What are the codec, container, resolution and bitrate? Have you tried playing it in VLC?
Your netbook would have been able to play for video files until recently, but that changed with allowance of video players with bundled codecs. I find That I use this as the drag-n-drop option in iTunes makes this very easy.
Again, your netbook is fine but for the tasks the iPad and MBA are designed for they kick the butt of any netbook. Netbooks on the other hand weren’t designed that way, they came about because Intel created a low-powered x86-capable chip thus allowing a desktop OS on a much smaller machine. That is the key difference: intelligent design v. opportunistic evolution.
Quote:
I wasn't sure of the exact number, I just knew it was nowhere near as slow as Apple apologists usually claim. I just went and timed it, and it's just under 20 seconds from closed to running and displaying a page in Firefox.
That is from the lid closed, not with the machine off. I can hit the Home button, slide to unlock and open Safari in 3 seconds without rushing. I can do the same in just under 30 seconds if the device is completely off, which it doesn’t have to be since it can be in idle mode for a month before discharging.
I'm sure VLC on the iPad has the same error messages.
It does. And you'd expect it perhaps with an MKV. Heck, even my 2.4GHz iMac struggles with those. But I'm getting the error even with 720p h264 .mp4s. I get the error, and then it chunks along stuttering and skipping, freezing, etc. Same files play flawlessly on the netbook.
What are the codec, container, resolution and bitrate? Have you tried playing it in VLC?
I really don't know much about these things, I just know what won't play on the iPad, WILL play on the netbook without issue.
Here's what the inspector says for one of the offenders: (it's an mp4 file)
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Again, your netbook is fine but for the tasks the iPad and MBA are designed for they kick the butt of any netbook.
And again, you're mistakenly making the assumption that I'm making these pronouncements in a vacuum. I have both a netbook and an iPad on my desk right now, I'm well aware of what they can and can't do. For real usage, not just based on a spec sheet.
The netbook is as good if not better than the iPad for most things, most of the time. For the things I use the netbook for the most (web browsing and videos), the netbook is dramatically better.
That all looks within spec for the iPad, so there is something else going on. The iPad will play up to Man Profile 3.1, it?s possible that was encoded with blocks for a different profile.
Quote:
And again, you're mistakenly making the assumption that I'm making these pronouncements in a vacuum. I have both a netbook and an iPad on my desk right now, I'm well aware of what they can and can't do. For real usage, not just based on a spec sheet.
The netbook is as good if not better than the iPad for most things, most of the time. For the things I use the netbook for the most (web browsing and videos), the netbook is dramatically better.
I don?t doubt that you think it?s better, but your initial comments were about it?s speed and I pointed out how that is erroneous. Turning it on, launching apps I bet you can?t find a comparable app that doesn?t launch much faster on the iPad than on your netbook. I bet you even spend more time working that cramped little trackpad moving that mouse around and accessing the Start Menu while you can an app on the iPad.
This is the key, IPad has two things going for it. One is the Solid State Storage and the other is the GUI acceleration. It doesn't by any means have a fast CPU. Further it suffers from constrained memory. These are realities that aren't debatable. Any app requiring extensive CPU time will have issues on the iPad. Fortunately developer have seen fit to avoid putting such apps on the iPad.
I really appreciate that they want to cut down the weight of the new model as much as possible, but as someone who has worked with carbon fiber, I really don't see it as financially viable in commercial electronic consumer products like a case for a laptop. Overkill in my opinion. Its also very difficult and time consuming to produce two sided products that look aesthetically pleasing. And last I heard it was in short supply in part because of the Boeing Dreamliner.
Other than aluminum or molded plastic, their acquisition of liquidmetal sounds like the way they will go.
If for some reason they can pull off a carbon body case, i would want that laptop just out of curiosity.
BTW, the iphone 4 body is an achievement on its own for a consumer product. Apple is not screwing around when it comes to some of their products. I don't think the general public really appreciates all that it entails. Certainly a lot more work and effort than any phone case available today.
IPad is perceived as being fast, but that doesn't mean it is.
This is the key, IPad has two things going for it. One is the Solid State Storage and the other is the GUI acceleration. It doesn't by any means have a fast CPU. Further it suffers from constrained memory. These are realities that aren't debatable. Any app requiring extensive CPU time will have issues on the iPad. Fortunately developer have seen fit to avoid putting such apps on the iPad.
