I'd like to read it too. I'd be interested to see what TS's research method was, and how he managed to miss basic Android functionality such as the home button.
I probably didn't miss it! I just don't remember it. I run off of third-party consensus when I can't remember things. Screws with my view of history, but it's all I can do.
So aluminum and titanium are of comparable quality?
You asked if Apple used Ti in the next iPhone, would it make Al crap? I said no. I never said they were equal quality. I just said Ti won't make Al crap.
I probably didn't miss it! I just don't remember it. I run off of third-party consensus when I can't remember things. Screws with my view of history, but it's all I can do.
Android phones have had home buttons since the G1. Check out youtube for videos of the thing in action.
You never said that Android was the performance leader? pedromartins: "See? this never happened before, CPU vs CPU the S2 was much faster than the 4 and even the 4S."
I said that Apple has always had a commanding lead in GPU performance. The S3 is not even the pinnacle of Android at this point, so I'm not sure why you're harping on it anyway.
I never once said that Android was as smooth as iOS. In fact if you look at my post history, I say the opposite. Every time. And if you say that Android is currently on par with the UI performance of iOS at any point in its history, then you're admitting that the performance gap is now narrower than ever. You can't have it both ways.
PS - I reported your post because "troll" is a personal attack just like any other, especially when used against someone who isn't a troll. Do you know what a troll is?
well, you are. I said CPU vs CPU, do you even know what that is? Iphones were always faster, with slower CPUs. The 5 has an equal fast CPU (a marvel actually, a dual 1.2 going head on against a 1.5 quad), and iOS optimizations together with that CPU makes android "slow motion".
But for some reason you don't get it. Go and learn about it, then.
Multi-core processors splits the tasks into smaller chunks. Each core (lets say 4 cores) takes on 25% of the total load. After the 25% load is done, they go into hibernation mode, thus saving battery. Each core processor does not have to use all of its power to do the work, generating less heat and less resistance.
A single core or dual core processor, uses 100% (single core) and 50% (dual core) before going into hibernation. The less time spent on doing the tasks and the more time it is in hibernation, the less power consumption.
That is how you get better battery life.
No. Your explanation is not correct, and it just parrots Nvidia's multi-core marketing drivel.
Multi-core processors do not split tasks into smaller chunks. What splits tasks into smaller chunks are programmers coding the software. You also leave the impression that every task can be evenly split up evenly, which is not true either. Computational problems like numerical modeling, media encoding, can be split up near evenly, but even those tasks start to lose efficiency as the core count goes up.
The vast majority of software loads really stress only one core. The vast majority of multithreaded software really stress only one core. The vast majority of background processes and threads are at wait states or require very little CPU power in the vast majority of software out there.
It's true that for a constant workload, a faster processor with good idle power states can use less power than a slower processor. That's only true if the idle power state for the faster processor consumes less power. If the slower processor had lower peak power and lower idle power, guess what, it likely will consume less power overall over the same workload even though it'll take longer to finish.
Moreover, the so-called "first-to-sleep" advantage is only advantageous for constant workloads. The problem is the old adage that we find a way to fill the CPU cycles anyways. Users will end up using the device more or the software loads will require more power.
Quote:
Apple is moving to multi-core processor in the next iPhone anyway. Will you start appreciating the benefit after that happens? Most likely will.
If you haven't noticed, Apple has been using multi-core processors in iOS devices for almost 2 years now. Will 2013 iOS devices have a quad-core CPU? Who knows, but they've had dual-core CPUs since the iPad 2 in 2011.
I probably didn't miss it! I just don't remember it. I run off of third-party consensus when I can't remember things. Screws with my view of history, but it's all I can do.
Does that mean you will let me read it. You refer to your dissertation as if it is where you got the info and then you say you go by what is posted in previous comments. Why even bring up your dissertation if you don't even remember it?
So we're looking at the future '+' version of the iPhone...but with better battery life and a less derivative design (they market that design with a straight face presumably...)
As soon as Apple hits with a 199-250 'low end' Phone (think iPod Touch with phone radio) and an iPhone + to go with the 'classic' iPhone...what will the analysts whinge about?
I could even see a 'Siri' phone shuffle type device.
Why not? They can address 'addressable' markets like they did with the iPod. Or not.
