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
Since it will be 3G for data only I would expect it to use less RAM than the 3GS for the cellular processes, but it is troubling for those expecting backgrounding in v4.0. Maybe for that extra $130 you also get 512MB RAM, but I doubt it.
Maybe Apple has found a way to lessen the impact of backgrounding to a point that 256MB is sufficient. I think that is the only option if that is to come to this iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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).
Melgross' comments have nothing to with inflated desires or some weird logic that always ends in "I wish it had x*2 RAM" where x = the current RAM in MB. The concern is a valid.
if you are going to run background apps with the suspected v4.0 then 256MB simply won't cut it with the amount of extra video RAM needed using typical backgrounding resources.
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.
Not necessarily because if done right you can have lots of apps open at one time without much performance hit by having every other app run in a low power mode giving full resources to the open.
Or you can have efficient shared libraries like what the Amiga had where one app opens a library in memory and every app that requires that library just uses the one that's opened instead of opening another instance of that library. I well remember 16 apps running at the same time with only 1MB RAM and I'm talking spreadsheet, word processor, paint program, games, internet dialer, web browser, e-mail.
One thing they noted for the purpose of gaming, which, so far they found to be great is this:
Yeah because it's been really really bad for gaming on the iPhone 3GS because of this limitation.
No it hasn't because each game has been specifically programmed for this device meaning they're programmed for the limitations of the device and yet it's out performing a PSP and DS Lite.
I've given up on Ars lately they seem to be so hit and miss with the dribble they release.
if you are going to run background apps with the suspected v4.0 then 256MB simply won't cut it with the amount of extra video RAM needed using typical backgrounding resources.
And the source of your information is.....?
It's amazing how people will make blanket statements about things they have absolutely no way of knowing.
There is, of course, the argument that multitasking will use more RAM than single-tasking (which is one of the reasons I don't think MT has a place on the iPHone or iPad), but how do you know it won't cut it? Have you used the release version of iPhone OS 4.0 with multitasking enabled? If so, can I borrow your time machine?
It's amazing how people will make blanket statements about things they have absolutely no way of knowing.
There is, of course, the argument that multitasking will use more RAM than single-tasking (which is one of the reasons I don't think MT has a place on the iPHone or iPad), but how do you know it won't cut it? Have you used the release version of iPhone OS 4.0 with multitasking enabled? If so, can I borrow your time machine?
You mean besides the numerous tests I ran to measure RAM usage and the iFixit claims that there is only 2Gb RAM on the chip? How much more evidence do you need? Do I really need proof that the 1024x768 display uses more video RAM than a 480x320 display? Why is that only a handful of posters around here can actually do any research?
If you think I'm incorrect why don't you post evidence to the contrary.
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.
He split the question.
Quote:
but could you point out where it stated that it costs a bit more and is likely why Apple is? as you contended.
Two parts. The answer to the first part is obvious, and, as I stated, the other was my own opinion.
And as I said that I thought that might be the reason. I don't have to give a reference for my reason.
He's acting very defensive about any questions about anything that even smells negative about the iPad. I don't have to allow him to pull me into that.
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).
We're waiting for the 3G version, and will buy it shortly after it comes out. The only one who has been recommending that people wait for next years model here, as far as I've seen, is Vinea.
Perhaps you should be more careful of what you read into people's posts.
Not necessarily because if done right you can have lots of apps open at one time without much performance hit by having every other app run in a low power mode giving full resources to the open.
Or you can have efficient shared libraries like what the Amiga had where one app opens a library in memory and every app that requires that library just uses the one that's opened instead of opening another instance of that library. I well remember 16 apps running at the same time with only 1MB RAM and I'm talking spreadsheet, word processor, paint program, games, internet dialer, web browser, e-mail.
We don't really know. But it seems that people who are familiar with this situation are talking about the memory. From my own past experience in programming, I can say that RAM numbers are important. Are you posting from any knowledge you have here, or is it just guessing on your part?
These OS's don't use virtual memory, so what needs to be in RAM, NEEDS to be in RAM. I did speculate that if Apple has now implemented a virtual memory scheme for 4.0, it would alleviate the problem.
Yeah because it's been really really bad for gaming on the iPhone 3GS because of this limitation.
No it hasn't because each game has been specifically programmed for this device meaning they're programmed for the limitations of the device and yet it's out performing a PSP and DS Lite.
I've given up on Ars lately they seem to be so hit and miss with the dribble they release.
You can give up on them. But that just shows that you don't understand what they're writing. The people who author these articles have degrees in computer science, and are pretty good at what they do. Jon, for example stated that he believed the A4 was a Cortex A8, and he was correct, despite that some here argued that he didn't know what he was talking about, and that they apparently did.
I may not agree with all the specifics in Ars articles, but they'r usually pretty accurate. And since several games programmers have said the same thing, It's likely to be true.
