I would only add one thing to the non-opinion parts above. iOS does not do the paging to the SSD (backing store) that the desktop OS X does. The rest of the memory subsystems are the same. I'm not sure what the full reasoning for this is, but they do make that clear in the documentation.
We can speculate! Im of the opinion that they did not do paging because the Flash memory they implemented isn't using any sort of wear leveling. Running a paging file would quickly wear out the flash. The other possibility is that they wanted hard limits on app capability.
Quote:
[Edit: now I see wizard69 mentions this up a few posts too. I disagree with him on iOS having Virtual Memory though -- it most definitely does, that's what delivers the full 32-bit address space.
This is where we could get into a lot of confusion and would not benefit the crowd much. IOS doesn't page out user data to backing store so there is no demand paging for data. In this context that would be virtual memory, that is memory beyond what is implemented in hardware. Interestingly because code segments are read only the OS can page them in, there is no page out, this is exactly what Mac OS does.
Quote:
iOS just doesn't deliver a backing store for the VM to use, a subtle but important distinction when we get to the point of splitting hairs.]
Splitting hairs it is. I just have a hard time calling an implementation virtual memory when your address space is limited to the free RAM the app gets.
Quote:
This is the main reason Prof Peabody sees a pseudo last-state sometimes rather than the true last-state all the time. if iOS paged there would be no reason for the reload from a file version of pseudo state restoration. (pseudo state is my wording, not Apple's).
Sounds like a bug or two. If the last state is not being saved properly then something was done wrong.
Quote:
Is 512MB enough? There is never enough memory if you are a developer, by definition.
With out the ability to page RAM becomes a precious resource and directly impacts a developers ability to code nice apps. However low RAM is also a user problem. Frankly many examples have been suggested already in this thread with respect to user problems with RAM. Most of those Safari related.
Quote:
I wouldn't compare the 512MB to 1GB on a Xoom very directly though. That Xoom is running a robust JVM behind everything, and that means it is running a copy of that JVM in every process. That is a verified Metric Shitload of memory requirement that the app developers can never use.
It will be interesting to see how much of that 1GB space goes to the system and the JVM on Android devices. It would also be interesting to see how many CPU cycles get wasted running JVM code. But frankly it doesn't really matter as I'm not currently interested in a Xoom.
The discussion about RAM and iOS devices has little to do with non iOS devices. It is really about the iPad user experience and the capability for a new generation of apps.
The dissatisfaction therefore comes not from the target consumer that Steve Jobs had in mind, but the perspectives of those who wanted the iPad to run more RAM intensive applications.
Sure the technology might be there, sure Apple could have enhance the RAM, disk storage, lens MPs, etc., but at what price? And, more important, how would it affect the "simiplicity of use" that was intended for the target consumers? Just as relevant, would these enhancement be practical for the expected usage of the targeted consumer?
CGC
At what price? Apple is getting 50-60% profit margin on the iphone and 30-40% profit margin on the ipad --- while Nokia is getting something like 12% profit margin.
Many people here owns Apple stocks --- but the perspective of the shareholder might not be aligned with the perspective of the end-user.
[...] Why must everyone make everything personal. [...]
Not sure if people are taking it personally or not. But it is clear that everything Apple does triggers an emotional reaction among many people who follow technology. And that's a good thing for Apple because coolness and mindshare are intangible emotional quantities.
Human males have been conditioned over millions of years to belong to groups. Because a group of people has a better chance of surviving and breeding than each one would alone. Tribes, fiefdoms, sports teams, armies, nations, whatever. Now that many of us don't need to fight for our lives every day, that need to join a group and compete against other groups for resources has been watered down to rooting for sports teams, technology companies, etc. The sometimes irrational "my group is better" instinct is still there.
If you had no emotional reaction to the iPad 2 or to people's replies to your post, you wouldn't have typed a 50+ line response. Would you?
Nvidia and Apple's motivations are entirely different.
Your whole rational for the iPad being rushed is based upon them not demoing games. Is that really what you want to go with?
Could they not wait to show new software abilities when they introduce iOS 5?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
I would expect Apple to bring up a couple of third-party developer up on stage showing their new app or game that really uses the increased CPU and GPU power.
