10 years ago, but for an iPad? It's so embarrassing ...
The ram point is made clear by a comparison to the botched job that is the hp slate, with 1gb ram, an atom, and windows 7... one need not say more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
so either Apple isn't learning here or they simply have plans to compete with iPads at extremely low price points.
Dave
Dave, I think you are spot on here, apple is competing at extremely low prices and forcing everyone out of the competition. To me that was the smartest technological and marketing move of the ipad. When you get to force acer to admit that they are out of the game and hp to price their crapware $100 lower than you (apple) with a smaller screen and half the battery life. They 've put everyone on a very tight spot, because they followed this strategy: We 'll sell as low as we can without compromising key features such as display tec, battery tec, and overall performance, as well as taking advantage of the integrated os and chip design to maximise the effectiveness of the resources used and cut down on the cost of parts, and dominate the market from day 1. This is no apple tv, this is the real deal, a project rebooted so many times, and arriving just when both the apple ecosystem and the technology are just about ripe.
And delivering a staggering blow to pretty much every tech competitor, that I believe won't just be with the ipad, but with the extended halo effect it will have. The line up is now almost complete, full circle, since Jobs returned, and the competitors are wondering what hit them at the moment, but after they wake up from the hang over of the ipad they are going to suffer a lot more blows with the aforementioned halo effect it will have.
And I think it showcases the decades of wisdom and experience of Steve Jobs as a leader. It's like watching a masterful game of chess the way the ipad launch was set up, the newton is sacrificed, then itunes comes along, ipod, a phone that would make inroads to a lot of users, then an app store, an ecosystem of apps and a cloud service, and then the ipad. You have to admire the careful calculated steps and the build up to it, cause in business as in life it's much harder to restrain one self to careful, meticulous movements, than to go all in too soon. And these steps bear the indelible stamp of Steve.
Well the Nexus One which is suppose to be the fastest smartphone right now has 512mb and I believe something like 576mb for the HD version. One the iPhone adds multi-tasking its going to be hard to get away with 256mb.
I wonder how the iPad will do if/when multi-tasking is added and someone is working on something like Keynote with several other applications open.
First of all, we'll have to see whether the iPad does have 256. That may be wrong. I hope it's 512, but we'll see.
The Nexus One also has a much faster cpu, though the gpu sucks.
There are engineering tradeoffs no matter what. If Apple can pull this off with 256, that would be great. As I mentioned earlier, if they decide to go back and use virtual memory for this purpose, something they're not using with the iPhone devices, then the amount of RAM won't be as important. But I don't think that any phone OS uses virtual memory, though I could be wrong.
OK. I perused the articles. Maybe I missed it, but could you point out where it stated that it costs a bit more and is likely why Apple is… as you contended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Because RAM is easy to add. More wouldn't take up more room. It just costs a bit more, and is likely why Apple is sticking to 256 right now, assuming the reports are correct.
But RAM can slow multitasking. If not enough is present, then things will slow down.
OK. I perused the articles. Maybe I missed it, but could you point out where it stated that it costs a bit more and is likely why Apple is? as you contended.
I have to show you that 512 MB RAM costs more than 256 MB RAM? You haven't figured that out for yourself?
I'm speculating that price was an issue for Apple.
It's disappointing that the original reports' 512 MB of RAM was downgraded to say it's really 256 MB.
Actually to be brutally honest I'm impressed with the fact it's 256MB RAM because having seen Pages and Numbers and Keynote in operation that makes it even more stunning what can be done when programmers think about code optimisation.
Hopefully we can return to the good old days when limited hardware specs meant tidy code instead of the bloat we see today. Apple is definitely heading that way with their release of Snow Leopard.
Alm I the only one curious if apples CPU is stacked vertically cutting down on the path length between pieces. What once took xxx distance now takes x distance. Thus increasing speed?
As an iPhone and now an iPad developer, could you elaborate? This is a new one for me.