The amount of RAM in smartphones has been an issue for some time; the iPad is no different.
It's amazing how people will make blanket statements about things they have absolutely no way of knowing.
There is, of course, the argument that multitasking will use more RAM than single-tasking (which is one of the reasons I don't think MT has a place on the iPHone or iPad), but how do you know it won't cut it? Have you used the release version of iPhone OS 4.0 with multitasking enabled? If so, can I borrow your time machine?
It's not that it won't cut it, as though we're talking about a wall that must be climbed. It's that it makes it more difficult to have the kind of unlimited multitasking that so many on this site have been demanding the past 20 months.
We're talking about degree, not about absolutes here.
Gruber posts review of iPad. The part under the Safari heading shows that mobileSafari is refreshing with multiple pages open when you switch between them. This is also something I and other have noticed on the iPad, on the first two iPhones, but not on the 3GS. The reason is simple: RAM. This resolution is more complex; more RAM is needed or better optimization of mobileSafari.
Two parts. The answer to the first part is obvious, and, as I stated, the other was my own opinion.
And as I said that I thought that might be the reason. I don't have to give a reference for my reason.
He's acting very defensive about any questions about anything that even smells negative about the iPad. I don't have to allow him to pull me into that.
"It just costs a bit more, and is likely why Apple is sticking to 256 right now, assuming the reports are correct."
The "assuming the reports are correct" referred to whether the memory was 256, or the 512 as had been earlier reported, not that Apple was sticking to 356 because of cost.
The "assuming the reports are correct" referred to whether the memory was 256, or the 512 as had been earlier reported, not that Apple was sticking to 356 because of cost.
Grammatically, that's a huge stretch. If you're taking that position, I guess the implication is that your understanding of English is extraordinarily weak.
Grammatically, that's a huge stretch. If you're taking that position, I guess the implication is that your understanding of English is extraordinarily weak.
Think what you like, but that was what I said, and what I meant. It was pretty obvious.
Comments
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
Since it will be 3G for data only I would expect it to use less RAM than the 3GS for the cellular processes, but it is troubling for those expecting backgrounding in v4.0. Maybe for that extra $130 you also get 512MB RAM, but I doubt it.
Maybe Apple has found a way to lessen the impact of backgrounding to a point that 256MB is sufficient. I think that is the only option if that is to come to this iPad.
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).
Melgross' comments have nothing to with inflated desires or some weird logic that always ends in "I wish it had x*2 RAM" where x = the current RAM in MB. The concern is a valid.
if you are going to run background apps with the suspected v4.0 then 256MB simply won't cut it with the amount of extra video RAM needed using typical backgrounding resources.
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.
Not necessarily because if done right you can have lots of apps open at one time without much performance hit by having every other app run in a low power mode giving full resources to the open.
Or you can have efficient shared libraries like what the Amiga had where one app opens a library in memory and every app that requires that library just uses the one that's opened instead of opening another instance of that library. I well remember 16 apps running at the same time with only 1MB RAM and I'm talking spreadsheet, word processor, paint program, games, internet dialer, web browser, e-mail.
Ars posted its looong review of the device.
One thing they noted for the purpose of gaming, which, so far they found to be great is this:
Yeah because it's been really really bad for gaming on the iPhone 3GS because of this limitation.
No it hasn't because each game has been specifically programmed for this device meaning they're programmed for the limitations of the device and yet it's out performing a PSP and DS Lite.
I've given up on Ars lately they seem to be so hit and miss with the dribble they release.
if you are going to run background apps with the suspected v4.0 then 256MB simply won't cut it with the amount of extra video RAM needed using typical backgrounding resources.
And the source of your information is.....?
It's amazing how people will make blanket statements about things they have absolutely no way of knowing.
There is, of course, the argument that multitasking will use more RAM than single-tasking (which is one of the reasons I don't think MT has a place on the iPHone or iPad), but how do you know it won't cut it? Have you used the release version of iPhone OS 4.0 with multitasking enabled? If so, can I borrow your time machine?
And the source of your information is.....?
It's amazing how people will make blanket statements about things they have absolutely no way of knowing.
There is, of course, the argument that multitasking will use more RAM than single-tasking (which is one of the reasons I don't think MT has a place on the iPHone or iPad), but how do you know it won't cut it? Have you used the release version of iPhone OS 4.0 with multitasking enabled? If so, can I borrow your time machine?
You mean besides the numerous tests I ran to measure RAM usage and the iFixit claims that there is only 2Gb RAM on the chip? How much more evidence do you need? Do I really need proof that the 1024x768 display uses more video RAM than a 480x320 display? Why is that only a handful of posters around here can actually do any research?
If you think I'm incorrect why don't you post evidence to the contrary.
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.
He split the question.
but could you point out where it stated that it costs a bit more and is likely why Apple is? as you contended.