At the very least, when nVidia announced their quad-core tegra chipset --- they showed a game demo showing that 200 game characters in the dual-core tegra vs. 600 game characters in the quad-core tegra.
[...] The discussion about RAM and iOS devices has little to do with non iOS devices. It is really about the iPad user experience and the capability for a new generation of apps.
Exactly. This is why Apple doesn't play the spec game. Apple wants to impress you with how the product works. In your hands. Not with a list of numbers.
And that seems to be an extremely successful concept.
I don't understand how this proves that the "Memory per Core" thingy is anything but utter bullshit. My 1st gen iPod Touch has 128Mb of memory and can run 3rd party apps, therefore, iOS should be as light as light as the Playbook's OS... and memory hasn't got anything to do with the number of cores...
That's kind of saying that my MBP would be just as fine with a Core Solo CPU and 2GB of RAM
News flash - the iPad 2 hasn't shipped yet. Maybe 512 will be enough, maybe not, but we don't know if there will be complaints when it shipped. Despite the millions sold, there WERE plenty of complaints about the original iPad, one of the biggest being bad user experience due to not enough ram.
If your news is in flash, you will not see it on ipad2
You must not understand the milestone in being able to edit HD video with iMovie. They type of hardware that was previously necessary to handle that task.
More than likely they will have new software tricks to demo with the intro of iOS 5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Not demo'ing ANY third-party app that uses the increased CPU/GPU speed.
I think none of us is saying that 1GB would be nice... but 512MB is pretty good as well, and I'd rather have the 512MB of RAM and the super-duper GPU than have 1 GB and get a meagre improvement on the GPU side (I'm not talking about the CPU as we all knew the iPad was just going to double the cores)
I explained it in the simplest terms that I could, I'm not going into specifics so people who don't understand how the process works can at least grasp the idea. I know they are different I say that they are different.
The iPad is a one app at a time machine for ALL users. Rarely does it fail at handling that one app because apps rarely exceed the maximum amount of RAM the iPad can give to it. This is because iOS apps are written for iOS devices which mean using a less memory as possible. When an app is using too much memory, iOS will tell an app to release memory that isn't in use. A good example is the Twitter app: when it is collecting a lot of memory, iOS triggers "applicationDidReceiveMemoryWarning", which causes it to release cached information (recently view profiles you aren't friends of) and icons not in view. The releasing of this information is done by the Twitter app. However, if it failed to create memory and continues to eat memory, iOS will terminate it. Terminating an app because it using too much memory is the last ditch effort for iOS to sustain normal functioning. How often do apps randomly quit on you using an iOS device? Rarely. If an app is written efficiently, it will not consume a lot of RAM, and if it does, it will release it accordingly. This is a fact.
They should use as less as physically possible. Do more with less. Now, there are apps that could use more than what iOS can give, I'm not going to deny; but you are wrong in saying that Apple doesn't allow demanding apps into the App Store (look at the new iMovie... it's a prefect example of how memory management can be handled well). I am also not saying there is more room for growth, however, I am saying that for most things now, 256mb is more than perfectly fine for iOS. If there was such a surplus of apps that had intensive RAM requirements, don't you think the iPad would have shipped with more than 256mb of RAM to begin with?
I'm saying this as a developer, not as a user of these apps. I know how they apps work on iOS and the constraints there are. You blow the idea of a RAM limit WAY out of proportion. iOS apps are not completely hindered in development by the lack of RAM, and most apps will never even hit the active limit. While more RAM is always better, more than 512 is not necessary. If you have an App that is taking over 256mb+ RAM on an iPad, chances are, you are doing something wrong. RARELY (but there are still exceptions, as I stated) should an app on iOS (or even OS X) take more than that.
I think I was able to grasp what you stated from your first post, and more important the simplification done to explain what would oherwise be an esoteric and complex concept.
We do that all the time, to explain the basic concepts in physics and chemistry. The nuances and exceptions are discussed in the Q&A, or further discussions.
What you stated above gives further insight as to why Apple does not simply port its Applications to the iPad, even if they work in OSX.
There was a time, when the G3 Desktop Mac was considered too powerful that the government required clearance before it could be shipped to China.
The CPUs and disk storage in many computers have become more powerful since then, but it seems, the bloat in Applications have kept up.