So there are fast aspects to the device? If not aspects of a device aren?t the fastest among all products does that mean it?s not fast in doing certain tasks? Is it fair to only judge speed by the power of the CPU when it?s the user?s ability to complete a task that really matters? If we were comparing the same OS to the vastly different CPUs then it would be a clear win for the faster CPU if the task was CPU intensive, but we?re not as Apple clearly redesigned OS X to be idealized for three different ARM-based products each with different UIs, two using CocoaTouch for the I/O.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rp2011
I really appreciate that they want to cut down the weight of the new model as much as possible, but as someone who has worked with carbon fiber, I really don't see it as financially viable in commercial electronic consumer products like a case for a laptop. Overkill in my opinion. Its also very difficult and time consuming to produce two sided products that look aesthetically pleasing.
Other than aluminum or molded plastic, their acquisition of liquidmetal sounds like the way they will go.
If for some reason they can pull off a carbon body case, i would want that laptop just out of curiosity.
BTW, the iphone 4 aluminum body made from a solid piece of aluminum is an achievement on its own for a consumer product. Apple is not screwing around when it comes to some of their products. I don't think the general public really appreciates all that it entails. Certainly a lot more work and effort than any phone case available today.
1) I?ve never seen CF on a computer be functional. I have a very limited knowledge of CF but they all seemed to be flimsy, not rigid, which is something I don?t want to see in a case for rigid components inside. I?ve seen CF that was very rigid so perhaps there is a minimum thickness that needs to be employed but isn?t for some reason.
2) I think Apple?s employing aluminium in so many of their consumer products doesn?t get enough attention. From the two pieces of the iPhone frame being milled at 1 million(?) per week and growing to the new Mac mini being a solid block of aluminum when the product category won?t have the same wear and tear and size requirement as the average notebook is simply amazing. I hope one day we get some detail into how they were able to accomplish this.
Remember the comment is in respect to VLC and other CPU intensive apps or functions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
So there are fast aspects to the device?
Most certainly! Much of that capability is due to hardware acceleration. Video playback of certain encodings works so well because of hardware acceleration. What I tried to point out is that apps demanding significant CPU power will not always meet peoples expectations because many optimizations make iPad appear faster than the CPU really is.
In this case VLC seems to have this issue. CODECs demanding strong CPU performance seem to have issues. The word "seem" is important here because VLC is very much a rev one software release. There could be potential for more aggressive optimization.
[qoute]
If not aspects of a device aren?t the fastest among all products does that mean it?s not fast in doing certain tasks? Is it fair to only judge speed by the power of the CPU when it?s the user?s ability to complete a task that really matters?
[/quote]
Well this was a discussion about VLC not completing a task or displaying degraded performance.
Outside of VLC how the task is completed can be important too. Fortunately the types of apps popular on iPad have been doing very well on the device. That is in part due to developers realizing the limits of the device.
Quote:
If we were comparing the same OS to the vastly different CPUs then it would be a clear win for the faster CPU if the task was CPU intensive, but we?re not as Apple clearly redesigned OS X to be idealized for three different ARM-based products each with different UIs, two using CocoaTouch for the I/O.
The OS doesn't matter. Rather it is app performance that matters. To me it is no surprise that Apple kept apps like VLC off the platform for as long as they did as slow apps could have given the platform a poor rep before establishing itself. At this point people have a better idea of what to expect.
Quote:
1) I?ve never seen CF on a computer be functional. I have a very limited knowledge of CF but they all seemed to be flimsy, not rigid, which is something I don?t want to see in a case for rigid components inside.
While I'm not a fan of carbon fiber, I do have to point out that structures made with the stuff can be very ridged. The problem for Apple is that they can't easily do a unibody with the machined in features.
Quote:
I?ve seen CF that was very rigid so perhaps there is a minimum thickness that needs to be employed but isn?t for some reason.
It is likely more an issue of engineering though thicknees plays a part. The problem is well engineered carbon fiber parts are expensive and not exactly mass production items. It is sort of like hand laid up fiberglass/carbon boats which can be very nice indeed but expensive to make.
Quote:
2) I think Apple?s employing aluminium in so many of their consumer products doesn?t get enough attention. From the two pieces of the iPhone frame being milled at 1 million(?) per week and growing to the new Mac mini being a solid block of aluminum when the product category won?t have the same wear and tear and size requirement as the average notebook is simply amazing. I hope one day we get some detail into how they were able to accomplish this.
