Can you be specific? For what task does performance lag? Granted I don't do too much with mine, but it seems to speed right along for what I do.
And please don't confuse Apple's need to differentiate the product so that they can sell upgrades to existing owners, with people's actual needs.
Current apps may or may not lag depending on app and usage...not that I mentioned lag...but anyway. Want to use the iPhone (orig) CPU/GPU/RAM with iOS 4 and current apps? What? You can't? Gee. Even the 3G isn't teh snappy or able to run all aspects of iOS anymore.
Please don't confuse iPad's current performance with what that performance will be like with 2 more revs of iOS and generations of apps. Unless you happen to think iPhone user needs haven't evolved much since the original iPhone.
Movie Quote: Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?
Apple do not publish processor & memory metrics for consumer platforms. They don't sell like this because it isn't effective. The vast majority of iPad customers would not be able to say the amount of RAM or the number of processor cores. For typical consumers these metrics are meaningless.
Consumers care about what it does and how well.
Apple should focus on...
Facetime
The benefits of iOS4.2..iOS5.0
The stand-alone iPad
The stand-alone thing is important. Apple should reduce the necessity to dock to iTunes. If software updates, content management and other functions are all made possible without docking. The iPad becomes more of a platform and less of a satellite.
I am sure the iPad 2.0 will see some under-the-hood hardware changes. But these changes will not be presented as user-facing changes.
C.
The way I read wizard69's post I didn't feel he did say Apple would 'sell like this' he was simply saying what should be under the hood, be it mentioned or not in marketing blurb. I agree with what he said and what you did BTW and I am waiting for the next model before buying another for all of those reasons.
Apple users may not care as much about specs or how to get performance increases but exactly how do you expect Apple to gain performance improvements on the iPad without more RAM and moving from the A8 to A9? It's not as if there is a 10-20% performance gain in iOS that can be found like on Android and the current A4 seems to me about the best expression of the A8 as reasonably possible. The A9 represents both improved computation and greater potential battery life.
Or are you asking folks not to display any intelligence at all about computers on a geek site and simply state they want better pixie dust in their next iPad?
Going from the A8 to the A9 is not the only way to improve performance. A higher clocked A4 on a newer fab process would improve performance. A better GPU would improve performance. Faster access to flash would improve performance. To throw down a dual core CPU as some arbitrary "feature" that the new iPad "must" have is narrow-minded.
As a consumer, I'm focused on outputs. It's Apple's job to figure out the best combination of inputs to achieve those outputs. As a tech geek, I'm certainly intrigued by those inputs and will be interested to see how Apple does it. But I don't see the use of specific hardware components as a reason for me to buy or not buy an iPad.
That's the part I disagreed with. Because engineering specifications not universally wanted.
C.
I don't see how that appertains to marketing terminology but whatever, you both made good suggestions. I can't wait for Mk 2 but I guess it won't be in my Christmas stocking.
I don't see how that appertains to marketing terminology but whatever, you both made good suggestions. I can't wait for Mk 2 but I guess it won't be in my Christmas stocking.
I wonder what Apple would have to do to allow the iPad to work without the need for a PC or a Mac.
Imagine if it could do all this stuff over WiFi or over the Internet....
Backup and restore.
Media syncing and organisation - From media library larger than the device capacity
OS Upgrades.
Perhaps this is the reason for that big data center?
I'll be responsible for two of those sales as I next summer upgrade my 3GS to iPhone(5) and make my first iPad purchase as I waited for v2 with better features (camera, etc.) than v1. And can count two for my friend and his wife who will make the same purchases. I know no one cares about "my"plans, as I seldom like to read about others, but I felt like sharing anyway. Good day.
I wonder what Apple would have to do to allow the iPad to work without the need for a PC or a Mac.
Imagine if it could do all this stuff over WiFi or over the Internet....
Backup and restore.
Media syncing and organisation - From media library larger than the device capacity
OS Upgrades.
Perhaps this is the reason for that big data center?
C.
All this talk about faster and more ram is nice, but what I want before I buy an iPad is for it to REPLACE my laptop, not tether to it. For that to happen, I need it to be an independent device. It needs iLife. It needs to be able to back up to my Time Capsule like my lappy does. It needs to be able to sync directly to my iPhone (Perhaps through the cloud in NC). Until then, no iPad for me. My 11 inch Macbook Air should be here tomorrow. And although Mac nerds will shun it because of it's slower processor and only 2 gb of ram, it more than meets my needs. In fact, it more than meets the needs of the majority of computer users out there. And yes, my computer earns me my living too. Just not building websites or rendering video.