I believe they are referring to the fact that with more RAM, you can fudge somewhat on the tightness of your code. In particular the memory management of your App.
Alm I the only one curious if apples CPU is stacked vertically cutting down on the path length between pieces. What once took xxx distance now takes x distance. Thus increasing speed?
I suppose that is possible. For years Apple always promoted the idea that GHz wasn't such a big issue as their data pipelines were far shorter than the Intel and AMD CPUs.
And exactly how do you propose to accomplish that? Move your house to North Dakota? "Fibberglas" batting? I imagine there'll never be a contextual content checker to provide us with the necessary "insulation" from inappropriate word choices.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. As English is not my first language I sometimes make those silly mistakes.
I believe they are referring to the fact that with more RAM, you can fudge somewhat on the tightness of your code. In particular the memory management of your App.
Yes that is a good portion of it. The less memory management that the programmer has to handle the fewer chances for bugs.
That is just in memory management. The other issues is that the developer may have to structure the program logic in ways that he would normally to either accomodate that memory management or to make his code space tighter.
Quote:
Or it could just be me...
No it is me too.
It is a question of what happens when a programmer has to take memory management steps he wouldn't have to if he had more memory. Not to mention is the performance hits that one sees due to the lack of memory which can often lead to other optimization efforts.
It is all about writing simple straight forward code vs trying to stuff more functionality into a code space than it can easily handle. Sure such programs can be wrtten but I submit that they take much longer to debug.
Actually to be brutally honest I'm impressed with the fact it's 256MB RAM because having seen Pages and Numbers and Keynote in operation that makes it even more stunning what can be done when programmers think about code optimisation.
Hopefully we can return to the good old days when limited hardware specs meant tidy code instead of the bloat we see today. Apple is definitely heading that way with their release of Snow Leopard.
256 should be fine for simpler usage. It's when a number of programs are running together that more memory becomes necessary. 256 may be enough for full use of multitasking programs, but it's a tight squeeze.
¿Que? Is that a rhetorical question, because i didn't say the iPad does use less, I just didn't know how much more it used until I ran some tests.
Anyway, after checking the stats immediately after 3 restarts I obtained the following mean average...
. . . . . . .iPad. . .3GS
. .Wired:. . 55MB. . 36MB
. Active:. . 26MB. . 25MB
Inactive:. . .8MB. . .8MB
. . Free:. .126MB. .146MB
. .Total:. .215MB. .215MB
The interesting thing here is that you are comparing with a 3GS, which as we all know has more software running at start up. It would be nice to see numbers for a modern Touch.
What is even more interesting is how the 3G version will work. I was actually thinking about getting a 3G version but if it has even less free RAM available I have to wonder if there is sense in that. I'm actually wondering if the 3G iPad will come with more RAM to deal with the defect. Beyound that how much room will exist for either unit with iPhone OS 4.0.
Some will say it is only 20MB but what is bothersome is that is 20 MB less than a 3GS. Plus it is a good fraction of memory available to user apps.
In any event the issue here that sets me off is that Apple was so damn sneaky here. If one knew what they where buying it would be one thing but when Apple went out of it's way to hide this very important fact it really sucks.
Now it is important for people to realize that I don't think this will keep developers as a whole away from the device. I'm sure however that some are already reconsidering this rev of the device.
One thing they noted for the purpose of gaming, which, so far they found to be great is this:
Quote:
Only having 256MB of RAM to play with is going to be a major problem, but if the launch titles already look and play this good, it's only going to get better.
I didn't say you were dumb. You just said you were. You were expecting me to show you that 512 costs more than 256. Why I don't know.
What false references smart guy?
He didn't ask you to show him that, "512 costs more than 256."
He questioned your claim that the extra costs to double the amount of RAM from 256 to 512 was the reason why Apple used the lower amount. And asked you to show the reports that proved it.