I remember when Apple first simplified the OSX, and it was able to delete so much without sacrificing its capabilities. It was the direction it has taken with the iOS and I hope, if as you say is true, it will continue to be strict in implementing RAM usage economy for all Apps that are accepted.
If I remember correctly, the earlier PCs had more memory and power in them that the four computers that controlled the spaceships in the Appolo program. So, why does a simple mobile device necessarily require more RAM, and be upgraded so often to run what would be considered "simpler tasks".
One thing I am curious about, there used to be a function(?) called "Rebuild" I think in pre-OSX Macs. If memory serves me, it was supposed to deal with rebuilding more efficient storage of the contents of a file in the memory storage. This function is no longer in OSX?
I'm not sure which you're referring to, but I think it's one of the following:
In OS 9 and earlier, you could Rebuild the Desktop Database, by holding down command-option on startup. That went away with OS X. Doing this could fix a variety of problems, usually associated with applications being able to be run, or associated with file types. It could also decrease the size of the database making things more efficient, but you'd have to have a lot of files and apps on an old system that hadn't had its database rebuilt in a while to notice much of a difference. Still, it was a good habit to do this periodically. Pre-System 7, the Desktop Database was a huge vector for viruses, so rebuilding often could help prevent that as well (although there was Disinfectant as the most awesomest antivirus application ever).
In OS X there is Prebinding. Prior to 10.2 you could manually update prebinding and it would increase the launch time of a new application. As a result, it may be worth updating prebinding whenever a new app was installed. In 10.2 and later, prebinding was done automatically whenever a new app is launched.
Uh, they trumpet the new "dual core 1GHz" A5 chip on the front page of the iPad site, and list basically all of the tech specs under "Tech Specs", except RAM - probably because it's the one area from a hardware standpoint that another device (ie Xoom) clearly outdoes it. Plus the fact that Xoom can both play and output 1080p content while the iPad can digitally output 1080p but can only actually play 720p (cleverly presented by Apple, i must say).
Anyways, Apple is all about the user experience, so until Android makes some serious improvements that get it up to the level of the iTunes ecosystem, hardware is something of a moot point...
How can the Xoom play back 1080p? Isn't that physically impossible considering it has a resolution of 1280x800???
Yes, that must be it --- when the Playbook has 948mb of freemem, when their entire UI is flash.
Except your assertion is based at a single frame of a demo video -- with no idea of what was going on at the time or, what the number represented, or even if the number displayed was accurate.
My hands-on experience is based of years of usage of Flash (dating from dealing with Macromedia Flash experts) to personal experience (as recently as yesterday) where Flash hangs/crashes the browser.
I have iPads -- I know how they perform!.
I have read/watched everything I can about the PlayBook -- and everything points to throwing hardware at a poor OS/UI implementation.
When the PlayBook becomes available, we will be able to experience how well or poorly the device performs (including battery).
Of course, time will prove which is the right or wrong assessment.
At what price? Apple is getting 50-60% profit margin on the iphone and 30-40% profit margin on the ipad --- while Nokia is getting something like 12% profit margin.
Many people here owns Apple stocks --- but the perspective of the shareholder might not be aligned with the perspective of the end-user.
I am not sure you are advocating for the consumer or the stockholder.. At least, one thing I got was that there is a dichotomy in the interest of the two.
If you think that those who argue here in favor of Apple's high profit margin are because they are stockholders, that may or may not be true. However, I doubt very much that Steve Jobs or the company priced their products simply to satisfy their stockholders. Judging from their responses, Apple does not even give much consideration to attempts of stockholders or more accurately, the big financial management firms to distribute that $60 billion cash reserve. [I don't know how many Apple shares I own but there would be some indirectly from the multual funds I invest in.]
If your complaint is that consumers are being shafted by Apple for the perceived "charging" too much for a product, from what I read, among long time Apple users or even new ones, that is not the case. From those I know alone, they buy Apple products because they found it useful or better experience than the others they have used before. I have a friend for example who must have used all types of phones before, very loyal. Then, one day, she just bought an iPhone. I thought it would be too small for her to do most of her computer work (she has bad eyes and kind of older already) but she told me that she did most of her daily stuff now with her iPhone (banking, internet, emailing, etc.). She is very sociable, most of her group were devout RIM, Nokia, Windows users. The last time we talked she told me that many of them have converted to the iPhone, even the person who only bought an iPod touch initially because he could not part with his Blackberry because it has all his business contacts. These are people who even know less about RAMS, or multitasking, etc. Even more amazing, another friend who did not want her daughter to have an iPad (tye daughter wanted the iPad), and bought what she thought was a more useful "Dell computer", eventually bought an iPad herfself, when she went back to school, and after she bought and got so hooked up with her iPhone4 *with unlimited usage" -- data, phone text messaging. You might think she is rick, but she was not.
