You've ignored reality again. You really don't understand the issues here. The FACT is that there are several phones out with 512MB, and one coming out with 1GB. Those are the FACTS.
Your facts aren't real. You'e just pretending to be logical.
So instead of addressing the facts, you pull out a nonsequitor.
First, most, if not all 512 MB or 1 GB phones have separate RAM chips not SOC.
Second, even if someone else is able to put 512MB or 1 GB of RAM on their SOC, how do you know that it's available with Apple's design?
Once again, we're left with choosing one of three options:
1. 256 MB really is the best choice.
2. Apple never even considered 512 MB
3. Apple considered 512 MB but decided that 256 is better - however they're wrong because you know more than they do.
Clearly, the latter two choices are absurd and your continued insistence on your point in spite of any logic indicates that you're either flat out lying or simply babbling about things you don't understand.
Everywhere. It was never marketed as super AMOLED because it's not super AMOLED like the Samsung Wave or the forthcoming Galaxy S.
I'm not so sure about that. The AMOLED in the Galaxy S uses the same pixel level technology. I would expect that the newer models have an updated version though.
The RAM is not part of the package, as far as I know, and even if it were, the fact that a number of other phones have 512 and now one even will have 1GB means it's not a problem. The customer requests which level of RAM they would want, as they do with other specs. Besides, Apple has had a hand in deciding what goes into their devices from the beginning. As their one model sells vastly better than any other manufacturer's individual model, the size of those sales make a custom request cost less than it may seem.
Jragosta is technically right about doubling the RAM using more power, generating more heat and costing more money, but I think they would have a very minimal affect on all counts. I can't judge the availability of the RAM, but I've heard nothing about RAM shortages, especially such a small amount so I doubt that would even be a consideration. I'm sure Apple has their reasons, as all companies do, and they have always been stingy with RAM, but I don't think it has been accurately expressed on this thread why the iPad only has 256MB and not 512MB.
The best answer I can come up with is that other mobile OSes, just like with other PC OEMs, need more RAM to do the same basic tasks. Apple's iPhone OS multitasking has the potential of being considerably more resource friendly than others. Will this be the case, we'll have to wait and see, but I think the best answer is that Apple simply didn't think it was necessary for the original iPad. I certainly don't think it's necessary for the 3GS after seeing the reduced RAM usage in v4.0 and seeing how much additional RAM my 3GS has left over for backgrounding.
I'm not so sure about that. The AMOLED in the Galaxy S uses the same pixel level technology. I would expect that the newer models have an updated version though.
So instead of addressing the facts, you pull out a nonsequitor.
First, most, if not all 512 MB or 1 GB phones have separate RAM chips not SOC.
Second, even if someone else is able to put 512MB or 1 GB of RAM on their SOC, how do you know that it's available with Apple's design?
Once again, we're left with choosing one of three options:
1. 256 MB really is the best choice.
2. Apple never even considered 512 MB
3. Apple considered 512 MB but decided that 256 is better - however they're wrong because you know more than they do.
Clearly, the latter two choices are absurd and your continued insistence on your point in spite of any logic indicates that you're either flat out lying or simply babbling about things you don't understand.
Well, at least now you've admitted that the RAM doesn't have to be on the chip, as I've said earlier.
You seem to like only certain decision trees.
How about Apple decided to stick with 256 only because of cost? That's the most likely reason.
Be more careful with your wording, I'd hate to have to edit your posts to me. I've been lenient up until now.
Jragosta is technically right about doubling the RAM using more power, generating more heat and costing more money, but I think they would have a very minimal affect on all counts. I can't judge the availability of the RAM, but I've heard nothing about RAM shortages, especially such a small amount so I doubt that would even be a consideration. I'm sure Apple has their reasons, as all companies do, and they have always been stingy with RAM, but I don't think it has been accurately expressed on this thread why the iPad only has 256MB and not 512MB.
That's why I said I wasn't sure about it being part of the package. But spec'ing more RAM isn't a big deal, as it's done elsewhere, even for packages with built-in RAM.
The very small amount of extra power is hardly a big deal. And, yes, Apple has always been stingy about RAM. I've never understood that.