256 should be fine for simpler usage. It's when a number of programs are running together that more memory becomes necessary. 256 may be enough for full use of multitasking programs, but it's a tight squeeze.
The proof is in the pudding. By all reports, the iPad is very, very fast in its present form, so I'm not worried about it.
Of course, I fully expect that next year, iPad v 2.0 will have a faster processor and probably more RAM. No big deal - I'll buy one and give the v 1.0 to my daughter.
Of course, if someone wants to wait for a 512 MB version, they're free to do that, although I've never understood that logic. When the 512 MB version comes out, why don't you wait for the 1 GB version. Then, you should probably wait for the 2 GB version -- and so on. My view is simple - if it meets my needs and budget today, I'll buy it, regardless of whether a newer version will come out some day. The only exception would be something where there's clearly an upgrade just around the corner (MacBook Pro, for example).
Comments
Engineer 1: "Mmm. 256MB RAM should do the job"
Engineer 2: "NO, no. More, more we gotta have more RAM - 1GB at least"
E1: "Why?"
E2: "Well, all those games! Multitasking! You know".
E1: "Well, that would require more power to process all the extra data being moved around. And, err, we don't have multitasking for 3rd party apps anyway".
E2: "Yea, yea. But, we should though. How will people feel when they find their iPad is only 256MB?"
E1: "But we don't say how much RAM they contain on the product pages, only the data storage sizes"
E2: "Well we should, otherwise how can people do that comparison thing?"
E1: "More RAM will cost more, increasing the price and perhaps pricing out some customers. Then there's the effect on battery life too."
E2: "Well, only the ones that aren't serious. I mean who wouldn't want more RAM in their iPad to impress their mates who have less in theirs. And multitask all those apps - I need at least 4 or 5 running constantly"
E1: "I don't think you quite understand what we're trying to create here ..."
(Of course I can't imagine Apple being so foolish as to employ E2, but that's another matter!)
So the process goes:
My iPad is great, speedy, zippy, a joy to use and all those reviews seem to reckon so too.
How much RAM in it?
I don't know, why do you ask?
Just curious?
Hey guys, I've just found out that it's only got 256MB of RAM
Oh no! How could they? How could Apple have crippled it like that? Imagine how much better it would perform if it had 512MB? Or even 1GB? Then it would really scream - man they've shafted me. I'd never have bought it if I knew it had so little RAM, I mean that was a lot for a desktop maybe 10 years ago, but for an iPad? It's so embarrassing ...
so either Apple isn't learning here or they simply have plans to compete with iPads at extremely low price points.
Dave
Dave, I think you are spot on here, apple is competing at extremely low prices and forcing everyone out of the competition. To me that was the smartest technological and marketing move of the ipad. When you get to force acer to admit that they are out of the game and hp to price their crapware $100 lower than you (apple) with a smaller screen and half the battery life. They 've put everyone on a very tight spot, because they followed this strategy: We 'll sell as low as we can without compromising key features such as display tec, battery tec, and overall performance, as well as taking advantage of the integrated os and chip design to maximise the effectiveness of the resources used and cut down on the cost of parts, and dominate the market from day 1. This is no apple tv, this is the real deal, a project rebooted so many times, and arriving just when both the apple ecosystem and the technology are just about ripe.
And delivering a staggering blow to pretty much every tech competitor, that I believe won't just be with the ipad, but with the extended halo effect it will have. The line up is now almost complete, full circle, since Jobs returned, and the competitors are wondering what hit them at the moment, but after they wake up from the hang over of the ipad they are going to suffer a lot more blows with the aforementioned halo effect it will have.
And I think it showcases the decades of wisdom and experience of Steve Jobs as a leader. It's like watching a masterful game of chess the way the ipad launch was set up, the newton is sacrificed, then itunes comes along, ipod, a phone that would make inroads to a lot of users, then an app store, an ecosystem of apps and a cloud service, and then the ipad. You have to admire the careful calculated steps and the build up to it, cause in business as in life it's much harder to restrain one self to careful, meticulous movements, than to go all in too soon. And these steps bear the indelible stamp of Steve.