Two parts. The answer to the first part is obvious, and, as I stated, the other was my own opinion.
And as I said that I thought that might be the reason. I don't have to give a reference for my reason.
He's acting very defensive about any questions about anything that even smells negative about the iPad. I don't have to allow him to pull me into that.
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).
We're waiting for the 3G version, and will buy it shortly after it comes out. The only one who has been recommending that people wait for next years model here, as far as I've seen, is Vinea.
Perhaps you should be more careful of what you read into people's posts.
Not necessarily because if done right you can have lots of apps open at one time without much performance hit by having every other app run in a low power mode giving full resources to the open.
Or you can have efficient shared libraries like what the Amiga had where one app opens a library in memory and every app that requires that library just uses the one that's opened instead of opening another instance of that library. I well remember 16 apps running at the same time with only 1MB RAM and I'm talking spreadsheet, word processor, paint program, games, internet dialer, web browser, e-mail.
We don't really know. But it seems that people who are familiar with this situation are talking about the memory. From my own past experience in programming, I can say that RAM numbers are important. Are you posting from any knowledge you have here, or is it just guessing on your part?
These OS's don't use virtual memory, so what needs to be in RAM, NEEDS to be in RAM. I did speculate that if Apple has now implemented a virtual memory scheme for 4.0, it would alleviate the problem.
Yeah because it's been really really bad for gaming on the iPhone 3GS because of this limitation.
No it hasn't because each game has been specifically programmed for this device meaning they're programmed for the limitations of the device and yet it's out performing a PSP and DS Lite.
I've given up on Ars lately they seem to be so hit and miss with the dribble they release.
You can give up on them. But that just shows that you don't understand what they're writing. The people who author these articles have degrees in computer science, and are pretty good at what they do. Jon, for example stated that he believed the A4 was a Cortex A8, and he was correct, despite that some here argued that he didn't know what he was talking about, and that they apparently did.
I may not agree with all the specifics in Ars articles, but they'r usually pretty accurate. And since several games programmers have said the same thing, It's likely to be true.
The amount of RAM in smartphones has been an issue for some time; the iPad is no different.
And the source of your information is.....?
It's amazing how people will make blanket statements about things they have absolutely no way of knowing.
There is, of course, the argument that multitasking will use more RAM than single-tasking (which is one of the reasons I don't think MT has a place on the iPHone or iPad), but how do you know it won't cut it? Have you used the release version of iPhone OS 4.0 with multitasking enabled? If so, can I borrow your time machine?
It's not that it won't cut it, as though we're talking about a wall that must be climbed. It's that it makes it more difficult to have the kind of unlimited multitasking that so many on this site have been demanding the past 20 months.
We're talking about degree, not about absolutes here.
He split the question.
Two parts. The answer to the first part is obvious, and, as I stated, the other was my own opinion.
And as I said that I thought that might be the reason. I don't have to give a reference for my reason.
He's acting very defensive about any questions about anything that even smells negative about the iPad. I don't have to allow him to pull me into that.
Like hell I did.
Look at my original post, i.e., #53.
I was very specific when I asked you to show the reports that the reason why Apple was sticking to 256 right not because it costs a bit more.
Like hell I did.
Look at my original post, i.e., #53.
I was very specific when I asked you to show the reports that the reason why Apple was sticking to 256 right not because it costs a bit more.
I quoted you directly. And, for the third time, I'll state that I said that I thought cost might be a reason why Apple stuck with 256.
You have a problem reading that for some reason.
I quoted you directly. And, for the third time, I'll state that I said that I thought cost might be a reason why Apple stuck with 256.
You have a problem reading that for some reason.
I did not question your 'thought'.
I questioned the reports that you claimed supported your thought.
I did not question your 'thought'.
I questioned the reports that you claimed supported your thought.
I never said that the reports supported my thought that the reason was price.
I never said that the reports supported my thought that the reason was price.
Really?
How else would you interpret:
"It just costs a bit more, and is likely why Apple is sticking to 256 right now, assuming the reports are correct."
Really?
How else would you interpret:
"It just costs a bit more, and is likely why Apple is sticking to 256 right now, assuming the reports are correct."
The "assuming the reports are correct" referred to whether the memory was 256, or the 512 as had been earlier reported, not that Apple was sticking to 356 because of cost.
The "assuming the reports are correct" referred to whether the memory was 256, or the 512 as had been earlier reported, not that Apple was sticking to 356 because of cost.
Grammatically, that's a huge stretch. If you're taking that position, I guess the implication is that your understanding of English is extraordinarily weak.
Grammatically, that's a huge stretch. If you're taking that position, I guess the implication is that your understanding of English is extraordinarily weak.
Think what you like, but that was what I said, and what I meant. It was pretty obvious.
I see the iPad fanboys are out in force.