And this was in a place in Louisiana, where it was even more rate to know anyone who used a Mac. The friend who was persuaded by her son to buy a Dell computer, she had a pink iMac before that, was fed up with her Dell computer after it got infected with a virus twice. The repairs alone plus the cost of the external disk would be more than the cost had she bought the latest iMac or notebook, two years ago. After her very productive experience with the iPhone, she vowed never to buy any PC again. She is not saving for either the MacBook Air or an iPad.
As a long time Apple user myself, I do not consider Apple products overpriced. Sure I would want the devices I buy to be cheaper, and I would hunt for bargains (like tax free days). I do not have the computer expertise to be tinkering with my computer. If I want something installed that would require opening the body, I pay a technician to do it. If there is anything I do not understand, I want to talk to someone who knows something about it. Being able to do this got even easier when the Apple Stores came to Boston. So, I consider all these when I choose a computer, as part of the total cost.
As to support, consider this issue. I have not bought an iPhone yet because, I have a very good deal with Sprint. During one of my travels, the phone I had just stopped working (dropped too many times), I had to get a replacement. It took too much time. Then, I eventually replaced it with supposedly a long-lasting battery phone from Samsung. I was supposed to get a $50 rebate from Samsung, but it never arrived. After notying the local branch of Sprint in Boston, they just told me to write to Samsung again? i never got the money.
After a few months, the supposed long lasting battery cell phone gets discharged faster than claimed. I had it checked by Sprint, and they claim nothing is wrong with it. Just so frustrating, but there is no recourse because I have no direct contact with the phone manufacturer. This would not have been an issue, if my phone was an iPhone. I could have gone to the local Apple Store to deal with the matter.
I have used the iPhone, and liked it a lot. I would want one but I could not justify the monthly costs over and above what I pay now with Sprint. I could buy a good iPad yearly for the extra cost of current iPhone usage charges.
However, when my contract with Sprint next yearwould be over, I am likely to bite the bullet, and reconsider holding up not getting an iPhone.
When I consider an iPad I don't think about whether it can run Flash, if I want Flash I'd just consider some other tablets. The RAM size issue to me is about hoping iPad2 to be on par with iPhone 5 in terms of the running similar new apps smoothly and using iOS5 new features smoothly.
I'm not sure which you're referring to, but I think it's one of the following:
In OS 9 and earlier, you could Rebuild the Desktop Database, by holding down command-option on startup. That went away with OS X. Doing this could fix a variety of problems, usually associated with applications being able to be run, or associated with file types. It could also decrease the size of the database making things more efficient, but you'd have to have a lot of files and apps on an old system that hadn't had its database rebuilt in a while to notice much of a difference. Still, it was a good habit to do this periodically. Pre-System 7, the Desktop Database was a huge vector for viruses, so rebuilding often could help prevent that as well (although there was Disinfectant as the most awesomest antivirus application ever).
In OS X there is Prebinding. Prior to 10.2 you could manually update prebinding and it would increase the launch time of a new application. As a result, it may be worth updating prebinding whenever a new app was installed. In 10.2 and later, prebinding was done automatically whenever a new app is launched.
It's what you described first, I had hundreds of thousands of created texts files, created through the years. These do not included those of the applications. I used to "rebuild" then, supposedly as a good practice to avoid fragmentation.
I do not even know how many mmore text, images and all sorts of files I have now, a lot of them are also stored in the internet. I am now in my second external disk drive (more than 1 Terrabyte) on top of the internal drive. I don't even do systematic backup because it could easily increase the size by several fold.
So, I am not sure if the issue of random storage still happens in the OSX.
