I would place that very high on any list. By processor performance I'm talking about a RAM/CPU/GPU complex as a whole, with the goal of having an iPad that can easily handle for complex pieces of software and memory hungrey software like web browsers.
Weight does not seem to be an issue. At least from comments in the various forums it seems to be a very secondary issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd rather have a sturdy and strong iPad over a light one.
As to a higher resolution display that is always nice but the GPU would need to improve significantly to keep the same relative performance levels. Honestly iPads display isn't that bad resolution wise. Even so it could use a better performing GPU driving it, so a retina like display would require an even greater speed up of the GPU. I'd like to think it is doable but I'm reluctant to think it is possible next year. Plus there are to many other needed improvements.
Okay, so now Intel is about to release the next iteration of Nehalem / Sandy Bridge with further enhancements. What does this mean for future MacBook Pros and when should we expect the next refresh?
The biggest problem I have with the iPad is the amount of ram under the bonnet. I would love to see cameras and faster CPU/GPU along with higher resolution display, but as a device that I use primarily for work (yes, it has completely replaced my laptop for all but Illustrator work), I'd love to have more ram. Working in Pages (I'm a writer) with files that sometimes need graphs/sheets, the iPad slows to geriatric pace and the cursor and my type trickles out.
Restarting the iPad helps, but I'd rather not have to run out of memory; it's much better to just continue working.
A higher resolution display would really help for people who use the thing all day long at work.
In all the time I've owned my iPAd, processor speed hasn't been an issue. Everything is fast. Any lag as apps load is barely noticeable. of course, that doesn't mean I wouldn't value a faster processor and more RAM.
I don't use the iPad for IWork applications. They're just not good enough yet.
Sorry, but for me, weight is an issue. This thing is considerably heavier than a hardback novel and you sure notice it when it has been balanced on your lap in bed for a while.
That said, my glass is half full. i love this machine. As it is, it is very good indeed.
In all the time I've owned my iPAd, processor speed hasn't been an issue. Everything is fast.
It may be the case but your second paragraph kinda contradicts this. There is no doubt that between the GPU, flash memory and the CPU the iPad appears to be snappy. Most people would agree with that. The problem with speed crops up the minute you try to run code that relies on the CPU only.
Quote:
Any lag as apps load is barely noticeable. of course, that doesn't mean I wouldn't value a faster processor and more RAM.
I don't use the iPad for IWork applications. They're just not good enough yet.
Exactly! So why aren't they good enough? In my estimation two things, far to little RAM and followed by a processor that can't manage to drive a major app. There really isn't any mystery here as the A8 basis for the Apple A4 is a processor known for its low power not its speed.
Quote:
Sorry, but for me, weight is an issue. This thing is considerably heavier than a hardback novel and you sure notice it when it has been balanced on your lap in bed for a while.
It is also rather large to be an E-Book reader. This is one reason why I would like to see an iPad in the 5-7 inch range. It would give us a much lighter more handy pkatform for iOS apps. Dropping some weight off of iPad wouldn't hurt but again not at the expense of weakening the unit. That is really my only concern, i don't want toy quality construction.
Quote:
That said, my glass is half full. i love this machine. As it is, it is very good indeed.
It is certainly one of Apples best rev one product releases ever. The question is how will they improve it? Personally I think Apple has a long term vision that requires the iPad to become substantially more powerful. How quickly they will ramp up that power is another quuestion.
What does Flash storage cost today compared to Jan/Feb 2010? If the price is close to or nearing half what it was then, then I would not be surprised to see 32/64/128GB iPads. On the other hand, if the price of flash hasn't dropped much, then I would expect the iPad to stay at 16/32/64GB for another year.
I think it's pretty obvious that the iPad will get a resolution bump. Specifically, look at the iPhone resolution: 960x640
Now double that in each direction, for four times more pixels and you get: 1920x1280.
That would allow:
1. Perfect upscaling of iPhone apps.
2. Native 1080p.
I think Apple went with such a high res screen for iPhone specifically to take the iPad to 1920x1280. Otherwise they would have gone for a milder bump to WVGA, or something close to that.
What does Flash storage cost today compared to Jan/Feb 2010? If the price is close to or nearing half what it was then, then I would not be surprised to see 32/64/128GB iPads. On the other hand, if the price of flash hasn't dropped much, then I would expect the iPad to stay at 16/32/64GB for another year.
The costs are going down, but not as drastically as they were before. Since Apple doesn't like to buy on the spot, they typically tend to buy huge amounts before production, this graph may help to show that they could offer higher capacity ipads at the same price points.
(these are projections from 2006, before the iPhone and ipad were even out. If anything I would think the prices would have come down even more.)
For low power devices it is well known that you are better off adding more processors than upping clock rate dramatically. The first thing I would expect is for Apple to go to some sort of SMP machine. That could mean dual core but even quad core isn't impossible. It all depends upon being able to shrink the device to keep the price point reasonable.