Well the Nexus One which is suppose to be the fastest smartphone right now has 512mb and I believe something like 576mb for the HD version. One the iPhone adds multi-tasking its going to be hard to get away with 256mb.
I wonder how the iPad will do if/when multi-tasking is added and someone is working on something like Keynote with several other applications open.
First of all, we'll have to see whether the iPad does have 256. That may be wrong. I hope it's 512, but we'll see.
The Nexus One also has a much faster cpu, though the gpu sucks.
There are engineering tradeoffs no matter what. If Apple can pull this off with 256, that would be great. As I mentioned earlier, if they decide to go back and use virtual memory for this purpose, something they're not using with the iPhone devices, then the amount of RAM won't be as important. But I don't think that any phone OS uses virtual memory, though I could be wrong.
You know, it would be easy for you to look this stuff up for yourself, but I'll give you some.
Read the entirety of the articles. Sometimes the sentence is buried inside.
http://www.tipb.com/2010/01/15/ram-d...-multitasking/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/26/e...mostly-a-myth/
http://pocketnow.com/hardware-1/t-mo...-amount-of-ram
http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/10/03...face.concepts/
OK. I perused the articles. Maybe I missed it, but could you point out where it stated that it costs a bit more and is likely why Apple is… as you contended.
Because RAM is easy to add. More wouldn't take up more room. It just costs a bit more, and is likely why Apple is sticking to 256 right now, assuming the reports are correct.
But RAM can slow multitasking. If not enough is present, then things will slow down.
OK. I perused the articles. Maybe I missed it, but could you point out where it stated that it costs a bit more and is likely why Apple is? as you contended.
I have to show you that 512 MB RAM costs more than 256 MB RAM? You haven't figured that out for yourself?
I'm speculating that price was an issue for Apple.
I have to show you that 512 MB RAM costs more than 256 MB RAM? You haven't figured that out for yourself?
I'm speculating that price was an issue for Apple.
You suggesting I am too dumb to figure that out? Well I guess I wasn't as dumb as you thought.
You got called out and tried to pass off false references. I don't consider that too smart.
It's disappointing that the original reports' 512 MB of RAM was downgraded to say it's really 256 MB.
Actually to be brutally honest I'm impressed with the fact it's 256MB RAM because having seen Pages and Numbers and Keynote in operation that makes it even more stunning what can be done when programmers think about code optimisation.
Hopefully we can return to the good old days when limited hardware specs meant tidy code instead of the bloat we see today. Apple is definitely heading that way with their release of Snow Leopard.
As an iPhone and now an iPad developer, could you elaborate? This is a new one for me.
I believe they are referring to the fact that with more RAM, you can fudge somewhat on the tightness of your code. In particular the memory management of your App.
Or it could just be me...
You suggesting I am too dumb to figure that out? Well I guess I wasn't as dumb as you thought.
You got called out and tried to pass off false references. I don't consider that too smart.
Geez. Is it a full moon somewhere? Because now you're just pissin' in the wind.
Alm I the only one curious if apples CPU is stacked vertically cutting down on the path length between pieces. What once took xxx distance now takes x distance. Thus increasing speed?
I suppose that is possible. For years Apple always promoted the idea that GHz wasn't such a big issue as their data pipelines were far shorter than the Intel and AMD CPUs.
And exactly how do you propose to accomplish that? Move your house to North Dakota? "Fibberglas" batting? I imagine there'll never be a contextual content checker to provide us with the necessary "insulation" from inappropriate word choices.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. As English is not my first language I sometimes make those silly mistakes.
I believe they are referring to the fact that with more RAM, you can fudge somewhat on the tightness of your code. In particular the memory management of your App.