Quote:
The best answer I can come up with is that other mobile OSes, just like with other PC OEMs, need more RAM to do the same basic tasks. Apple's iPhone OS multitasking has the potential of being considerably more resource friendly than others. Will this be the case, we'll have to wait and see, but I think the best answer is that Apple simply didn't think it was necessary for the original iPad. I certainly don't think it's necessary for the 3GS after seeing the reduced RAM usage in v4.0 and seeing how much additional RAM my 3GS has left over for backgrounding.
My feeling about that is that while the phone can manage with 256, the iPad shouldn't have to. If Windows tablets can manage to shove one or even two GB RAM into the package, then Apple can afford to use 512MB. Apps on the iPad are larger, and use more RAM.
2. Power usage. Doubling the amount of RAM would increase power usage and reduce battery life.
3. Heat. Doubling the amount of RAM means more heat generation. Since it's part of the A4 package, that could be a problem - possibly even requiring a reduction of CPU speed - with consequent harm for ALL customers.
These days, RAM doesn't even get warm due to its own power consumption. Even quad-stacked RAM doesn't have heat problems. That's a non-issue, really. The power consumption is negligible as well.
So the problem is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
On the iPad, at least, the RAM is part of the SOC package. So your entire argument is based on not having any clue what you're babbling about.
Well, there are some issues with the words here, as I believe they talk about a package-on-package construction. As far as I understand it, the A4 SoC has three packages: 2 for the RAM (128MB in each package) and 1 for the actual processor part. The package-on-package construct should enable apple to use whatever RAM they want, as long as it can be put on their "sockets", though this is not the appropriate term.
So using this meaning, no the RAM is not in the same package.
These days, RAM doesn't even get warm due to its own power consumption. Even quad-stacked RAM doesn't have heat problems. It's a non-issue, really. The power consumption is negligible as well.
As I said, I don't know how much more heat and power is involved, but it will be some.
The point is simple, though. Whatever the reason (cost, power consumption, heat generation, or lack of availability), Apple has chosen to use 256 MB in the iPad (and possibly in the next phone, as well).
We're left with 3 options:
1. Apple made the right decision.
2. Apple never even considered 512 MB and only melgross was smart enough to think that was an option
3. Apple considered 512 MB but chose to use 256 MB for incorrect reasons - because melgross knows more than Apple.
I'm not 100% certain that the Nexus screen is Samsung's latest display, a full "Super" AMOLED. I'm just saying that the evidence that it uses the same technology as they do is there. If you read a description of the Super AMOLED by Samsung, and then you read the ARs article about the Nexus Samsung display, there are striking similarities. Does that make it exactly the same? Maybe not, but it sure seems close in many ways.
If anything, the Nexus display has everything except, possibly the extra brightness, though the Nexus display is being touted as using less power and being brighter than other AMOLED displays, just as Samsung's Super displays are.
You haven't as yet given any proof of what you're saying, so yes, you're like a wall. At least I've shown some evidence, even though you choose to not accept it. You haven't shown anything. If you do, I'll accept it.
Well, there are some issues with the words here, as I believe they talk about a package-on-package construction. As far as I understand it, the A4 SoC has three packages: 2 for the RAM (128MB in each package) and 1 for the actual processor part. The package-on-package construct should enable apple to use whatever RAM they want, as long as it can be put on their "sockets", though this is not the appropriate term.
So using this meaning, no the RAM is not in the same package.
Right. The RAM isn't on the chip as the other components. That's why other manufacturers spec more or less RAM. It's added after it's spec'ed. Some models have the RAM in packages on the mobo itself. That's fine if there's room.
Well, there are some issues with the words here, as I believe they talk about a package-on-package construction. As far as I understand it, the A4 SoC has three packages: 2 for the RAM (128MB in each package) and 1 for the actual processor part. The package-on-package construct should enable apple to use whatever RAM they want, as long as it can be put on their "sockets", though this is not the appropriate term.
So using this meaning, no the RAM is not in the same package.
This is a cross-section of the iPhone's ARM processor + RAM package'
They are calling the entire thing (processor AND RAM) a package.
But the semantics really don't matter. We have no way of knowing if Apple could have obtained this package (or 'package on a package' if you wish) with more RAM, or if it would have met their energy specs or if it would have met their heat specs or if it would have met their cost specs. Apple DID know those things and chose 256. It it therefore the height of ignorance and arrogance to claim that Apple's choice was wrong.
As I said, I don't know how much more heat and power is involved, but it will be some.
