Please don't get delusional. Apple relies on Intel waaaaaaaaaaay more than Intel relies on Apple. All these millions of converts to mac over the last few years are due to the fact that they have Intel processors now, you take that away, and you might as well turn back the clock on Apple.
If Intel can point to a processor, in their line, that is as capable computationally and as power efficient, as the ARM, then they should tell us what it is. Anything else sounds like FUD.
Exactly. Apple needed to get a product out over a year ago. That meant they went with what was available, not someone's vague promises. Intel's Moorestown platform is still "maybe 2009", that's not good enough to design the iPhone 3, it's not good enough to commit for the iPhone 4.
Safari on the iPhone gives a better internet experience than IE7 on Windows XP on x86.
Flash is only used for advertisements in my experience, and HTML5 brings the video tag that should start to remove the need for Flash for video.
The ARM11 in the iPhone only runs at 400MHz, and it's not ARM's next generation ARM cores. Apple could probably fit 8 ARM11s or 4 Cortex A9s in the space of the CPU area of Moorestown and still beat it in terms of power efficiency.
I do agree that there is something wrong with the way that Apple shows the "full internet" whether that is due to software or the underpowered ARM processor I don't know, but I'm growing quite tired of my Safari Mobile crashing at least once a day whenever I try to do something "powerful" on it.
Same here but you need to separate software issues from hardware issues. Apple very much needs to get on the ball here but we really can't blame ARM.
Quote:
For example, I'm writing this post from my MacBook Pro because I started writing it on my iPhone and it promptly crashed my Safari Mobile.
That is the same sort of frustration I'm having, that is Safari bombing out on simple web sites. In fact there does not seem to be a reason related to a specific web site.
In any event I have to believe that one if the reasons we don't have flash is that Apple knows Safari is to unstable now and flash would only make it worst.
Quote:
I'm not kidding when I say that this happens at least once a day. Oh, and I restored the phone about three weeks ago...
Anyway, Intel does have some sour grapes, but Apple also needs to address some issues with its Mobile Safari implementation.
Yeah but on needs to not confuse the issues here. Intels whine about ARM is garbage. Go intel and we would each have to drag a car battery around and wear abestos underwear. Exageration for sure but it is no where near as bad as what is coming from intel. Frankly such talk could backfire on them.
Safari on the iPhone gives a better internet experience than IE7 on Windows XP on x86.
I don't agree with Intel's comments, but YOUR comment is full of crap. I have an MSI Wind running a 1.6GHz Intel Atom processor with Windows XP Home SP3. Most of the time, I use FireFox 3.0, but I on occasion use IE7.
I don't have problems with IE7. I can view ALL webpages with IE7. I can view all flash content and use every single website out there on the web with no problems -- I can't say the same for my iPod touch 2G.
On my iPod touch 2G, there are some websites that I can't use properly because of the lack of flash support. And it's not just because of advertisements (which I don't care about), it's because some sites implement flash for functional reason. And my iPod touch crashes at least 2-3 times a day (sometimes 2-3 times an hour) even when doing mundane browsing with 2-3 windows open. IE7 doesn't do that for me.
For all of you flash haters out there, flash is here to stay. If you don't like it fine -- disable it. But don't get all high and mighty and say that flash is not needed on the web. How about giving users the choice? If Apple were to implement flash support on the iPhone and you don't want it, they could easily implement a switch in the settings to disable it like they do for adblocking.
For all of you flash haters, stop cockblocking the rest of us!!
To the chagrin of the fanboy faithful, Apple market share skyrocketed after transitioning to the Intel processor family.
Might another transition do the same for iPhone performance?
Apple's market share skyrocketed after the switch to x86 processors because Macs could now natively run windows instead of having to emulate it, making the switch to a new OS less painful. Intel was just the best choice for x86 processors at the time.
The same thing will not happen for the iPhone. There is no phone software for x86 processors and there are no suitable x86 processors for a phone. Those simple facts will not change for a very long time.
Why Intel even wants to push the x86 architecture (which isn't very good to begin with) to mobile devices is beyond me. It would make a whole lot more sense just to start from scratch and use all the knowledge they've accumulated over the past three decades to make a new, more efficient architecture that can be used in the mobile space instead of pushing crap that no one cares about from the 1978.