Comments
I would only add one thing to the non-opinion parts above. iOS does not do the paging to the SSD (backing store) that the desktop OS X does. The rest of the memory subsystems are the same. I'm not sure what the full reasoning for this is, but they do make that clear in the documentation.
We can speculate! Im of the opinion that they did not do paging because the Flash memory they implemented isn't using any sort of wear leveling. Running a paging file would quickly wear out the flash. The other possibility is that they wanted hard limits on app capability.
[Edit: now I see wizard69 mentions this up a few posts too. I disagree with him on iOS having Virtual Memory though -- it most definitely does, that's what delivers the full 32-bit address space.
This is where we could get into a lot of confusion and would not benefit the crowd much. IOS doesn't page out user data to backing store so there is no demand paging for data. In this context that would be virtual memory, that is memory beyond what is implemented in hardware. Interestingly because code segments are read only the OS can page them in, there is no page out, this is exactly what Mac OS does.
iOS just doesn't deliver a backing store for the VM to use, a subtle but important distinction when we get to the point of splitting hairs.]
Splitting hairs it is. I just have a hard time calling an implementation virtual memory when your address space is limited to the free RAM the app gets.
This is the main reason Prof Peabody sees a pseudo last-state sometimes rather than the true last-state all the time. if iOS paged there would be no reason for the reload from a file version of pseudo state restoration. (pseudo state is my wording, not Apple's).
Sounds like a bug or two. If the last state is not being saved properly then something was done wrong.
Is 512MB enough? There is never enough memory if you are a developer, by definition.
With out the ability to page RAM becomes a precious resource and directly impacts a developers ability to code nice apps. However low RAM is also a user problem. Frankly many examples have been suggested already in this thread with respect to user problems with RAM. Most of those Safari related.
I wouldn't compare the 512MB to 1GB on a Xoom very directly though. That Xoom is running a robust JVM behind everything, and that means it is running a copy of that JVM in every process. That is a verified Metric Shitload of memory requirement that the app developers can never use.
It will be interesting to see how much of that 1GB space goes to the system and the JVM on Android devices. It would also be interesting to see how many CPU cycles get wasted running JVM code. But frankly it doesn't really matter as I'm not currently interested in a Xoom.
The discussion about RAM and iOS devices has little to do with non iOS devices. It is really about the iPad user experience and the capability for a new generation of apps.
The dissatisfaction therefore comes not from the target consumer that Steve Jobs had in mind, but the perspectives of those who wanted the iPad to run more RAM intensive applications.
Sure the technology might be there, sure Apple could have enhance the RAM, disk storage, lens MPs, etc., but at what price? And, more important, how would it affect the "simiplicity of use" that was intended for the target consumers? Just as relevant, would these enhancement be practical for the expected usage of the targeted consumer?
CGC
At what price? Apple is getting 50-60% profit margin on the iphone and 30-40% profit margin on the ipad --- while Nokia is getting something like 12% profit margin.
Many people here owns Apple stocks --- but the perspective of the shareholder might not be aligned with the perspective of the end-user.
[...] Why must everyone make everything personal. [...]
Not sure if people are taking it personally or not. But it is clear that everything Apple does triggers an emotional reaction among many people who follow technology. And that's a good thing for Apple because coolness and mindshare are intangible emotional quantities.
Human males have been conditioned over millions of years to belong to groups. Because a group of people has a better chance of surviving and breeding than each one would alone. Tribes, fiefdoms, sports teams, armies, nations, whatever. Now that many of us don't need to fight for our lives every day, that need to join a group and compete against other groups for resources has been watered down to rooting for sports teams, technology companies, etc. The sometimes irrational "my group is better" instinct is still there.
If you had no emotional reaction to the iPad 2 or to people's replies to your post, you wouldn't have typed a 50+ line response. Would you?
Your whole rational for the iPad being rushed is based upon them not demoing games. Is that really what you want to go with?
Could they not wait to show new software abilities when they introduce iOS 5?
I would expect Apple to bring up a couple of third-party developer up on stage showing their new app or game that really uses the increased CPU and GPU power.
At the very least, when nVidia announced their quad-core tegra chipset --- they showed a game demo showing that 200 game characters in the dual-core tegra vs. 600 game characters in the quad-core tegra.
I also think the PlayBook approach to addressing Flash & UI issues is to throw hardware at the problem.