I think they'll do the former in time. No big deal. Well, 135 billion in 'low' end phones...that is a big deal. As is the momentum with Samesung's S3. It's captured a bit of the 'size queen' media and phone buyers.
Apple can offer a bit more choice and keep more people happy. 1 size fits all? Not really. (Though I'm happy with my iPhone 5...I'd go for a + one in white.)
One point I will throw out there on supposed "spec-whoring":
It's far easier to explain what 1080p means to the average smartphone buyer than 640x1136.
"Same resolution as your TV at home."
Why? 720p still qualifies as "retina" for that size of screen, 720p would be about 312ppi. And it's a standard TV resolution too. Apple doesn't need to sell people with the raster dimensions of the screen, they have a screen that exceeds most people's vision at 12" and they have the best color accuracy in the business, with smooth graphics performance. They do the job exceedingly well, nobody needs to understand that it's 640x1136 other than developers and people that do the technical work designing and manufacturing the device. As arbitrary numbers go, It's not really any more bizarre than 1920x1080.
Our point here is that 1080p doubles the number of pixels the graphics processor has to throw to the screen for negligible benefit for most people. For their sake, I hope there are no compromises on graphics performance to achieve the 1080p number. If they can do it with smooth scrolling with no tearing, no judder, stutter, 60+fps, with acceptable battery life, then by all means. Otherwise, they likely could have achieved all that much better with 720p with only negligible reduction in perceptible image quality.
As yet, I don't believe it to be anything other than cynical bullet-point-ism.
This will probably be my next phone. Glad to see HTC is going back to the aluminum body (alot of their earlier phones were aluminum). If they can release the same device on all carriers (minus Verizon) it should be a hit. I believe all Canadian carriers are getting the same phone.
It's easily the best specs on the market, and knowing HTC the build quality will be superb (much better than Samsung). Curious about the camera - my one complaint about the HTC Amaze I have is the photos have slightly low-density pixels, although it's still better than 99% of smartphones. I'd take 4MP images if the quality is there.
The iPhone 5 is still overall the better phone than this. This phone looks nice and I like how they incorporate the speakers on the front of the phone, hopefully Apple does this with a future iPhone. Also I'm really looking forward to the upcoming rumored iPhone 6 that's suppose to be released sometime this year with the 5 inch screen. Been looking forward to a bigger screened iPhone.
Comments
Originally Posted by stike vomit
I'd like to read it too. I'd be interested to see what TS's research method was, and how he managed to miss basic Android functionality such as the home button.
I probably didn't miss it! I just don't remember it. I run off of third-party consensus when I can't remember things. Screws with my view of history, but it's all I can do.
You asked if Apple used Ti in the next iPhone, would it make Al crap? I said no. I never said they were equal quality. I just said Ti won't make Al crap.
Android phones have had home buttons since the G1. Check out youtube for videos of the thing in action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
You never said that Android was the performance leader? pedromartins: "See? this never happened before, CPU vs CPU the S2 was much faster than the 4 and even the 4S."
I said that Apple has always had a commanding lead in GPU performance. The S3 is not even the pinnacle of Android at this point, so I'm not sure why you're harping on it anyway.
I never once said that Android was as smooth as iOS. In fact if you look at my post history, I say the opposite. Every time. And if you say that Android is currently on par with the UI performance of iOS at any point in its history, then you're admitting that the performance gap is now narrower than ever. You can't have it both ways.
PS - I reported your post because "troll" is a personal attack just like any other, especially when used against someone who isn't a troll. Do you know what a troll is?
well, you are. I said CPU vs CPU, do you even know what that is? Iphones were always faster, with slower CPUs. The 5 has an equal fast CPU (a marvel actually, a dual 1.2 going head on against a 1.5 quad), and iOS optimizations together with that CPU makes android "slow motion".
But for some reason you don't get it. Go and learn about it, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Multi-core processors splits the tasks into smaller chunks. Each core (lets say 4 cores) takes on 25% of the total load. After the 25% load is done, they go into hibernation mode, thus saving battery. Each core processor does not have to use all of its power to do the work, generating less heat and less resistance.
A single core or dual core processor, uses 100% (single core) and 50% (dual core) before going into hibernation. The less time spent on doing the tasks and the more time it is in hibernation, the less power consumption.