I'll be responsible for two of those sales as I next summer upgrade my 3GS to iPhone(5) and make my first iPad purchase as I waited for v2 with better features (camera, etc.) than v1. And can count two for my friend and his wife who will make the same purchases. I know no one cares about "my"plans, as I seldom like to read about others, but I felt like sharing anyway. Good day.
Agreed. I have never been an early adopter for anything. I tend to always wait for (at least) version 2. I remember when all those people bought an early iPhone and then the priced dropped dramatically just a few months later. Yeah, Apple gave them credits, but they still had to spend that money with Apple. I may be wrong, but I suspect a lot of people are taking the same position in waiting for Version 2.
There is little doubt that the iPad will be a blockbuster hit this Christmas season, but I believe there is a lot of pent up demand for version 2, much like those waiting for the potential Verizon iPhone.
Users often want to scroll through the loaded content. They should not be punished by choppy frame-rates, and un-responsive user interfaces.
Like I said, users care about outcomes, not inputs.
C.
My guess is that it's trying to also render Flash elements that are in the page. While mobile Flash isn't too bad, it still has to be refined to not be a resource hog on mobile devices.
What's odd is that most of the other video reviews/previews I've seen of the Tab show very smooth scrolling in the browser.
If a single video showing a hiccup in the browser is the only thing you have against it (seeing as you didn't complain about the previous 5 minute of content), I would hardly call it worth of damning the Galaxy Tab. The rest of the video shows the device to be extremely quick.
My guess is that it's trying to also render Flash elements that are in the page. While mobile Flash isn't too bad, it still has to be refined to not be a resource hog on mobile devices.
What's odd is that most of the other video reviews/previews I've seen of the Tab show very smooth scrolling in the browser.
If a single video showing a hiccup in the browser is the only thing you have against it (seeing as you didn't complain about the previous 5 minute of content), I would hardly call it worth of damning the Galaxy Tab. The rest of the video shows the device to be extremely quick.
The Engadget review was the most positive review I have seen.
The Tech Radar review says...
Quote:
Despite the 1Ghz processor, there are some significant performance issues here and in many cases they hamper the usability and performance of the Tab to treacherous levels.
The problems are most evident when browsing the web. Scrolling down your average website is quite juddery. The smoothness of the iPad is nowhere to be seen, and our fingers had often swiped and left the screen before the device responded and began to scroll.
Going from the A8 to the A9 is not the only way to improve performance. A higher clocked A4 on a newer fab process would improve performance. A better GPU would improve performance. Faster access to flash would improve performance. To throw down a dual core CPU as some arbitrary "feature" that the new iPad "must" have is narrow-minded.
As a consumer, I'm focused on outputs. It's Apple's job to figure out the best combination of inputs to achieve those outputs. As a tech geek, I'm certainly intrigued by those inputs and will be interested to see how Apple does it. But I don't see the use of specific hardware components as a reason for me to buy or not buy an iPad.
I didn't say dual core even if Wizard did. The A9 has lower power consumption and better top end. I would be significantly surprised if the next rev of the A4 was not A9 based. Dual core A9 makes sense given the multitasking nature of iOS 4 as does the additional RAM.
An A8 on a smaller process makes far less sense than a single core A9 coupled with the A4 changes. The A9 claims 250mW/core vs 525mW/core on the A8 at the same process level (45nm). The A9 also scales better with speed than the A8 did.
Faster access to flash and a better GPU will not affect running multiple apps as much as more RAM and going dual-core (or hyperthreading). Better GPU is also highly desired and expected. That's almost a gimme in the same sense as going with an A9.
The Engadget review was the most positive review I have seen.
The Tech Radar review says...
C.
Maybe it's because it's a fairly new device and most tech sites haven't gotten their hands on a review unit yet?
Slashgear seems to give it a generally welcomed review:
Quote:
Perhaps most telling, with both the iPad and the Galaxy Tab on the table, we found ourselves reaching for the Samsung for quickly checking email and browsing. That might change once iOS 4.2 is released for the iPad ? early reports are certainly glowing ? but for now the Apple behemoth has some serious competition.
What's interesting is that I'm reading the opposite of you. Most of the hands-on videos on YouTube have a generally positive review. Tech Radar seems to have the only generally negative review of the Tab...
Of the sites who have done reviews of the Tab, the one general thing I've taken away is that there aren't enough "tablet apps" to give it a full identity. Which is understandable, since it's really the first Android tablet out. Now that developers have a piece of hardware to develop for, I expect that they will start making more specific apps.