This also points out just how cheap labor is in China. When the first Unibody MBP where rumored I couldn't believe that they would be cost effective. Sure the idea sounds grand but looking at from the stand point of a person in the US it is hard to believe that they could CNC each and everyone of those cases. The cost "should" be huge, but obviously Apple is still shipping products that are bearable cost wise.
So yeah pretty amazing. The Liquid Metals licenses though seems to indicate that they need lower cost alternatives that keep quality high. I suspect that this material could see first application in a iPad rev. The reason being the back is about the right size to make usage of an injection molding process practicle. The only other approach, for thin cross sections, is blow molding which I find very strange when talking about metals.
All in all We should be seeing some very interesting ideas with respect to cases and chassis design from Apple soon.
What I tried to point out is that apps demanding significant CPU power will not always meet peoples expectations because many optimizations make iPad appear faster than the CPU really is.
Your word appear is key here. If we exclude it make the comment a fallacy as the OS and HW can’t be faster than what the sum of the parts are.
If we use the word appear then it’s the perception that people have which means desktop OSes are not designed for such slow processors anymore, obviously.
Quote:
In this case VLC seems to have this issue. CODECs demanding strong CPU performance seem to have issues. The word "seem" is important here because VLC is very much a rev one software release. There could be potential for more aggressive optimization.
I haven’t used VLC on my iPad as it crashes but I do use CineXPlayer which works great. I have no idea what the CPU usage and battery time for video playback, but I use it for AVIs which don’t have a HW decoder so it will be worse.
Quote:
The OS doesn't matter. Rather it is app performance that matters. To me it is no surprise that Apple kept apps like VLC off the platform for as long as they did as slow apps could have given the platform a poor rep before establishing itself. At this point people have a better idea of what to expect.
The OS absolutely does matter. Apple didn’t cram Mac OS X into the iPhone, Touch or iPad with a new layer for apps on top. They rewrote a great deal of lower-level code, too. Some of which has found its way back into Mac OS X. The most famous of these is the QuickTime framework.
Apple’s not alone. Android has done the same with v2.2 over v2.1. They did so many amazing things with the x.1 release that I think it’s a shame that it wasn’t named v3.0. Just ook at performance from Android OS 2.1 to 2.2 on the same hardware and you’ll see a significance improvement in performance.
I hate to use automobiles as an example whenever possible but in this case I feel I must. Take a motorcycle over a sports car. That same motorcycle engine in a sports car will make it slow as crap. A sports car needs a big powerful engine because it’s heavy. But that relatively small engine in a motorcycle can make very fast. Desktop OSes are heavy cars that need more powerful processors to do the same tasks. We can use Windows Vista over Windows XP as an example. To take the conversation full circle, Windows 7 is the CF version of the Windows Vista.
The MBA has a pretty low pixel density compared to several small laptops on the market, and even when compared to the upgraded 15" MBPs. They should be able to put the same resolution into a 11.6" device without problems.
The problem with the current MBA is that it really has only one selling point: weight (the footprint is almost identical to the much cheaper 13" MBP). And you pay far too much for this weight saving. No FW, lame HDD in the base model, stuck at 2GB RAM (the bare minimum for running 10.6 decently), too few ports, pathetic speaker, poor iSight... most people won't see a point in buying the MBA. A smaller footprint is a good point for people who commute a lot. I had the MBA for a while and using it in some trains or in economy class on flights was inconvenient. It was simply too big.
Still, I have not carried a laptop with me since my iPad has arrived some months ago, and I have no intentions of buying a MBA again.
i'm a mba owner for nearly two years and its a joy to use and has tons more selling points then just the weight ya really av ta use one for a while to see that tho
Your word appear is key here. If we exclude it make the comment a fallacy as the OS and HW can?t be faster than what the sum of the parts are.
The word appear is correctly used here as the hardware acceleration of video play back would lead so t think the iOS devices have a fast CPU when they don't. The same thing goes for video acceleration.
Quote:
If we use the word appear then it?s the perception that people have which means desktop OSes are not designed for such slow processors anymore, obviously.
Again the OS really doesn't come into the equation here. CPU performance is CPU performance and it really doesn't matter what OS you are running.
Quote:
I haven?t used VLC on my iPad as it crashes but I do use CineXPlayer which works great. I have no idea what the CPU usage and battery time for video playback, but I use it for AVIs which don?t have a HW decoder so it will be worse.