Of course this implies going to a Cortex A9 derived cores so that you can get a bump in single thread performance. Considering Apples licensing deal with ARM the new CPU could incorporate a lot of Apple IP.
Another thing to consider is that it might make a lot of sense to put a big RAM array on the chip for the GPU. This isn't as radical as it may sound as caches on processors are pretty huge these days. The thought is that this would lower power while increasing performance with the video memory on chip.
In any event I would expect a more modest bump in speed maybe topping out at 1.25GHz. That may sound small but it is marketable and with a dual core Cortex A9 SMP machine would result in a very nice boost in app performance. That is you might get the equivalent of an Apple A4 running a 2GHz.
Anyone think that WiFi and 3G will be built in to every model?
Mainly because of the business market. Many corporations have little love for the cell phone companies as they generally get screwed by those companies. A device that has zero potential for 3G is attractive due to the absence of a cellular modem.
Of course the opposite is also true, many businesses can put a cell enabled iPad to good use. In the end I think the market is big enough and the price difference significant enough that Apple can offer up both models economically.
For me what would really help with the iPad models would be the movement of the GPS chip to the base models. This would vastly improve the base model as some get roped into buying the 3G model simply to get the GPS.
In any event I suspect that we will see all of the radios rolled into one chip in the future. When this happens the economics of building two slightly different models will go out the door. At that point all iPads sold will have 3G.
Mainly because of the business market. Many corporations have little love for the cell phone companies as they generally get screwed by those companies. A device that has zero potential for 3G is attractive due to the absence of a cellular modem.
Of course the opposite is also true, many businesses can put a cell enabled iPad to good use. In the end I think the market is big enough and the price difference significant enough that Apple can offer up both models economically.
For me what would really help with the iPad models would be the movement of the GPS chip to the base models. This would vastly improve the base model as some get roped into buying the 3G model simply to get the GPS.
In any event I suspect that we will see all of the radios rolled into one chip in the future. When this happens the economics of building two slightly different models will go out the door. At that point all iPads sold will have 3G.
The speaker is already stereo. "Wide range" would be moving each component to its own side of the device.
Ahh... Yay for Apple. I forgot about it being stereo already, maybe I'm seeing too much of all the cheapo crap copycat tablets and their "YES WE HAVE TEH STEREOZ AND MANY CAMERAZS" selling points.
Comments
Weight does not seem to be an issue. At least from comments in the various forums it seems to be a very secondary issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd rather have a sturdy and strong iPad over a light one.
As to a higher resolution display that is always nice but the GPU would need to improve significantly to keep the same relative performance levels. Honestly iPads display isn't that bad resolution wise. Even so it could use a better performing GPU driving it, so a retina like display would require an even greater speed up of the GPU. I'd like to think it is doable but I'm reluctant to think it is possible next year. Plus there are to many other needed improvements.
So what do you guys think?
Okay, so now Intel is about to release the next iteration of Nehalem / Sandy Bridge with further enhancements. What does this mean for future MacBook Pros and when should we expect the next refresh?
And this relates to the iPad how??!?
Restarting the iPad helps, but I'd rather not have to run out of memory; it's much better to just continue working.
A higher resolution display would really help for people who use the thing all day long at work.
I don't use the iPad for IWork applications. They're just not good enough yet.
Sorry, but for me, weight is an issue. This thing is considerably heavier than a hardback novel and you sure notice it when it has been balanced on your lap in bed for a while.
That said, my glass is half full. i love this machine. As it is, it is very good indeed.
In all the time I've owned my iPAd, processor speed hasn't been an issue. Everything is fast.
It may be the case but your second paragraph kinda contradicts this. There is no doubt that between the GPU, flash memory and the CPU the iPad appears to be snappy. Most people would agree with that. The problem with speed crops up the minute you try to run code that relies on the CPU only.
Any lag as apps load is barely noticeable. of course, that doesn't mean I wouldn't value a faster processor and more RAM.
I don't use the iPad for IWork applications. They're just not good enough yet.
Exactly! So why aren't they good enough? In my estimation two things, far to little RAM and followed by a processor that can't manage to drive a major app. There really isn't any mystery here as the A8 basis for the Apple A4 is a processor known for its low power not its speed.
Sorry, but for me, weight is an issue. This thing is considerably heavier than a hardback novel and you sure notice it when it has been balanced on your lap in bed for a while.
It is also rather large to be an E-Book reader. This is one reason why I would like to see an iPad in the 5-7 inch range. It would give us a much lighter more handy pkatform for iOS apps. Dropping some weight off of iPad wouldn't hurt but again not at the expense of weakening the unit. That is really my only concern, i don't want toy quality construction.
That said, my glass is half full. i love this machine. As it is, it is very good indeed.
It is certainly one of Apples best rev one product releases ever. The question is how will they improve it? Personally I think Apple has a long term vision that requires the iPad to become substantially more powerful. How quickly they will ramp up that power is another quuestion.
storage of 32/64/128GB
What does Flash storage cost today compared to Jan/Feb 2010? If the price is close to or nearing half what it was then, then I would not be surprised to see 32/64/128GB iPads. On the other hand, if the price of flash hasn't dropped much, then I would expect the iPad to stay at 16/32/64GB for another year.