All this talk about faster and more ram is nice, but what I want before I buy an iPad is for it to REPLACE my laptop, not tether to it. For that to happen, I need it to be an independent device. It needs iLife. It needs to be able to back up to my Time Capsule like my lappy does. It needs to be able to sync directly to my iPhone (Perhaps through the cloud in NC). Until then, no iPad for me. My 11 inch Macbook Air should be here tomorrow. And although Mac nerds will shun it because of it's slower processor and only 2 gb of ram, it more than meets my needs. In fact, it more than meets the needs of the majority of computer users out there. And yes, my computer earns me my living too. Just not building websites or rendering video.
I don't think this is happening anytime soon simply because of business models.
Do you really think that Apple prefers folks to replace their $999+ MB/MBP/MBA with $499+ iPads? Even with the same margins they make half the profit.
This is why no $499 netbook but a $999 MBA and why the iPad is a slave device because there is no real technical reason it needs to dock to a computer to work.
48 million ipads seems more plausible to me than 100 million iphones. But both seem a little high to me. I'd put ipads at about 30 million and iphones at about 70 million.
That seems about right. Certainly no more than 20 million iPhones per quarter unless the iPhone 5 has some really magical features. For the iPad, say, if Apple produced 3 million a month for every month of the year that would give 36 million and a few extra million for the Christmas holidays could total 40 million. I don't know how well the iPad is being distributed in Europe and Asia so maybe there is some room to grow. 48 million iPads does seem a tad high, though.
As an Apple long, I wish either of these sets of numbers would happen and Apple would have $21 billion quarters all year long and by the end of the year they'd add about $16 billion more to their current war chest.
Comments
Did you use one? They are not yet available to consumers. Did you get your hands on a review or a pre-production model?
I am looking at the video from the Engadget review.
Check out the 5 minute mark.
C.
Can you be specific? For what task does performance lag? Granted I don't do too much with mine, but it seems to speed right along for what I do.
And please don't confuse Apple's need to differentiate the product so that they can sell upgrades to existing owners, with people's actual needs.
Current apps may or may not lag depending on app and usage...not that I mentioned lag...but anyway. Want to use the iPhone (orig) CPU/GPU/RAM with iOS 4 and current apps? What? You can't? Gee. Even the 3G isn't teh snappy or able to run all aspects of iOS anymore.
Please don't confuse iPad's current performance with what that performance will be like with 2 more revs of iOS and generations of apps. Unless you happen to think iPhone user needs haven't evolved much since the original iPhone.
Movie Quote: Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?
Apple do not publish processor & memory metrics for consumer platforms. They don't sell like this because it isn't effective. The vast majority of iPad customers would not be able to say the amount of RAM or the number of processor cores. For typical consumers these metrics are meaningless.
Consumers care about what it does and how well.
Apple should focus on...
- Facetime
- The benefits of iOS4.2..iOS5.0
- The stand-alone iPad
The stand-alone thing is important. Apple should reduce the necessity to dock to iTunes. If software updates, content management and other functions are all made possible without docking. The iPad becomes more of a platform and less of a satellite.I am sure the iPad 2.0 will see some under-the-hood hardware changes. But these changes will not be presented as user-facing changes.
C.
The way I read wizard69's post I didn't feel he did say Apple would 'sell like this' he was simply saying what should be under the hood, be it mentioned or not in marketing blurb. I agree with what he said and what you did BTW and I am waiting for the next model before buying another for all of those reasons.
The way I read wizard69's post I didn't feel he did say Apple would 'sell like this' he was simply saying what should be under the hood
He opened with "universally wanted".
That's the part I disagreed with. Because engineering specifications not universally wanted.
C.
Geez people...wizard69's list is just fine.
Apple users may not care as much about specs or how to get performance increases but exactly how do you expect Apple to gain performance improvements on the iPad without more RAM and moving from the A8 to A9? It's not as if there is a 10-20% performance gain in iOS that can be found like on Android and the current A4 seems to me about the best expression of the A8 as reasonably possible. The A9 represents both improved computation and greater potential battery life.
Or are you asking folks not to display any intelligence at all about computers on a geek site and simply state they want better pixie dust in their next iPad?
Going from the A8 to the A9 is not the only way to improve performance. A higher clocked A4 on a newer fab process would improve performance. A better GPU would improve performance. Faster access to flash would improve performance. To throw down a dual core CPU as some arbitrary "feature" that the new iPad "must" have is narrow-minded.