Exactly, once you move outside of the hardware accelerated frameworks the CPU has to do all the heavy computations involved. Given a reasonably complex CODEC and a fast bit stream it can't keep up.
Quote:
The OS absolutely does matter. Apple didn?t cram Mac OS X into the iPhone, Touch or iPad with a new layer for apps on top. They rewrote a great deal of lower-level code, too. Some of which has found its way back into Mac OS X. The most famous of these is the QuickTime framework.
Well you can say that but I will maintain it doesn't matter with respect to this discussion. If an app is significantly slow on a platform it is due to the processor. For example many people upgrade their machines to newer processors simply because they want to run their existing apps faster along with the same ole OS.
As to the mixing of Frameworks between Mac OS/X and iOS that has been the case. In some cases those Frameworks are identical or very close to it. Frankly Quicktime X isn't an example of success in this case as I find it very VERY buggy on my 2008 MBP.
Quote:
Apple?s not alone. Android has done the same with v2.2 over v2.1. They did so many amazing things with the x.1 release that I think it?s a shame that it wasn?t named v3.0. Just ook at performance from Android OS 2.1 to 2.2 on the same hardware and you?ll see a significance improvement in performance.
Well yeah but then again I've seen my iPhone performance go backwards.
Quote:
I hate to use automobiles as an example whenever possible but in this case I feel I must. Take a motorcycle over a sports car. That same motorcycle engine in a sports car will make it slow as crap. A sports car needs a big powerful engine because it?s heavy. But that relatively small engine in a motorcycle can make very fast. Desktop OSes are heavy cars that need more powerful processors to do the same tasks. We can use Windows Vista over Windows XP as an example. To take the conversation full circle, Windows 7 is the CF version of the Windows Vista.
I like to use cars to explain things from time to time my self but in this case I have to say you are supporting my position. Think about it, the engine is like the CPU, when underpowered it can't perform to expectations. The processor in the iPhone is like a hybrid engine where the gas driven part can handle the steady state driving but has to rely on the electric pony motor to accelerate or do other demanding chores. By itself the A8 core in Apples A4 is not really a power house when compared to things like ATOM.
In part this is why Apple was so aggressive in using the GPU that came with the A4. Think about it, when iPhone came out it was and probably still is, making more aggressive use of the GPU than OS/X. This wasn't done as an exercise on Apples part but rather it was the only way to deliver the experience that they wanted to offer via iPhone. The A4 CPU is now several hundred Megahertz faster now but the actual ability of the hardware is still base on a slow CPU architecture.
Comments
image: http://members.shaw.ca/bsenka/images/IMG_0135.jpg
What are the codec, container, resolution and bitrate? Have you tried playing it in VLC?
Your netbook would have been able to play for video files until recently, but that changed with allowance of video players with bundled codecs. I find That I use this as the drag-n-drop option in iTunes makes this very easy.
Again, your netbook is fine but for the tasks the iPad and MBA are designed for they kick the butt of any netbook. Netbooks on the other hand weren’t designed that way, they came about because Intel created a low-powered x86-capable chip thus allowing a desktop OS on a much smaller machine. That is the key difference: intelligent design v. opportunistic evolution.
I wasn't sure of the exact number, I just knew it was nowhere near as slow as Apple apologists usually claim. I just went and timed it, and it's just under 20 seconds from closed to running and displaying a page in Firefox.
That is from the lid closed, not with the machine off. I can hit the Home button, slide to unlock and open Safari in 3 seconds without rushing. I can do the same in just under 30 seconds if the device is completely off, which it doesn’t have to be since it can be in idle mode for a month before discharging.
I'm sure VLC on the iPad has the same error messages.
It does. And you'd expect it perhaps with an MKV. Heck, even my 2.4GHz iMac struggles with those. But I'm getting the error even with 720p h264 .mp4s. I get the error, and then it chunks along stuttering and skipping, freezing, etc. Same files play flawlessly on the netbook.
What are the codec, container, resolution and bitrate? Have you tried playing it in VLC?
I really don't know much about these things, I just know what won't play on the iPad, WILL play on the netbook without issue.
Here's what the inspector says for one of the offenders: (it's an mp4 file)
Again, your netbook is fine but for the tasks the iPad and MBA are designed for they kick the butt of any netbook.
And again, you're mistakenly making the assumption that I'm making these pronouncements in a vacuum. I have both a netbook and an iPad on my desk right now, I'm well aware of what they can and can't do. For real usage, not just based on a spec sheet.