In fact, they better do that. Windows compatibility will eventually diminish as a selling point, and Apple will simply use the best that is available, x86 or otherwise. It would be foolish to think that P.A. Semi is and will only be working on iPhone/iPod chips. Apple has billions of dollars and has a history of inventing new technologies. A custom, high performance, low power in house processor line is within the realm of possibility.
Well one thing is for sure, after almost 1 1/2 year that the iphone has been out Safari browsers Hangs more and more often, i upgrade to the new 3G model about 2 months ago and boy i can tell you this browser is nearly unusable now
There is nothing that can run the "full internet" because the internet is a communication platform not a language. Even IE received a score of 14% on the Acid3 test.
That's not exactly fair, considering IE is quite possible the worst browser out there. Offerings from Mozilla, Google, and Apple are much better suited for the "full" internet. In fact, unless I'm getting my tests mixed up, the new Safari 4 beta has been the ONLY browser to ever score a 100% on the Acid3 test. I'd much rather have the architecture of that browser to work with when working with a phone than anything else, that's for sure.
To the chagrin of the fanboy faithful, Apple market share skyrocketed after transitioning to the Intel processor family.
Might another transition do the same for iPhone performance?
And another thing... I don' have a problem with Intel but... Is running ones mouth and coming off like an arrogant arse when speaking of a customer the new thing? Is this just the tech world doing this? Is it really necessary?
The intel processor is the best ting hat happened to apple. I can now run lots of software that plain doesn't exist on macs without keeping a second computer around. The mac is sweet, but when there is no credible CAD software, and no credible PCB software, as well as lots of other niche computing categories, it's hard to not argue that intel was a great thing for apple hardware. Now those of us who have macs can run windows programs without a second computer.
The fanboys can say how great the mac is, but there's a lot of software that doesn't exist on that plaform. For that lots of us NEED windows. Being able to run windows on our macs doubles the usefulness.
I don't agree with Intel's comments, but YOUR comment is full of crap. I have an MSI Wind running a 1.6GHz Intel Atom processor with Windows XP Home SP3. Most of the time, I use FireFox 3.0, but I on occasion use IE7.
I don't have problems with IE7. I can view ALL webpages with IE7. I can view all flash content and use every single website out there on the web with no problems -- I can't say the same for my iPod touch 2G.
On my iPod touch 2G, there are some websites that I can't use properly because of the lack of flash support. And it's not just because of advertisements (which I don't care about), it's because some sites implement flash for functional reason. And my iPod touch crashes at least 2-3 times a day (sometimes 2-3 times an hour) even when doing mundane browsing with 2-3 windows open. IE7 doesn't do that for me.
I also have a 2nd generation iPod Touch and have had no problems with it. Safari works great, I think it has only ever crashed on me once. People always blame their problems on the device, they never stop to think it might be something they are doing wrong. Now I understand that mobile safari may have problems, but try a few different thing to get it to stop before saying that it does not work. The logical explanation to me is that since mine works and your does not you must be doing something wrong but than again maybe not, you never know with electronics.
Try turning off the Nike + ipod sensor when you are surfing the internet. The one time I remember having having problems that was on.
I also have a 2nd generation iPod Touch and have had no problems with it. Safari works great, I think it has only ever crashed on me once. People always blame their problems on the device, they never stop to think it might be something they are doing wrong. Now I understand that mobile safari may have problems, but try a few different thing to get it to stop before saying that it does not work. The logical explanation to me is that since mine works and your does not you must be doing something wrong but than again maybe not, you never know with electronics.
Try turning off the Nike + ipod sensor when you are surfing the internet. The one time I remember having having problems that was on.
I'm sorry, but Safari crashes are a widespread problem with the iPhone and iPod touch of any generation with 2.0+ software. That is fact.
The intel processor is the best ting hat happened to apple.
Wrong. The switch to x86 was the best thing to happen to Apple. It didn't matter if they chose Intel or AMD. They could switch to AMD right now and nobody would care, nor notice. You'd still be able to run Minesweeper and Calculator on your Mac with no problems.
Comments
Please don't get delusional. Apple relies on Intel waaaaaaaaaaay more than Intel relies on Apple. All these millions of converts to mac over the last few years are due to the fact that they have Intel processors now, you take that away, and you might as well turn back the clock on Apple.
No delusions here, OS X runs on AMD. [link]
No delusions here, OS X runs on AMD. [link]
LOL did anyone say OSx did not run on AMD? No.