Now double that in each direction, for four times more pixels and you get: 1920x1280.
That would allow:
1. Perfect upscaling of iPhone apps.
2. Native 1080p.
I think Apple went with such a high res screen for iPhone specifically to take the iPad to 1920x1280. Otherwise they would have gone for a milder bump to WVGA, or something close to that.
1. Perfect upscaling of iPhone apps.
No. The iPhone is 3:2. The iPad is 4:3. 1920x1280 is 1.6:1.
2. Native 1080p.
Apple couldn't care less about 1080 right now. iTunes doesn't sell over 720 and can't until our national bandwidth speed increases.
Any chance the processing power could reach 2Ghz?
Sure, eventually. On the next iteration? No chance whatsoever.
What does Flash storage cost today compared to Jan/Feb 2010? If the price is close to or nearing half what it was then, then I would not be surprised to see 32/64/128GB iPads. On the other hand, if the price of flash hasn't dropped much, then I would expect the iPad to stay at 16/32/64GB for another year.
The costs are going down, but not as drastically as they were before. Since Apple doesn't like to buy on the spot, they typically tend to buy huge amounts before production, this graph may help to show that they could offer higher capacity ipads at the same price points.
Any chance the processing power could reach 2Ghz?
Sure, why not?
Any chance the processing power could reach 2Ghz?
For low power devices it is well known that you are better off adding more processors than upping clock rate dramatically. The first thing I would expect is for Apple to go to some sort of SMP machine. That could mean dual core but even quad core isn't impossible. It all depends upon being able to shrink the device to keep the price point reasonable.
Of course this implies going to a Cortex A9 derived cores so that you can get a bump in single thread performance. Considering Apples licensing deal with ARM the new CPU could incorporate a lot of Apple IP.
Another thing to consider is that it might make a lot of sense to put a big RAM array on the chip for the GPU. This isn't as radical as it may sound as caches on processors are pretty huge these days. The thought is that this would lower power while increasing performance with the video memory on chip.
In any event I would expect a more modest bump in speed maybe topping out at 1.25GHz. That may sound small but it is marketable and with a dual core Cortex A9 SMP machine would result in a very nice boost in app performance. That is you might get the equivalent of an Apple A4 running a 2GHz.
Anyone think that WiFi and 3G will be built in to every model?
Mainly because of the business market. Many corporations have little love for the cell phone companies as they generally get screwed by those companies. A device that has zero potential for 3G is attractive due to the absence of a cellular modem.
Of course the opposite is also true, many businesses can put a cell enabled iPad to good use. In the end I think the market is big enough and the price difference significant enough that Apple can offer up both models economically.
For me what would really help with the iPad models would be the movement of the GPS chip to the base models. This would vastly improve the base model as some get roped into buying the 3G model simply to get the GPS.
In any event I suspect that we will see all of the radios rolled into one chip in the future. When this happens the economics of building two slightly different models will go out the door. At that point all iPads sold will have 3G.
Mainly because of the business market. Many corporations have little love for the cell phone companies as they generally get screwed by those companies. A device that has zero potential for 3G is attractive due to the absence of a cellular modem.
Of course the opposite is also true, many businesses can put a cell enabled iPad to good use. In the end I think the market is big enough and the price difference significant enough that Apple can offer up both models economically.
For me what would really help with the iPad models would be the movement of the GPS chip to the base models. This would vastly improve the base model as some get roped into buying the 3G model simply to get the GPS.
In any event I suspect that we will see all of the radios rolled into one chip in the future. When this happens the economics of building two slightly different models will go out the door. At that point all iPads sold will have 3G.
So the WiFi model does not have GPS?
So the WiFi model does not have GPS?
Right. We covered this in April. Where've you been?
I'd like to see
1. 512MB of RAM or more.
2. Faster processing. Dual Core A4 chips
3. 30 Pin connector on side and bottom for easy docking
4. Bluetooth 3.0 and Near Field Communication (NFC)
5. Retina Display
6. Facetime
7. 32/64/128GB models
8. Faster GPU
9. Wimax support for xG models.
10. Stereo speakers
1. Yes will probably happen
2. Maybe
3. Maybe
4. Huh
5. Nope
6. Yes
7. Very likely
8. Quite likely
9. Nope
10. Possible, maybe just that "wide range speakers" but still mono?
My 2 cents
10. Possible, maybe just that "wide range speakers" but still mono?
The speaker is already stereo. "Wide range" would be moving each component to its own side of the device.
The speaker is already stereo. "Wide range" would be moving each component to its own side of the device.
Ahh... Yay for Apple. I forgot about it being stereo already, maybe I'm seeing too much of all the cheapo crap copycat tablets and their "YES WE HAVE TEH STEREOZ AND MANY CAMERAZS" selling points.