Yes, that must be it --- when the Playbook has 948mb of freemem, when their entire UI is flash.
[...] The discussion about RAM and iOS devices has little to do with non iOS devices. It is really about the iPad user experience and the capability for a new generation of apps.
Exactly. This is why Apple doesn't play the spec game. Apple wants to impress you with how the product works. In your hands. Not with a list of numbers.
And that seems to be an extremely successful concept.
Nvidia and Apple's motivations are entirely different.
Your whole rational for the iPad being rushed is based upon them not demoing games. Is that really what you want to go with?
Could they not wait to show new software abilities when they introduce iOS 5?
Not demo'ing ANY third-party app that uses the increased CPU/GPU speed.
The RIM Playbook showed 948mb of freemem --- last 30 second of video. The operating system took 1024-948=76mb of memory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAXPGwChLGw
I don't understand how this proves that the "Memory per Core" thingy is anything but utter bullshit. My 1st gen iPod Touch has 128Mb of memory and can run 3rd party apps, therefore, iOS should be as light as light as the Playbook's OS... and memory hasn't got anything to do with the number of cores...
That's kind of saying that my MBP would be just as fine with a Core Solo CPU and 2GB of RAM
News flash - the iPad 2 hasn't shipped yet. Maybe 512 will be enough, maybe not, but we don't know if there will be complaints when it shipped. Despite the millions sold, there WERE plenty of complaints about the original iPad, one of the biggest being bad user experience due to not enough ram.
If your news is in flash, you will not see it on ipad2
More than likely they will have new software tricks to demo with the intro of iOS 5.
Not demo'ing ANY third-party app that uses the increased CPU/GPU speed.
Apple: Analysts See iPad 2 ?A Compelling Case?
AAPL up 2.02%
MMI (MotoMobile) down 6.03%
.
I explained it in the simplest terms that I could, I'm not going into specifics so people who don't understand how the process works can at least grasp the idea. I know they are different I say that they are different.
The iPad is a one app at a time machine for ALL users. Rarely does it fail at handling that one app because apps rarely exceed the maximum amount of RAM the iPad can give to it. This is because iOS apps are written for iOS devices which mean using a less memory as possible. When an app is using too much memory, iOS will tell an app to release memory that isn't in use. A good example is the Twitter app: when it is collecting a lot of memory, iOS triggers "applicationDidReceiveMemoryWarning", which causes it to release cached information (recently view profiles you aren't friends of) and icons not in view. The releasing of this information is done by the Twitter app. However, if it failed to create memory and continues to eat memory, iOS will terminate it. Terminating an app because it using too much memory is the last ditch effort for iOS to sustain normal functioning. How often do apps randomly quit on you using an iOS device? Rarely. If an app is written efficiently, it will not consume a lot of RAM, and if it does, it will release it accordingly. This is a fact.
They should use as less as physically possible. Do more with less. Now, there are apps that could use more than what iOS can give, I'm not going to deny; but you are wrong in saying that Apple doesn't allow demanding apps into the App Store (look at the new iMovie... it's a prefect example of how memory management can be handled well). I am also not saying there is more room for growth, however, I am saying that for most things now, 256mb is more than perfectly fine for iOS. If there was such a surplus of apps that had intensive RAM requirements, don't you think the iPad would have shipped with more than 256mb of RAM to begin with?
I'm saying this as a developer, not as a user of these apps. I know how they apps work on iOS and the constraints there are. You blow the idea of a RAM limit WAY out of proportion. iOS apps are not completely hindered in development by the lack of RAM, and most apps will never even hit the active limit. While more RAM is always better, more than 512 is not necessary. If you have an App that is taking over 256mb+ RAM on an iPad, chances are, you are doing something wrong. RARELY (but there are still exceptions, as I stated) should an app on iOS (or even OS X) take more than that.
I think I was able to grasp what you stated from your first post, and more important the simplification done to explain what would oherwise be an esoteric and complex concept.
We do that all the time, to explain the basic concepts in physics and chemistry. The nuances and exceptions are discussed in the Q&A, or further discussions.
What you stated above gives further insight as to why Apple does not simply port its Applications to the iPad, even if they work in OSX.
There was a time, when the G3 Desktop Mac was considered too powerful that the government required clearance before it could be shipped to China.