The netbook is as good if not better than the iPad for most things, most of the time. For the things I use the netbook for the most (web browsing and videos), the netbook is dramatically better.
I really don't know much about these things, I just know what won't play on the iPad, WILL play on the netbook without issue.
Here's what the inspector says:
image: http://members.shaw.ca/bsenka/images/bits2.png
That all looks within spec for the iPad, so there is something else going on. The iPad will play up to Man Profile 3.1, it?s possible that was encoded with blocks for a different profile.
And again, you're mistakenly making the assumption that I'm making these pronouncements in a vacuum. I have both a netbook and an iPad on my desk right now, I'm well aware of what they can and can't do. For real usage, not just based on a spec sheet.
The netbook is as good if not better than the iPad for most things, most of the time. For the things I use the netbook for the most (web browsing and videos), the netbook is dramatically better.
I don?t doubt that you think it?s better, but your initial comments were about it?s speed and I pointed out how that is erroneous. Turning it on, launching apps I bet you can?t find a comparable app that doesn?t launch much faster on the iPad than on your netbook. I bet you even spend more time working that cramped little trackpad moving that mouse around and accessing the Start Menu while you can an app on the iPad.
Other than aluminum or molded plastic, their acquisition of liquidmetal sounds like the way they will go.
If for some reason they can pull off a carbon body case, i would want that laptop just out of curiosity.
BTW, the iphone 4 body is an achievement on its own for a consumer product. Apple is not screwing around when it comes to some of their products. I don't think the general public really appreciates all that it entails. Certainly a lot more work and effort than any phone case available today.
IPad is perceived as being fast, but that doesn't mean it is.
This is the key, IPad has two things going for it. One is the Solid State Storage and the other is the GUI acceleration. It doesn't by any means have a fast CPU. Further it suffers from constrained memory. These are realities that aren't debatable. Any app requiring extensive CPU time will have issues on the iPad. Fortunately developer have seen fit to avoid putting such apps on the iPad.
So there are fast aspects to the device? If not aspects of a device aren?t the fastest among all products does that mean it?s not fast in doing certain tasks? Is it fair to only judge speed by the power of the CPU when it?s the user?s ability to complete a task that really matters? If we were comparing the same OS to the vastly different CPUs then it would be a clear win for the faster CPU if the task was CPU intensive, but we?re not as Apple clearly redesigned OS X to be idealized for three different ARM-based products each with different UIs, two using CocoaTouch for the I/O.
I really appreciate that they want to cut down the weight of the new model as much as possible, but as someone who has worked with carbon fiber, I really don't see it as financially viable in commercial electronic consumer products like a case for a laptop. Overkill in my opinion. Its also very difficult and time consuming to produce two sided products that look aesthetically pleasing.
Other than aluminum or molded plastic, their acquisition of liquidmetal sounds like the way they will go.
If for some reason they can pull off a carbon body case, i would want that laptop just out of curiosity.
BTW, the iphone 4 aluminum body made from a solid piece of aluminum is an achievement on its own for a consumer product. Apple is not screwing around when it comes to some of their products. I don't think the general public really appreciates all that it entails. Certainly a lot more work and effort than any phone case available today.
1) I?ve never seen CF on a computer be functional. I have a very limited knowledge of CF but they all seemed to be flimsy, not rigid, which is something I don?t want to see in a case for rigid components inside. I?ve seen CF that was very rigid so perhaps there is a minimum thickness that needs to be employed but isn?t for some reason.
2) I think Apple?s employing aluminium in so many of their consumer products doesn?t get enough attention. From the two pieces of the iPhone frame being milled at 1 million(?) per week and growing to the new Mac mini being a solid block of aluminum when the product category won?t have the same wear and tear and size requirement as the average notebook is simply amazing. I hope one day we get some detail into how they were able to accomplish this.
So there are fast aspects to the device?
Most certainly! Much of that capability is due to hardware acceleration. Video playback of certain encodings works so well because of hardware acceleration. What I tried to point out is that apps demanding significant CPU power will not always meet peoples expectations because many optimizations make iPad appear faster than the CPU really is.
In this case VLC seems to have this issue. CODECs demanding strong CPU performance seem to have issues. The word "seem" is important here because VLC is very much a rev one software release. There could be potential for more aggressive optimization.
[qoute]
If not aspects of a device aren?t the fastest among all products does that mean it?s not fast in doing certain tasks? Is it fair to only judge speed by the power of the CPU when it?s the user?s ability to complete a task that really matters?