The point is simple, though. Whatever the reason (cost, power consumption, heat generation, or lack of availability), Apple has chosen to use 256 MB in the iPad (and possibly in the next phone, as well).
We're left with 3 options:
1. Apple made the right decision.
2. Apple never even considered 512 MB and only melgross was smart enough to think that was an option
3. Apple considered 512 MB but chose to use 256 MB for incorrect reasons - because melgross knows more than Apple.
You're going to have to stop offending me like that. What is your problem?
You're making statements that aren't true, and you're locking yourself up into a corner. If I were the only one to have even questioned the size of RAM in the iPad, then possibly, you might be able to wonder why. But many have questioned it, including writers in the industry. And that included a few software developers. I'm sure that they at least, know more than you do.
And don't forget that what Apple is allowing in OS 4 isn't true multitasking, it's a task manager with allowance for apps to take ten (up from five in earlier betas) minutes to finish a task such as downloading when switched out.
I'm not complaining about that, but it's mostly because of limited memory, as the new cpu is fast enough.
Yes, I know this article below is written by an Android developer, but his statements are still correct, and have been referenced by a number of Apple concentric sites such as Gruber's Daring Fireball, where I found it, as well as MacDailyNews.
As I said, I don't know how much more heat and power is involved, but it will be some.
The point is simple, though. Whatever the reason (cost, power consumption, heat generation, or lack of availability), Apple has chosen to use 256 MB in the iPad (and possibly in the next phone, as well).
We're left with 3 options:
1. Apple made the right decision.
2. Apple never even considered 512 MB and only melgross was smart enough to think that was an option
3. Apple considered 512 MB but chose to use 256 MB for incorrect reasons - because melgross knows more than Apple.
If you're in an absolutist frame of mind, yes. But it's probably not an absolute kind of issue. Most of the time, iPad does pretty well as-is, but there are some edge cases that have already cropped up, and the limitations may be more of an issue as time goes on.
It's best to focus on plausible reasons. Cost and availability are ikely good reasons. RAM power consumption and heat is negligible and are not very plausible reasons. At best, it's bullet point padding, but it really isn't any more than that. It's basically like worrying about the Moon's gravity changing your weight, while you're still on Earth. It's there, it's calculable, but ultimately, very negligible compared to the radios, CPU cores and display. If it really was an issue, then they wouldn't be offering 64GB models, because all things being equal, more chip capacity costs more electricity, but no one is complaining about their 64GB models going dead sooner or overheating on first sync.
I would pin it on possible availability issues or possible extreme penny pinching. It looks like the cost of a 512MB RAM die probably costs $10 more at most.
This is a cross-section of the iPhone's ARM processor + RAM package'
They are calling the entire thing (processor AND RAM) a package.
But the semantics really don't matter. We have no way of knowing if Apple could have obtained this package (or 'package on a package' if you wish) with more RAM, or if it would have met their energy specs or if it would have met their heat specs or if it would have met their cost specs. Apple DID know those things and chose 256. It it therefore the height of ignorance and arrogance to claim that Apple's choice was wrong.
Actually I stumbled over that one myself, didn't expect you to quote it straight away . However I tried to find other references to the word "package" in the article and there were none that gave further information. So I assumed they meant the RAM layers and processor layer as packages. Also, it made sense to call the RAM layers packages, as I don't see what else would be in another package.
Anyway, let's not get stuck on it.
Overall I agree with your logic approach to the RAM issue, however I think you state "Apple made the right decision" in a weird way. According to you, at least from my understanding, Apple tried the different options and chose the best one for the user experience. But I think we forget that this is an entire new product, and I think that Apple has a really big margin on it. Why? because if it is a flop, they don't want to loose money on it, so they want to be able to get their investments back quickly. Furthermore there were some rumours that if apple didn't sell the iPad well, they would be able to go down in price.
So did Apple make the right choice? From a business point of view, I think so, from a consumer point of view, I'm not so sure.
I'm not 100% certain that the Nexus screen is Samsung's latest display, a full "Super" AMOLED. I'm just saying that the evidence that it uses the same technology as they do is there. If you read a description of the Super AMOLED by Samsung, and then you read the ARs article about the Nexus Samsung display, there are striking similarities. Does that make it exactly the same? Maybe not, but it sure seems close in many ways.