The CPUs and disk storage in many computers have become more powerful since then, but it seems, the bloat in Applications have kept up.
I remember when Apple first simplified the OSX, and it was able to delete so much without sacrificing its capabilities. It was the direction it has taken with the iOS and I hope, if as you say is true, it will continue to be strict in implementing RAM usage economy for all Apps that are accepted.
If I remember correctly, the earlier PCs had more memory and power in them that the four computers that controlled the spaceships in the Appolo program. So, why does a simple mobile device necessarily require more RAM, and be upgraded so often to run what would be considered "simpler tasks".
CGC
One thing I am curious about, there used to be a function(?) called "Rebuild" I think in pre-OSX Macs. If memory serves me, it was supposed to deal with rebuilding more efficient storage of the contents of a file in the memory storage. This function is no longer in OSX?
I'm not sure which you're referring to, but I think it's one of the following:
In OS 9 and earlier, you could Rebuild the Desktop Database, by holding down command-option on startup. That went away with OS X. Doing this could fix a variety of problems, usually associated with applications being able to be run, or associated with file types. It could also decrease the size of the database making things more efficient, but you'd have to have a lot of files and apps on an old system that hadn't had its database rebuilt in a while to notice much of a difference. Still, it was a good habit to do this periodically. Pre-System 7, the Desktop Database was a huge vector for viruses, so rebuilding often could help prevent that as well (although there was Disinfectant as the most awesomest antivirus application ever).
In OS X there is Prebinding. Prior to 10.2 you could manually update prebinding and it would increase the launch time of a new application. As a result, it may be worth updating prebinding whenever a new app was installed. In 10.2 and later, prebinding was done automatically whenever a new app is launched.
Uh, they trumpet the new "dual core 1GHz" A5 chip on the front page of the iPad site, and list basically all of the tech specs under "Tech Specs", except RAM - probably because it's the one area from a hardware standpoint that another device (ie Xoom) clearly outdoes it. Plus the fact that Xoom can both play and output 1080p content while the iPad can digitally output 1080p but can only actually play 720p (cleverly presented by Apple, i must say).
Anyways, Apple is all about the user experience, so until Android makes some serious improvements that get it up to the level of the iTunes ecosystem, hardware is something of a moot point...
How can the Xoom play back 1080p? Isn't that physically impossible considering it has a resolution of 1280x800???
Yes, that must be it --- when the Playbook has 948mb of freemem, when their entire UI is flash.
Except your assertion is based at a single frame of a demo video -- with no idea of what was going on at the time or, what the number represented, or even if the number displayed was accurate.
My hands-on experience is based of years of usage of Flash (dating from dealing with Macromedia Flash experts) to personal experience (as recently as yesterday) where Flash hangs/crashes the browser.
I have iPads -- I know how they perform!.
I have read/watched everything I can about the PlayBook -- and everything points to throwing hardware at a poor OS/UI implementation.
When the PlayBook becomes available, we will be able to experience how well or poorly the device performs (including battery).
Of course, time will prove which is the right or wrong assessment.
At what price? Apple is getting 50-60% profit margin on the iphone and 30-40% profit margin on the ipad --- while Nokia is getting something like 12% profit margin.
Many people here owns Apple stocks --- but the perspective of the shareholder might not be aligned with the perspective of the end-user.
I am not sure you are advocating for the consumer or the stockholder.. At least, one thing I got was that there is a dichotomy in the interest of the two.
If you think that those who argue here in favor of Apple's high profit margin are because they are stockholders, that may or may not be true. However, I doubt very much that Steve Jobs or the company priced their products simply to satisfy their stockholders. Judging from their responses, Apple does not even give much consideration to attempts of stockholders or more accurately, the big financial management firms to distribute that $60 billion cash reserve. [I don't know how many Apple shares I own but there would be some indirectly from the multual funds I invest in.]