[/quote]
Well this was a discussion about VLC not completing a task or displaying degraded performance.
Outside of VLC how the task is completed can be important too. Fortunately the types of apps popular on iPad have been doing very well on the device. That is in part due to developers realizing the limits of the device.
If we were comparing the same OS to the vastly different CPUs then it would be a clear win for the faster CPU if the task was CPU intensive, but we?re not as Apple clearly redesigned OS X to be idealized for three different ARM-based products each with different UIs, two using CocoaTouch for the I/O.
The OS doesn't matter. Rather it is app performance that matters. To me it is no surprise that Apple kept apps like VLC off the platform for as long as they did as slow apps could have given the platform a poor rep before establishing itself. At this point people have a better idea of what to expect.
1) I?ve never seen CF on a computer be functional. I have a very limited knowledge of CF but they all seemed to be flimsy, not rigid, which is something I don?t want to see in a case for rigid components inside.
While I'm not a fan of carbon fiber, I do have to point out that structures made with the stuff can be very ridged. The problem for Apple is that they can't easily do a unibody with the machined in features.
I?ve seen CF that was very rigid so perhaps there is a minimum thickness that needs to be employed but isn?t for some reason.
It is likely more an issue of engineering though thicknees plays a part. The problem is well engineered carbon fiber parts are expensive and not exactly mass production items. It is sort of like hand laid up fiberglass/carbon boats which can be very nice indeed but expensive to make.
2) I think Apple?s employing aluminium in so many of their consumer products doesn?t get enough attention. From the two pieces of the iPhone frame being milled at 1 million(?) per week and growing to the new Mac mini being a solid block of aluminum when the product category won?t have the same wear and tear and size requirement as the average notebook is simply amazing. I hope one day we get some detail into how they were able to accomplish this.
This also points out just how cheap labor is in China. When the first Unibody MBP where rumored I couldn't believe that they would be cost effective. Sure the idea sounds grand but looking at from the stand point of a person in the US it is hard to believe that they could CNC each and everyone of those cases. The cost "should" be huge, but obviously Apple is still shipping products that are bearable cost wise.
So yeah pretty amazing. The Liquid Metals licenses though seems to indicate that they need lower cost alternatives that keep quality high. I suspect that this material could see first application in a iPad rev. The reason being the back is about the right size to make usage of an injection molding process practicle. The only other approach, for thin cross sections, is blow molding which I find very strange when talking about metals.
All in all We should be seeing some very interesting ideas with respect to cases and chassis design from Apple soon.
What I tried to point out is that apps demanding significant CPU power will not always meet peoples expectations because many optimizations make iPad appear faster than the CPU really is.
Your word appear is key here. If we exclude it make the comment a fallacy as the OS and HW can’t be faster than what the sum of the parts are.
If we use the word appear then it’s the perception that people have which means desktop OSes are not designed for such slow processors anymore, obviously.
In this case VLC seems to have this issue. CODECs demanding strong CPU performance seem to have issues. The word "seem" is important here because VLC is very much a rev one software release. There could be potential for more aggressive optimization.
I haven’t used VLC on my iPad as it crashes but I do use CineXPlayer which works great. I have no idea what the CPU usage and battery time for video playback, but I use it for AVIs which don’t have a HW decoder so it will be worse.
The OS doesn't matter. Rather it is app performance that matters. To me it is no surprise that Apple kept apps like VLC off the platform for as long as they did as slow apps could have given the platform a poor rep before establishing itself. At this point people have a better idea of what to expect.
The OS absolutely does matter. Apple didn’t cram Mac OS X into the iPhone, Touch or iPad with a new layer for apps on top. They rewrote a great deal of lower-level code, too. Some of which has found its way back into Mac OS X. The most famous of these is the QuickTime framework.
Apple’s not alone. Android has done the same with v2.2 over v2.1. They did so many amazing things with the x.1 release that I think it’s a shame that it wasn’t named v3.0. Just ook at performance from Android OS 2.1 to 2.2 on the same hardware and you’ll see a significance improvement in performance.
I hate to use automobiles as an example whenever possible but in this case I feel I must. Take a motorcycle over a sports car. That same motorcycle engine in a sports car will make it slow as crap. A sports car needs a big powerful engine because it’s heavy. But that relatively small engine in a motorcycle can make very fast. Desktop OSes are heavy cars that need more powerful processors to do the same tasks. We can use Windows Vista over Windows XP as an example. To take the conversation full circle, Windows 7 is the CF version of the Windows Vista.