If anything, the Nexus display has everything except, possibly the extra brightness, though the Nexus display is being touted as using less power and being brighter than other AMOLED displays, just as Samsung's Super displays are.
You haven't as yet given any proof of what you're saying, so yes, you're like a wall. At least I've shown some evidence, even though you choose to not accept it. You haven't shown anything. If you do, I'll accept it.
Is that a problem for you? It seems fair to me.
Why again do i need to prove this to you? BTW congratulations on 21,00 posts--probably all confrontational, snarky and bitter as hell. How again are you a moderator on this site? Do you think your lack of tact is appropriate? You threaten to edit others posts??
Well, it is rather common when arguing to supply sources to back-up your statements. He gave some sources and pointed out what made him think his opinion too.
Why again do i need to prove this to you? BTW congratulations on 21,00 posts--probably all confrontational, snarky and bitter as hell. How again are you a moderator on this site? Do you think your lack of tact is appropriate? You threaten to edit others posts??
Your posts are snarky, or don't you notice your own writing?
I've never given anyone a point. EVER!. I lean over backwards to be fair about that, no matter to whom they post. But he's been VERY snarky to me, and I've a right to give him a warning.
As for asking for some evidence, what's the problem with that? we all ask for, and give whatever we have in an argument. That's proper.
I see now that you've done so. Good. I see it's the first Samsung phone to use it. As I've been saying, the evidence is that the Nexus Samsung screen uses technologies used also in the Super AMOLED. It does. It's also claimed as being brighter than other AMOLEDs. I didn't say for certain that it was Samsung's latest display, just that it seemed to be a super AMOLED from what I've read. I asked for links. You've now provided one. Assuming Engadget is correct, then this is a more advanced display than Samsung's display in the Nexus One.
I'll be very interested to read more about it when it comes out.
You could have alleviated your problems with posting this first.
Comments
Best they don't look too much like this!!!
http://www.mobile-phones-uk.org.uk/nokia-n90.htm
http://www.mobile-phones-uk.org.uk/nokia-n91.htm
You've ignored reality again. You really don't understand the issues here. The FACT is that there are several phones out with 512MB, and one coming out with 1GB. Those are the FACTS.
Your facts aren't real. You'e just pretending to be logical.
So instead of addressing the facts, you pull out a nonsequitor.
First, most, if not all 512 MB or 1 GB phones have separate RAM chips not SOC.
Second, even if someone else is able to put 512MB or 1 GB of RAM on their SOC, how do you know that it's available with Apple's design?
Once again, we're left with choosing one of three options:
1. 256 MB really is the best choice.
2. Apple never even considered 512 MB
3. Apple considered 512 MB but decided that 256 is better - however they're wrong because you know more than they do.
Clearly, the latter two choices are absurd and your continued insistence on your point in spite of any logic indicates that you're either flat out lying or simply babbling about things you don't understand.
Everywhere. It was never marketed as super AMOLED because it's not super AMOLED like the Samsung Wave or the forthcoming Galaxy S.
I'm not so sure about that. The AMOLED in the Galaxy S uses the same pixel level technology. I would expect that the newer models have an updated version though.
The RAM is not part of the package, as far as I know, and even if it were, the fact that a number of other phones have 512 and now one even will have 1GB means it's not a problem. The customer requests which level of RAM they would want, as they do with other specs. Besides, Apple has had a hand in deciding what goes into their devices from the beginning. As their one model sells vastly better than any other manufacturer's individual model, the size of those sales make a custom request cost less than it may seem.
The RAM is part of the package.Jragosta is technically right about doubling the RAM using more power, generating more heat and costing more money, but I think they would have a very minimal affect on all counts. I can't judge the availability of the RAM, but I've heard nothing about RAM shortages, especially such a small amount so I doubt that would even be a consideration. I'm sure Apple has their reasons, as all companies do, and they have always been stingy with RAM, but I don't think it has been accurately expressed on this thread why the iPad only has 256MB and not 512MB.
The best answer I can come up with is that other mobile OSes, just like with other PC OEMs, need more RAM to do the same basic tasks. Apple's iPhone OS multitasking has the potential of being considerably more resource friendly than others. Will this be the case, we'll have to wait and see, but I think the best answer is that Apple simply didn't think it was necessary for the original iPad. I certainly don't think it's necessary for the 3GS after seeing the reduced RAM usage in v4.0 and seeing how much additional RAM my 3GS has left over for backgrounding.