As a consumer, I'm focused on outputs. It's Apple's job to figure out the best combination of inputs to achieve those outputs. As a tech geek, I'm certainly intrigued by those inputs and will be interested to see how Apple does it. But I don't see the use of specific hardware components as a reason for me to buy or not buy an iPad.
He opened with "universally wanted".
That's the part I disagreed with. Because engineering specifications not universally wanted.
C.
I don't see how that appertains to marketing terminology but whatever, you both made good suggestions. I can't wait for Mk 2 but I guess it won't be in my Christmas stocking.
I don't see how that appertains to marketing terminology but whatever, you both made good suggestions. I can't wait for Mk 2 but I guess it won't be in my Christmas stocking.
I wonder what Apple would have to do to allow the iPad to work without the need for a PC or a Mac.
Imagine if it could do all this stuff over WiFi or over the Internet....
- Backup and restore.
- Media syncing and organisation - From media library larger than the device capacity
- OS Upgrades.
Perhaps this is the reason for that big data center?C.
I am looking at the video from the Engadget review.
Check out the 5 minute mark.
C.
My guess is that she started scrolling before the website was finished loading.
My guess is that she started scrolling before the website was finished loading.
Why should that matter?
Users often want to scroll through the loaded content. They should not be punished by choppy frame-rates, and un-responsive user interfaces.
Like I said, users care about outcomes, not inputs.
C.
I wonder what Apple would have to do to allow the iPad to work without the need for a PC or a Mac.
Imagine if it could do all this stuff over WiFi or over the Internet....
- Backup and restore.
- Media syncing and organisation - From media library larger than the device capacity
- OS Upgrades.
Perhaps this is the reason for that big data center?C.
All this talk about faster and more ram is nice, but what I want before I buy an iPad is for it to REPLACE my laptop, not tether to it. For that to happen, I need it to be an independent device. It needs iLife. It needs to be able to back up to my Time Capsule like my lappy does. It needs to be able to sync directly to my iPhone (Perhaps through the cloud in NC). Until then, no iPad for me. My 11 inch Macbook Air should be here tomorrow. And although Mac nerds will shun it because of it's slower processor and only 2 gb of ram, it more than meets my needs. In fact, it more than meets the needs of the majority of computer users out there. And yes, my computer earns me my living too. Just not building websites or rendering video.
I'll be responsible for two of those sales as I next summer upgrade my 3GS to iPhone(5) and make my first iPad purchase as I waited for v2 with better features (camera, etc.) than v1. And can count two for my friend and his wife who will make the same purchases. I know no one cares about "my"plans, as I seldom like to read about others, but I felt like sharing anyway.
Agreed. I have never been an early adopter for anything. I tend to always wait for (at least) version 2. I remember when all those people bought an early iPhone and then the priced dropped dramatically just a few months later. Yeah, Apple gave them credits, but they still had to spend that money with Apple. I may be wrong, but I suspect a lot of people are taking the same position in waiting for Version 2.
There is little doubt that the iPad will be a blockbuster hit this Christmas season, but I believe there is a lot of pent up demand for version 2, much like those waiting for the potential Verizon iPhone.
Just my humble opinion.
Why should that matter?
Users often want to scroll through the loaded content. They should not be punished by choppy frame-rates, and un-responsive user interfaces.
Like I said, users care about outcomes, not inputs.
C.
My guess is that it's trying to also render Flash elements that are in the page. While mobile Flash isn't too bad, it still has to be refined to not be a resource hog on mobile devices.
What's odd is that most of the other video reviews/previews I've seen of the Tab show very smooth scrolling in the browser.
If a single video showing a hiccup in the browser is the only thing you have against it (seeing as you didn't complain about the previous 5 minute of content), I would hardly call it worth of damning the Galaxy Tab. The rest of the video shows the device to be extremely quick.
My guess is that it's trying to also render Flash elements that are in the page. While mobile Flash isn't too bad, it still has to be refined to not be a resource hog on mobile devices.
What's odd is that most of the other video reviews/previews I've seen of the Tab show very smooth scrolling in the browser.
If a single video showing a hiccup in the browser is the only thing you have against it (seeing as you didn't complain about the previous 5 minute of content), I would hardly call it worth of damning the Galaxy Tab. The rest of the video shows the device to be extremely quick.
The Engadget review was the most positive review I have seen.
The Tech Radar review says...
Despite the 1Ghz processor, there are some significant performance issues here and in many cases they hamper the usability and performance of the Tab to treacherous levels.