The MBA has a pretty low pixel density compared to several small laptops on the market, and even when compared to the upgraded 15" MBPs. They should be able to put the same resolution into a 11.6" device without problems.
The problem with the current MBA is that it really has only one selling point: weight (the footprint is almost identical to the much cheaper 13" MBP). And you pay far too much for this weight saving. No FW, lame HDD in the base model, stuck at 2GB RAM (the bare minimum for running 10.6 decently), too few ports, pathetic speaker, poor iSight... most people won't see a point in buying the MBA. A smaller footprint is a good point for people who commute a lot. I had the MBA for a while and using it in some trains or in economy class on flights was inconvenient. It was simply too big.
Still, I have not carried a laptop with me since my iPad has arrived some months ago, and I have no intentions of buying a MBA again.
i'm a mba owner for nearly two years and its a joy to use and has tons more selling points then just the weight ya really av ta use one for a while to see that tho
Good points. Is there a chance the MBA will be discontinued?
The MBP will not be dropped as I have reliable sources. There is a new mac book air coming out latter part of Nov.
Your word appear is key here. If we exclude it make the comment a fallacy as the OS and HW can?t be faster than what the sum of the parts are.
The word appear is correctly used here as the hardware acceleration of video play back would lead so t think the iOS devices have a fast CPU when they don't. The same thing goes for video acceleration.
If we use the word appear then it?s the perception that people have which means desktop OSes are not designed for such slow processors anymore, obviously.
Again the OS really doesn't come into the equation here. CPU performance is CPU performance and it really doesn't matter what OS you are running.
I haven?t used VLC on my iPad as it crashes but I do use CineXPlayer which works great. I have no idea what the CPU usage and battery time for video playback, but I use it for AVIs which don?t have a HW decoder so it will be worse.
Exactly, once you move outside of the hardware accelerated frameworks the CPU has to do all the heavy computations involved. Given a reasonably complex CODEC and a fast bit stream it can't keep up.
The OS absolutely does matter. Apple didn?t cram Mac OS X into the iPhone, Touch or iPad with a new layer for apps on top. They rewrote a great deal of lower-level code, too. Some of which has found its way back into Mac OS X. The most famous of these is the QuickTime framework.
Well you can say that but I will maintain it doesn't matter with respect to this discussion. If an app is significantly slow on a platform it is due to the processor. For example many people upgrade their machines to newer processors simply because they want to run their existing apps faster along with the same ole OS.
As to the mixing of Frameworks between Mac OS/X and iOS that has been the case. In some cases those Frameworks are identical or very close to it. Frankly Quicktime X isn't an example of success in this case as I find it very VERY buggy on my 2008 MBP.
Apple?s not alone. Android has done the same with v2.2 over v2.1. They did so many amazing things with the x.1 release that I think it?s a shame that it wasn?t named v3.0. Just ook at performance from Android OS 2.1 to 2.2 on the same hardware and you?ll see a significance improvement in performance.
Well yeah but then again I've seen my iPhone performance go backwards.
I hate to use automobiles as an example whenever possible but in this case I feel I must. Take a motorcycle over a sports car. That same motorcycle engine in a sports car will make it slow as crap. A sports car needs a big powerful engine because it?s heavy. But that relatively small engine in a motorcycle can make very fast. Desktop OSes are heavy cars that need more powerful processors to do the same tasks. We can use Windows Vista over Windows XP as an example. To take the conversation full circle, Windows 7 is the CF version of the Windows Vista.
I like to use cars to explain things from time to time my self but in this case I have to say you are supporting my position. Think about it, the engine is like the CPU, when underpowered it can't perform to expectations. The processor in the iPhone is like a hybrid engine where the gas driven part can handle the steady state driving but has to rely on the electric pony motor to accelerate or do other demanding chores. By itself the A8 core in Apples A4 is not really a power house when compared to things like ATOM.
In part this is why Apple was so aggressive in using the GPU that came with the A4. Think about it, when iPhone came out it was and probably still is, making more aggressive use of the GPU than OS/X. This wasn't done as an exercise on Apples part but rather it was the only way to deliver the experience that they wanted to offer via iPhone. The A4 CPU is now several hundred Megahertz faster now but the actual ability of the hardware is still base on a slow CPU architecture.