I'm not so sure about that. The AMOLED in the Galaxy S uses the same pixel level technology. I would expect that the newer models have an updated version though.
Good god, it's like talking to a wall..
So instead of addressing the facts, you pull out a nonsequitor.
First, most, if not all 512 MB or 1 GB phones have separate RAM chips not SOC.
Second, even if someone else is able to put 512MB or 1 GB of RAM on their SOC, how do you know that it's available with Apple's design?
Once again, we're left with choosing one of three options:
1. 256 MB really is the best choice.
2. Apple never even considered 512 MB
3. Apple considered 512 MB but decided that 256 is better - however they're wrong because you know more than they do.
Clearly, the latter two choices are absurd and your continued insistence on your point in spite of any logic indicates that you're either flat out lying or simply babbling about things you don't understand.
Well, at least now you've admitted that the RAM doesn't have to be on the chip, as I've said earlier.
You seem to like only certain decision trees.
How about Apple decided to stick with 256 only because of cost? That's the most likely reason.
Be more careful with your wording, I'd hate to have to edit your posts to me. I've been lenient up until now.
The RAM is part of the package.Jragosta is technically right about doubling the RAM using more power, generating more heat and costing more money, but I think they would have a very minimal affect on all counts. I can't judge the availability of the RAM, but I've heard nothing about RAM shortages, especially such a small amount so I doubt that would even be a consideration. I'm sure Apple has their reasons, as all companies do, and they have always been stingy with RAM, but I don't think it has been accurately expressed on this thread why the iPad only has 256MB and not 512MB.
That's why I said I wasn't sure about it being part of the package. But spec'ing more RAM isn't a big deal, as it's done elsewhere, even for packages with built-in RAM.
The very small amount of extra power is hardly a big deal. And, yes, Apple has always been stingy about RAM. I've never understood that.
The best answer I can come up with is that other mobile OSes, just like with other PC OEMs, need more RAM to do the same basic tasks. Apple's iPhone OS multitasking has the potential of being considerably more resource friendly than others. Will this be the case, we'll have to wait and see, but I think the best answer is that Apple simply didn't think it was necessary for the original iPad. I certainly don't think it's necessary for the 3GS after seeing the reduced RAM usage in v4.0 and seeing how much additional RAM my 3GS has left over for backgrounding.
My feeling about that is that while the phone can manage with 256, the iPad shouldn't have to. If Windows tablets can manage to shove one or even two GB RAM into the package, then Apple can afford to use 512MB. Apps on the iPad are larger, and use more RAM.
2. Power usage. Doubling the amount of RAM would increase power usage and reduce battery life.
3. Heat. Doubling the amount of RAM means more heat generation. Since it's part of the A4 package, that could be a problem - possibly even requiring a reduction of CPU speed - with consequent harm for ALL customers.
These days, RAM doesn't even get warm due to its own power consumption. Even quad-stacked RAM doesn't have heat problems. That's a non-issue, really. The power consumption is negligible as well.
So the problem is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
On the iPad, at least, the RAM is part of the SOC package. So your entire argument is based on not having any clue what you're babbling about.
Well, there are some issues with the words here, as I believe they talk about a package-on-package construction. As far as I understand it, the A4 SoC has three packages: 2 for the RAM (128MB in each package) and 1 for the actual processor part. The package-on-package construct should enable apple to use whatever RAM they want, as long as it can be put on their "sockets", though this is not the appropriate term.
So using this meaning, no the RAM is not in the same package.
(http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple-A4-Teardown/2204/1)
These days, RAM doesn't even get warm due to its own power consumption. Even quad-stacked RAM doesn't have heat problems. It's a non-issue, really. The power consumption is negligible as well.
As I said, I don't know how much more heat and power is involved, but it will be some.
The point is simple, though. Whatever the reason (cost, power consumption, heat generation, or lack of availability), Apple has chosen to use 256 MB in the iPad (and possibly in the next phone, as well).
We're left with 3 options:
1. Apple made the right decision.
2. Apple never even considered 512 MB and only melgross was smart enough to think that was an option
3. Apple considered 512 MB but chose to use 256 MB for incorrect reasons - because melgross knows more than Apple.
Clearly, only option #1 makes any sense.
Good god, it's like talking to a wall..