The problems are most evident when browsing the web. Scrolling down your average website is quite juddery. The smoothness of the iPad is nowhere to be seen, and our fingers had often swiped and left the screen before the device responded and began to scroll.
Read more: http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-...#ixzz14EXySsc5
C.
Going from the A8 to the A9 is not the only way to improve performance. A higher clocked A4 on a newer fab process would improve performance. A better GPU would improve performance. Faster access to flash would improve performance. To throw down a dual core CPU as some arbitrary "feature" that the new iPad "must" have is narrow-minded.
As a consumer, I'm focused on outputs. It's Apple's job to figure out the best combination of inputs to achieve those outputs. As a tech geek, I'm certainly intrigued by those inputs and will be interested to see how Apple does it. But I don't see the use of specific hardware components as a reason for me to buy or not buy an iPad.
I didn't say dual core even if Wizard did. The A9 has lower power consumption and better top end. I would be significantly surprised if the next rev of the A4 was not A9 based. Dual core A9 makes sense given the multitasking nature of iOS 4 as does the additional RAM.
An A8 on a smaller process makes far less sense than a single core A9 coupled with the A4 changes. The A9 claims 250mW/core vs 525mW/core on the A8 at the same process level (45nm). The A9 also scales better with speed than the A8 did.
Faster access to flash and a better GPU will not affect running multiple apps as much as more RAM and going dual-core (or hyperthreading). Better GPU is also highly desired and expected. That's almost a gimme in the same sense as going with an A9.
The Engadget review was the most positive review I have seen.
The Tech Radar review says...
C.
Maybe it's because it's a fairly new device and most tech sites haven't gotten their hands on a review unit yet?
Slashgear seems to give it a generally welcomed review:
Perhaps most telling, with both the iPad and the Galaxy Tab on the table, we found ourselves reaching for the Samsung for quickly checking email and browsing. That might change once iOS 4.2 is released for the iPad ? early reports are certainly glowing ? but for now the Apple behemoth has some serious competition.
What's interesting is that I'm reading the opposite of you. Most of the hands-on videos on YouTube have a generally positive review. Tech Radar seems to have the only generally negative review of the Tab...
Of the sites who have done reviews of the Tab, the one general thing I've taken away is that there aren't enough "tablet apps" to give it a full identity. Which is understandable, since it's really the first Android tablet out. Now that developers have a piece of hardware to develop for, I expect that they will start making more specific apps.
1.Does Verizon Get the IPHONE or Verizon, Sprint &Tmobile in the upcoming Year
2.Does Cloud streaming come to life in 2011
3. Can Apple meet the demand and obtain the parts necessary.
These are just a few. basically this prediction boils down to speculation.because there are too many unknowns.
Maybe it's because it's a fairly new device and most tech sites haven't gotten their hands on a review unit yet?
This review is a shop-bought unit. It's quite positive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0K47E31Ks&feature=related
But check out the web-browser at the 13 minute mark.
C.
All this talk about faster and more ram is nice, but what I want before I buy an iPad is for it to REPLACE my laptop, not tether to it. For that to happen, I need it to be an independent device. It needs iLife. It needs to be able to back up to my Time Capsule like my lappy does. It needs to be able to sync directly to my iPhone (Perhaps through the cloud in NC). Until then, no iPad for me. My 11 inch Macbook Air should be here tomorrow. And although Mac nerds will shun it because of it's slower processor and only 2 gb of ram, it more than meets my needs. In fact, it more than meets the needs of the majority of computer users out there. And yes, my computer earns me my living too. Just not building websites or rendering video.
I don't think this is happening anytime soon simply because of business models.
Do you really think that Apple prefers folks to replace their $999+ MB/MBP/MBA with $499+ iPads? Even with the same margins they make half the profit.
This is why no $499 netbook but a $999 MBA and why the iPad is a slave device because there is no real technical reason it needs to dock to a computer to work.
48 million ipads seems more plausible to me than 100 million iphones. But both seem a little high to me. I'd put ipads at about 30 million and iphones at about 70 million.
That seems about right. Certainly no more than 20 million iPhones per quarter unless the iPhone 5 has some really magical features. For the iPad, say, if Apple produced 3 million a month for every month of the year that would give 36 million and a few extra million for the Christmas holidays could total 40 million. I don't know how well the iPad is being distributed in Europe and Asia so maybe there is some room to grow. 48 million iPads does seem a tad high, though.
As an Apple long, I wish either of these sets of numbers would happen and Apple would have $21 billion quarters all year long and by the end of the year they'd add about $16 billion more to their current war chest.