Yes that is a good portion of it. The less memory management that the programmer has to handle the fewer chances for bugs.
That is just in memory management. The other issues is that the developer may have to structure the program logic in ways that he would normally to either accomodate that memory management or to make his code space tighter.
Or it could just be me...
No it is me too.
It is a question of what happens when a programmer has to take memory management steps he wouldn't have to if he had more memory. Not to mention is the performance hits that one sees due to the lack of memory which can often lead to other optimization efforts.
It is all about writing simple straight forward code vs trying to stuff more functionality into a code space than it can easily handle. Sure such programs can be wrtten but I submit that they take much longer to debug.
Dave
You suggesting I am too dumb to figure that out? Well I guess I wasn't as dumb as you thought.
You got called out and tried to pass off false references. I don't consider that too smart.
I didn't say you were dumb. You just said you were. You were expecting me to show you that 512 costs more than 256. Why I don't know.
What false references smart guy?
Actually to be brutally honest I'm impressed with the fact it's 256MB RAM because having seen Pages and Numbers and Keynote in operation that makes it even more stunning what can be done when programmers think about code optimisation.
Hopefully we can return to the good old days when limited hardware specs meant tidy code instead of the bloat we see today. Apple is definitely heading that way with their release of Snow Leopard.
256 should be fine for simpler usage. It's when a number of programs are running together that more memory becomes necessary. 256 may be enough for full use of multitasking programs, but it's a tight squeeze.
¿Que? Is that a rhetorical question, because i didn't say the iPad does use less, I just didn't know how much more it used until I ran some tests.
Anyway, after checking the stats immediately after 3 restarts I obtained the following mean average...
The interesting thing here is that you are comparing with a 3GS, which as we all know has more software running at start up. It would be nice to see numbers for a modern Touch.
What is even more interesting is how the 3G version will work. I was actually thinking about getting a 3G version but if it has even less free RAM available I have to wonder if there is sense in that. I'm actually wondering if the 3G iPad will come with more RAM to deal with the defect. Beyound that how much room will exist for either unit with iPhone OS 4.0.
Some will say it is only 20MB but what is bothersome is that is 20 MB less than a 3GS. Plus it is a good fraction of memory available to user apps.
In any event the issue here that sets me off is that Apple was so damn sneaky here. If one knew what they where buying it would be one thing but when Apple went out of it's way to hide this very important fact it really sucks.
Now it is important for people to realize that I don't think this will keep developers as a whole away from the device. I'm sure however that some are already reconsidering this rev of the device.
Dave
One thing they noted for the purpose of gaming, which, so far they found to be great is this:
Only having 256MB of RAM to play with is going to be a major problem, but if the launch titles already look and play this good, it's only going to get better.
I didn't say you were dumb. You just said you were. You were expecting me to show you that 512 costs more than 256. Why I don't know.
What false references smart guy?
He didn't ask you to show him that, "512 costs more than 256."
He questioned your claim that the extra costs to double the amount of RAM from 256 to 512 was the reason why Apple used the lower amount. And asked you to show the reports that proved it.
256 should be fine for simpler usage. It's when a number of programs are running together that more memory becomes necessary. 256 may be enough for full use of multitasking programs, but it's a tight squeeze.
The proof is in the pudding. By all reports, the iPad is very, very fast in its present form, so I'm not worried about it.
Of course, I fully expect that next year, iPad v 2.0 will have a faster processor and probably more RAM. No big deal - I'll buy one and give the v 1.0 to my daughter.
Of course, if someone wants to wait for a 512 MB version, they're free to do that, although I've never understood that logic. When the 512 MB version comes out, why don't you wait for the 1 GB version. Then, you should probably wait for the 2 GB version -- and so on. My view is simple - if it meets my needs and budget today, I'll buy it, regardless of whether a newer version will come out some day. The only exception would be something where there's clearly an upgrade just around the corner (MacBook Pro, for example).