If Intel can point to a processor, in their line, that is as capable computationally and as power efficient, as the ARM, then they should tell us what it is. Anything else sounds like FUD.
Exactly. Apple needed to get a product out over a year ago. That meant they went with what was available, not someone's vague promises. Intel's Moorestown platform is still "maybe 2009", that's not good enough to design the iPhone 3, it's not good enough to commit for the iPhone 4.
Safari on the iPhone gives a better internet experience than IE7 on Windows XP on x86.
Flash is only used for advertisements in my experience, and HTML5 brings the video tag that should start to remove the need for Flash for video.
The ARM11 in the iPhone only runs at 400MHz, and it's not ARM's next generation ARM cores. Apple could probably fit 8 ARM11s or 4 Cortex A9s in the space of the CPU area of Moorestown and still beat it in terms of power efficiency.
I do agree that there is something wrong with the way that Apple shows the "full internet" whether that is due to software or the underpowered ARM processor I don't know, but I'm growing quite tired of my Safari Mobile crashing at least once a day whenever I try to do something "powerful" on it.
Same here but you need to separate software issues from hardware issues. Apple very much needs to get on the ball here but we really can't blame ARM.
For example, I'm writing this post from my MacBook Pro because I started writing it on my iPhone and it promptly crashed my Safari Mobile.
That is the same sort of frustration I'm having, that is Safari bombing out on simple web sites. In fact there does not seem to be a reason related to a specific web site.
In any event I have to believe that one if the reasons we don't have flash is that Apple knows Safari is to unstable now and flash would only make it worst.
I'm not kidding when I say that this happens at least once a day. Oh, and I restored the phone about three weeks ago...
Anyway, Intel does have some sour grapes, but Apple also needs to address some issues with its Mobile Safari implementation.
Yeah but on needs to not confuse the issues here. Intels whine about ARM is garbage. Go intel and we would each have to drag a car battery around and wear abestos underwear. Exageration for sure but it is no where near as bad as what is coming from intel. Frankly such talk could backfire on them.
Dave
Safari on the iPhone gives a better internet experience than IE7 on Windows XP on x86.
I don't agree with Intel's comments, but YOUR comment is full of crap. I have an MSI Wind running a 1.6GHz Intel Atom processor with Windows XP Home SP3. Most of the time, I use FireFox 3.0, but I on occasion use IE7.
I don't have problems with IE7. I can view ALL webpages with IE7. I can view all flash content and use every single website out there on the web with no problems -- I can't say the same for my iPod touch 2G.
On my iPod touch 2G, there are some websites that I can't use properly because of the lack of flash support. And it's not just because of advertisements (which I don't care about), it's because some sites implement flash for functional reason. And my iPod touch crashes at least 2-3 times a day (sometimes 2-3 times an hour) even when doing mundane browsing with 2-3 windows open. IE7 doesn't do that for me.
For all of you flash haters out there, flash is here to stay. If you don't like it fine -- disable it. But don't get all high and mighty and say that flash is not needed on the web. How about giving users the choice? If Apple were to implement flash support on the iPhone and you don't want it, they could easily implement a switch in the settings to disable it like they do for adblocking.
For all of you flash haters, stop cockblocking the rest of us!!
If someone says they know what Apple is doing, they don't know what they are talking about.
Says the man as he emerges from the secret lair beneath 1 Infinite Loop which has underground passages leading to special laboratory's.
For all of you flash haters, stop cockblocking the rest of us!!
Something seriously wrong with that comment... Flashing is Bad? And if I see Flashers I'm a CB?
I don't remember Apple ever slamming their customers, do you?
No, but that was not the point I was trying to make...
I wouldn't be surprised if SJ is already considering pulling the same stunt as he did on ATI after they spilled the beans right before the MW Expo.
that WAS the point.
LMAO over the many great comments made!
To the chagrin of the fanboy faithful, Apple market share skyrocketed after transitioning to the Intel processor family.
Might another transition do the same for iPhone performance?
Apple's market share skyrocketed after the switch to x86 processors because Macs could now natively run windows instead of having to emulate it, making the switch to a new OS less painful. Intel was just the best choice for x86 processors at the time.
The same thing will not happen for the iPhone. There is no phone software for x86 processors and there are no suitable x86 processors for a phone. Those simple facts will not change for a very long time.