I'm not 100% certain that the Nexus screen is Samsung's latest display, a full "Super" AMOLED. I'm just saying that the evidence that it uses the same technology as they do is there. If you read a description of the Super AMOLED by Samsung, and then you read the ARs article about the Nexus Samsung display, there are striking similarities. Does that make it exactly the same? Maybe not, but it sure seems close in many ways.
If anything, the Nexus display has everything except, possibly the extra brightness, though the Nexus display is being touted as using less power and being brighter than other AMOLED displays, just as Samsung's Super displays are.
You haven't as yet given any proof of what you're saying, so yes, you're like a wall. At least I've shown some evidence, even though you choose to not accept it. You haven't shown anything. If you do, I'll accept it.
Is that a problem for you? It seems fair to me.
Well, there are some issues with the words here, as I believe they talk about a package-on-package construction. As far as I understand it, the A4 SoC has three packages: 2 for the RAM (128MB in each package) and 1 for the actual processor part. The package-on-package construct should enable apple to use whatever RAM they want, as long as it can be put on their "sockets", though this is not the appropriate term.
So using this meaning, no the RAM is not in the same package.
(http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple-A4-Teardown/2204/1)
Right. The RAM isn't on the chip as the other components. That's why other manufacturers spec more or less RAM. It's added after it's spec'ed. Some models have the RAM in packages on the mobo itself. That's fine if there's room.
Well, there are some issues with the words here, as I believe they talk about a package-on-package construction. As far as I understand it, the A4 SoC has three packages: 2 for the RAM (128MB in each package) and 1 for the actual processor part. The package-on-package construct should enable apple to use whatever RAM they want, as long as it can be put on their "sockets", though this is not the appropriate term.
So using this meaning, no the RAM is not in the same package.
(http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple-A4-Teardown/2204/1)
Your own link disagrees with you:
"So what is a package? You're looking at one.
This is a cross-section of the iPhone's ARM processor + RAM package'
They are calling the entire thing (processor AND RAM) a package.
But the semantics really don't matter. We have no way of knowing if Apple could have obtained this package (or 'package on a package' if you wish) with more RAM, or if it would have met their energy specs or if it would have met their heat specs or if it would have met their cost specs. Apple DID know those things and chose 256. It it therefore the height of ignorance and arrogance to claim that Apple's choice was wrong.
As I said, I don't know how much more heat and power is involved, but it will be some.
The point is simple, though. Whatever the reason (cost, power consumption, heat generation, or lack of availability), Apple has chosen to use 256 MB in the iPad (and possibly in the next phone, as well).
We're left with 3 options:
1. Apple made the right decision.
2. Apple never even considered 512 MB and only melgross was smart enough to think that was an option
3. Apple considered 512 MB but chose to use 256 MB for incorrect reasons - because melgross knows more than Apple.
Clearly, only option #1 makes any sense.
You're going to have to stop offending me like that. What is your problem?
You're making statements that aren't true, and you're locking yourself up into a corner. If I were the only one to have even questioned the size of RAM in the iPad, then possibly, you might be able to wonder why. But many have questioned it, including writers in the industry. And that included a few software developers. I'm sure that they at least, know more than you do.
And don't forget that what Apple is allowing in OS 4 isn't true multitasking, it's a task manager with allowance for apps to take ten (up from five in earlier betas) minutes to finish a task such as downloading when switched out.
I'm not complaining about that, but it's mostly because of limited memory, as the new cpu is fast enough.
Yes, I know this article below is written by an Android developer, but his statements are still correct, and have been referenced by a number of Apple concentric sites such as Gruber's Daring Fireball, where I found it, as well as MacDailyNews.
http://blog.rlove.org/2010/04/why-ip...t-support.html
As I said, I don't know how much more heat and power is involved, but it will be some.
The point is simple, though. Whatever the reason (cost, power consumption, heat generation, or lack of availability), Apple has chosen to use 256 MB in the iPad (and possibly in the next phone, as well).
We're left with 3 options:
1. Apple made the right decision.
2. Apple never even considered 512 MB and only melgross was smart enough to think that was an option
3. Apple considered 512 MB but chose to use 256 MB for incorrect reasons - because melgross knows more than Apple.
Clearly, only option #1 makes any sense.