If your complaint is that consumers are being shafted by Apple for the perceived "charging" too much for a product, from what I read, among long time Apple users or even new ones, that is not the case. From those I know alone, they buy Apple products because they found it useful or better experience than the others they have used before. I have a friend for example who must have used all types of phones before, very loyal. Then, one day, she just bought an iPhone. I thought it would be too small for her to do most of her computer work (she has bad eyes and kind of older already) but she told me that she did most of her daily stuff now with her iPhone (banking, internet, emailing, etc.). She is very sociable, most of her group were devout RIM, Nokia, Windows users. The last time we talked she told me that many of them have converted to the iPhone, even the person who only bought an iPod touch initially because he could not part with his Blackberry because it has all his business contacts. These are people who even know less about RAMS, or multitasking, etc. Even more amazing, another friend who did not want her daughter to have an iPad (tye daughter wanted the iPad), and bought what she thought was a more useful "Dell computer", eventually bought an iPad herfself, when she went back to school, and after she bought and got so hooked up with her iPhone4 *with unlimited usage" -- data, phone text messaging. You might think she is rick, but she was not.
And this was in a place in Louisiana, where it was even more rate to know anyone who used a Mac. The friend who was persuaded by her son to buy a Dell computer, she had a pink iMac before that, was fed up with her Dell computer after it got infected with a virus twice. The repairs alone plus the cost of the external disk would be more than the cost had she bought the latest iMac or notebook, two years ago. After her very productive experience with the iPhone, she vowed never to buy any PC again. She is not saving for either the MacBook Air or an iPad.
As a long time Apple user myself, I do not consider Apple products overpriced. Sure I would want the devices I buy to be cheaper, and I would hunt for bargains (like tax free days). I do not have the computer expertise to be tinkering with my computer. If I want something installed that would require opening the body, I pay a technician to do it. If there is anything I do not understand, I want to talk to someone who knows something about it. Being able to do this got even easier when the Apple Stores came to Boston. So, I consider all these when I choose a computer, as part of the total cost.
As to support, consider this issue. I have not bought an iPhone yet because, I have a very good deal with Sprint. During one of my travels, the phone I had just stopped working (dropped too many times), I had to get a replacement. It took too much time. Then, I eventually replaced it with supposedly a long-lasting battery phone from Samsung. I was supposed to get a $50 rebate from Samsung, but it never arrived. After notying the local branch of Sprint in Boston, they just told me to write to Samsung again? i never got the money.
After a few months, the supposed long lasting battery cell phone gets discharged faster than claimed. I had it checked by Sprint, and they claim nothing is wrong with it. Just so frustrating, but there is no recourse because I have no direct contact with the phone manufacturer. This would not have been an issue, if my phone was an iPhone. I could have gone to the local Apple Store to deal with the matter.
I have used the iPhone, and liked it a lot. I would want one but I could not justify the monthly costs over and above what I pay now with Sprint. I could buy a good iPad yearly for the extra cost of current iPhone usage charges.
However, when my contract with Sprint next yearwould be over, I am likely to bite the bullet, and reconsider holding up not getting an iPhone.
CGC
Human males have been conditioned over millions of years to belong to groups.
Whoa! Are you saying all the posters here are male? So there's no chance of getting lucky with a girl here?
Damn!
I'm not sure which you're referring to, but I think it's one of the following:
In OS 9 and earlier, you could Rebuild the Desktop Database, by holding down command-option on startup. That went away with OS X. Doing this could fix a variety of problems, usually associated with applications being able to be run, or associated with file types. It could also decrease the size of the database making things more efficient, but you'd have to have a lot of files and apps on an old system that hadn't had its database rebuilt in a while to notice much of a difference. Still, it was a good habit to do this periodically. Pre-System 7, the Desktop Database was a huge vector for viruses, so rebuilding often could help prevent that as well (although there was Disinfectant as the most awesomest antivirus application ever).
In OS X there is Prebinding. Prior to 10.2 you could manually update prebinding and it would increase the launch time of a new application. As a result, it may be worth updating prebinding whenever a new app was installed. In 10.2 and later, prebinding was done automatically whenever a new app is launched.
It's what you described first, I had hundreds of thousands of created texts files, created through the years. These do not included those of the applications. I used to "rebuild" then, supposedly as a good practice to avoid fragmentation.
I do not even know how many mmore text, images and all sorts of files I have now, a lot of them are also stored in the internet. I am now in my second external disk drive (more than 1 Terrabyte) on top of the internal drive. I don't even do systematic backup because it could easily increase the size by several fold.
So, I am not sure if the issue of random storage still happens in the OSX.
CGC