Why Intel even wants to push the x86 architecture (which isn't very good to begin with) to mobile devices is beyond me. It would make a whole lot more sense just to start from scratch and use all the knowledge they've accumulated over the past three decades to make a new, more efficient architecture that can be used in the mobile space instead of pushing crap that no one cares about from the 1978.
In fact, they better do that. Windows compatibility will eventually diminish as a selling point, and Apple will simply use the best that is available, x86 or otherwise. It would be foolish to think that P.A. Semi is and will only be working on iPhone/iPod chips. Apple has billions of dollars and has a history of inventing new technologies. A custom, high performance, low power in house processor line is within the realm of possibility.
There is nothing that can run the "full internet" because the internet is a communication platform not a language. Even IE received a score of 14% on the Acid3 test.
That's not exactly fair, considering IE is quite possible the worst browser out there. Offerings from Mozilla, Google, and Apple are much better suited for the "full" internet. In fact, unless I'm getting my tests mixed up, the new Safari 4 beta has been the ONLY browser to ever score a 100% on the Acid3 test. I'd much rather have the architecture of that browser to work with when working with a phone than anything else, that's for sure.
To the chagrin of the fanboy faithful, Apple market share skyrocketed after transitioning to the Intel processor family.
Might another transition do the same for iPhone performance?
And another thing... I don' have a problem with Intel but... Is running ones mouth and coming off like an arrogant arse when speaking of a customer the new thing? Is this just the tech world doing this? Is it really necessary?
The intel processor is the best ting hat happened to apple. I can now run lots of software that plain doesn't exist on macs without keeping a second computer around. The mac is sweet, but when there is no credible CAD software, and no credible PCB software, as well as lots of other niche computing categories, it's hard to not argue that intel was a great thing for apple hardware. Now those of us who have macs can run windows programs without a second computer.
The fanboys can say how great the mac is, but there's a lot of software that doesn't exist on that plaform. For that lots of us NEED windows. Being able to run windows on our macs doubles the usefulness.
Sheldon
I don't agree with Intel's comments, but YOUR comment is full of crap. I have an MSI Wind running a 1.6GHz Intel Atom processor with Windows XP Home SP3. Most of the time, I use FireFox 3.0, but I on occasion use IE7.
I don't have problems with IE7. I can view ALL webpages with IE7. I can view all flash content and use every single website out there on the web with no problems -- I can't say the same for my iPod touch 2G.
On my iPod touch 2G, there are some websites that I can't use properly because of the lack of flash support. And it's not just because of advertisements (which I don't care about), it's because some sites implement flash for functional reason. And my iPod touch crashes at least 2-3 times a day (sometimes 2-3 times an hour) even when doing mundane browsing with 2-3 windows open. IE7 doesn't do that for me.
I also have a 2nd generation iPod Touch and have had no problems with it. Safari works great, I think it has only ever crashed on me once. People always blame their problems on the device, they never stop to think it might be something they are doing wrong. Now I understand that mobile safari may have problems, but try a few different thing to get it to stop before saying that it does not work. The logical explanation to me is that since mine works and your does not you must be doing something wrong but than again maybe not, you never know with electronics.
Try turning off the Nike + ipod sensor when you are surfing the internet. The one time I remember having having problems that was on.
I also have a 2nd generation iPod Touch and have had no problems with it. Safari works great, I think it has only ever crashed on me once. People always blame their problems on the device, they never stop to think it might be something they are doing wrong. Now I understand that mobile safari may have problems, but try a few different thing to get it to stop before saying that it does not work. The logical explanation to me is that since mine works and your does not you must be doing something wrong but than again maybe not, you never know with electronics.
Try turning off the Nike + ipod sensor when you are surfing the internet. The one time I remember having having problems that was on.
I'm sorry, but Safari crashes are a widespread problem with the iPhone and iPod touch of any generation with 2.0+ software. That is fact.
http://www.google.com/search?q=iphon...GGL_en___US176
And yes, I have Nike+ disabled.
The intel processor is the best ting hat happened to apple.
Wrong. The switch to x86 was the best thing to happen to Apple. It didn't matter if they chose Intel or AMD. They could switch to AMD right now and nobody would care, nor notice. You'd still be able to run Minesweeper and Calculator on your Mac with no problems.