If you're in an absolutist frame of mind, yes. But it's probably not an absolute kind of issue. Most of the time, iPad does pretty well as-is, but there are some edge cases that have already cropped up, and the limitations may be more of an issue as time goes on.
It's best to focus on plausible reasons. Cost and availability are ikely good reasons. RAM power consumption and heat is negligible and are not very plausible reasons. At best, it's bullet point padding, but it really isn't any more than that. It's basically like worrying about the Moon's gravity changing your weight, while you're still on Earth. It's there, it's calculable, but ultimately, very negligible compared to the radios, CPU cores and display. If it really was an issue, then they wouldn't be offering 64GB models, because all things being equal, more chip capacity costs more electricity, but no one is complaining about their 64GB models going dead sooner or overheating on first sync.
I would pin it on possible availability issues or possible extreme penny pinching. It looks like the cost of a 512MB RAM die probably costs $10 more at most.
Didn't you sign an NDA?
And your problem with him is?
Your own link disagrees with you:
"So what is a package? You're looking at one.
This is a cross-section of the iPhone's ARM processor + RAM package'
They are calling the entire thing (processor AND RAM) a package.
But the semantics really don't matter. We have no way of knowing if Apple could have obtained this package (or 'package on a package' if you wish) with more RAM, or if it would have met their energy specs or if it would have met their heat specs or if it would have met their cost specs. Apple DID know those things and chose 256. It it therefore the height of ignorance and arrogance to claim that Apple's choice was wrong.
Actually I stumbled over that one myself, didn't expect you to quote it straight away
Anyway, let's not get stuck on it.
Overall I agree with your logic approach to the RAM issue, however I think you state "Apple made the right decision" in a weird way. According to you, at least from my understanding, Apple tried the different options and chose the best one for the user experience. But I think we forget that this is an entire new product, and I think that Apple has a really big margin on it. Why? because if it is a flop, they don't want to loose money on it, so they want to be able to get their investments back quickly. Furthermore there were some rumours that if apple didn't sell the iPad well, they would be able to go down in price.
So did Apple make the right choice? From a business point of view, I think so, from a consumer point of view, I'm not so sure.
I'm not 100% certain that the Nexus screen is Samsung's latest display, a full "Super" AMOLED. I'm just saying that the evidence that it uses the same technology as they do is there. If you read a description of the Super AMOLED by Samsung, and then you read the ARs article about the Nexus Samsung display, there are striking similarities. Does that make it exactly the same? Maybe not, but it sure seems close in many ways.
If anything, the Nexus display has everything except, possibly the extra brightness, though the Nexus display is being touted as using less power and being brighter than other AMOLED displays, just as Samsung's Super displays are.
You haven't as yet given any proof of what you're saying, so yes, you're like a wall. At least I've shown some evidence, even though you choose to not accept it. You haven't shown anything. If you do, I'll accept it.
Is that a problem for you? It seems fair to me.
Why again do i need to prove this to you? BTW congratulations on 21,00 posts--probably all confrontational, snarky and bitter as hell. How again are you a moderator on this site? Do you think your lack of tact is appropriate? You threaten to edit others posts??
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/08/s...but-next-week/
Why again do i need to prove this to you?
Well, it is rather common when arguing to supply sources to back-up your statements. He gave some sources and pointed out what made him think his opinion too.
Why again do i need to prove this to you? BTW congratulations on 21,00 posts--probably all confrontational, snarky and bitter as hell. How again are you a moderator on this site? Do you think your lack of tact is appropriate? You threaten to edit others posts??
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/08/s...but-next-week/
Your posts are snarky, or don't you notice your own writing?
I've never given anyone a point. EVER!. I lean over backwards to be fair about that, no matter to whom they post. But he's been VERY snarky to me, and I've a right to give him a warning.
As for asking for some evidence, what's the problem with that? we all ask for, and give whatever we have in an argument. That's proper.
I see now that you've done so. Good. I see it's the first Samsung phone to use it. As I've been saying, the evidence is that the Nexus Samsung screen uses technologies used also in the Super AMOLED. It does. It's also claimed as being brighter than other AMOLEDs. I didn't say for certain that it was Samsung's latest display, just that it seemed to be a super AMOLED from what I've read. I asked for links. You've now provided one. Assuming Engadget is correct, then this is a more advanced display than Samsung's display in the Nexus One.
I'll be very interested to read more about it when it comes out.
You could have alleviated your problems with posting this first.