That is how you get better battery life.
No. Your explanation is not correct, and it just parrots Nvidia's multi-core marketing drivel.
Multi-core processors do not split tasks into smaller chunks. What splits tasks into smaller chunks are programmers coding the software. You also leave the impression that every task can be evenly split up evenly, which is not true either. Computational problems like numerical modeling, media encoding, can be split up near evenly, but even those tasks start to lose efficiency as the core count goes up.
The vast majority of software loads really stress only one core. The vast majority of multithreaded software really stress only one core. The vast majority of background processes and threads are at wait states or require very little CPU power in the vast majority of software out there.
It's true that for a constant workload, a faster processor with good idle power states can use less power than a slower processor. That's only true if the idle power state for the faster processor consumes less power. If the slower processor had lower peak power and lower idle power, guess what, it likely will consume less power overall over the same workload even though it'll take longer to finish.
Moreover, the so-called "first-to-sleep" advantage is only advantageous for constant workloads. The problem is the old adage that we find a way to fill the CPU cycles anyways. Users will end up using the device more or the software loads will require more power.
Quote:
Apple is moving to multi-core processor in the next iPhone anyway. Will you start appreciating the benefit after that happens? Most likely will.
If you haven't noticed, Apple has been using multi-core processors in iOS devices for almost 2 years now. Will 2013 iOS devices have a quad-core CPU? Who knows, but they've had dual-core CPUs since the iPad 2 in 2011.
Does that mean you will let me read it. You refer to your dissertation as if it is where you got the info and then you say you go by what is posted in previous comments. Why even bring up your dissertation if you don't even remember it?
4.7, 1080p, quad core?
*shrugs.
So we're looking at the future '+' version of the iPhone...but with better battery life and a less derivative design (they market that design with a straight face presumably...)
As soon as Apple hits with a 199-250 'low end' Phone (think iPod Touch with phone radio) and an iPhone + to go with the 'classic' iPhone...what will the analysts whinge about?
I could even see a 'Siri' phone shuffle type device.
Why not? They can address 'addressable' markets like they did with the iPod. Or not.
I think they'll do the former in time. No big deal. Well, 135 billion in 'low' end phones...that is a big deal. As is the momentum with Samesung's S3. It's captured a bit of the 'size queen' media and phone buyers.
Apple can offer a bit more choice and keep more people happy. 1 size fits all? Not really. (Though I'm happy with my iPhone 5...I'd go for a + one in white.)
Lemon Bon Bon.
They absolutely owned with the iPod strategy. And the phone market is even bigger...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Why? 720p still qualifies as "retina" for that size of screen, 720p would be about 312ppi. And it's a standard TV resolution too. Apple doesn't need to sell people with the raster dimensions of the screen, they have a screen that exceeds most people's vision at 12" and they have the best color accuracy in the business, with smooth graphics performance. They do the job exceedingly well, nobody needs to understand that it's 640x1136 other than developers and people that do the technical work designing and manufacturing the device. As arbitrary numbers go, It's not really any more bizarre than 1920x1080.
Our point here is that 1080p doubles the number of pixels the graphics processor has to throw to the screen for negligible benefit for most people. For their sake, I hope there are no compromises on graphics performance to achieve the 1080p number. If they can do it with smooth scrolling with no tearing, no judder, stutter, 60+fps, with acceptable battery life, then by all means. Otherwise, they likely could have achieved all that much better with 720p with only negligible reduction in perceptible image quality.
As yet, I don't believe it to be anything other than cynical bullet-point-ism.
This will probably be my next phone. Glad to see HTC is going back to the aluminum body (alot of their earlier phones were aluminum). If they can release the same device on all carriers (minus Verizon) it should be a hit. I believe all Canadian carriers are getting the same phone.
It's easily the best specs on the market, and knowing HTC the build quality will be superb (much better than Samsung). Curious about the camera - my one complaint about the HTC Amaze I have is the photos have slightly low-density pixels, although it's still better than 99% of smartphones. I'd take 4MP images if the quality is there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Well, I wrote a short dissertation about the OS. If their home button did what Apple's did, I figure I'd remember that.
That's why they gave you an 'F'.