Higher res means any RAM gain the iPad would get wouldn't be noticeable. In fact the iPad might even lag more. Double the current res of the iPad isn't possible right now. If Apple even tried to surprise with a double resolution iPad I'd be mega-cautious. I want to notice the improvements in "performance". I don't want the improvements to be used up by a higher quality display. Ideally, you'd like it both ways, but that's not possible right now. I'm glad the iPad will have the same display - this means for every performance improvement iPad 2 gets you get to actually feel it.
Did you see the article at Anand about the a15 CPUs that TI is working on?
I doubt Apple is far behind them. It will be absolutely astonishing how much more powerful an iPad will be with these. I'm trying to figure out exactly how Apple will utilize these powerful CPUs.
Like I said in my thread I started about the a15, iPhone upgrade this year and iPad upgrade in 2012.
No mention either of the matte or non-glare factor (as previously reported on AI) which would be a big plus for many.
The 'it must have a non-glare screen' team will be able to buy a Kindle (for those occasions they want to read in full sunlight) and an iPad2 for less than a Xoom it would appear so that is at least something
Keeping or increasing the battery life, page rendering speed, ability to store more tabs without blanking them out, and weight are all way more important than increasing the iPad's current 132dpi screen.
This is BS. Stop thinking like a shareholder like most of the appleinsider crowd, and start thinking like a consumer.
Ram is dirt cheap, and the retina display would be the single biggest improvement you could POSSIBLY make to the iPad. 512 megs of ram not enough for a retina display? How about Apple stops cheaping out and puts in 1 gig like everyone else in the world? Ram is dirt cheap, what is it going to cut into their profits by a few cents?
Did you see the article at Anand about the a15 CPUs that TI is working on?
I doubt Apple is far behind them. It will be absolutely astonishing how much more powerful an iPad will be with these. I'm trying to figure out exactly how Apple will utilize these powerful CPUs.
Like I said in my thread I started about the a15, iPhone upgrade this year and iPad upgrade in 2012.
This is BS. Stop thinking like a shareholder like most of the appleinsider crowd, and start thinking like a consumer.
Ram is dirt cheap, and the retina display would be the single biggest improvement you could POSSIBLY make to the iPad. 512 megs of ram not enough for a retina display? How about Apple stops cheaping out and puts in 1 gig like everyone else in the world? Ram is dirt cheap, what is it going to cut into their profits by a few cents?
Do we know what the iPad2 RAM configurations will be yet? WSJ could be wrong. Perhaps they might be a high end version with exactly what you say, i.e. higher res screen and RAM on the top end models. I suspect there is enough demand for a increased range of iPads now.
I don't think I need the "retina display" but the iPhone 4 has spoiled me a little. Doubling the iPad's resolution (instead of quadrupling) would be awesome because I don't hold my iPad as close to my face as I hold the iPhone.
Lighter, absolutely. Thiner... fine. The faster processor is a given. They have to. More storage is also something fairly obvious I think. Front facing camera for FaceTime, please. No rear one is needed. I honestly think the rear camera would be a waste of space. They might put it in to keep up with the Joneses, but it's certainly not necessary.
I really don't know what else is needed on the iPad. EXCEPT FOR FLASH. I'll keep on asking for it as long as just about every restaurant website and many other vanity websites are written in Flash. Give me a disclaimer saying that turning this switch will cause more crashing... anything... I just want to be able to see every website. I mostly read blogs, but the not-so-rare time I go to a site with Flash, I'd like to be able to see it.
I'd really like to see a resolution doubled screen on iPad 2, but if the tech isn't ready it isn't ready. What should be ready and will make or break iPad 2 is the following:
1GB of RAM. As others have said RAM is dirt cheap these days and the platform could really use it.
A CORTEX A9 based processor. Two cores minimal and running at a higher maximum clock rate. It would be extre nice if the machine came with four cores. Oh the processor needs to be built on SAMSUNGs newest 32/28nm process.
Updated GPU. If the screen resolution doesn't change this could be a minor bump. If the resolution does get bumped up the performance here will have to more than Quadrupal. It is the GPU that has me question whether or not the screen gets double resolution. The screen isn't a problem to manufacture, getting suitable GPU preformance out of a low power GPU is.
If there's no upgraded display, then I too will be waiting for the iPad 3.
The iPhone 4 display is so beautiful, that when I read on the iPad, I find myself noticing the pixels. If the tech isn't available for a 4X resolution display (2X for each dimension) then I'll wait 'til next year.
That said, the other features I look for, in order of importance: faster CPU and graphics, 1 GB RAM, less weight.
Cameras - fine, but I'll rarely use them.
What I'd love to see in a software update: Bluetooth tethering to my iPhone (I know that mobile hotspot is coming, but BT tethering would be much less battery hungry); and how about being able to automatically set the system clock over the Internet via NTP?
Yeah. Whew! 2.5% "jump" over two days. Hold onto your shorts!
Yeah! I bought 200 extra when it dropped on the SJ news a few weeks ago so I am really happy at the jump. Normally I don't do rash things and most of my AAPL dates way back but I couldn't resist.
OMG I just hit 4000 posts ... I need to get a life.
Why does the iPad's ppi have to beat the Xoom's? That doesn't make any sense.
I didn't say it has to be greater than the Xoom, I said there is no real reason that it can't be. If Motorola can acheive 160 ppi then I'm sure Apple can find a way to acheive greater than 132 ppi and in the volumes that they need.
Quote:
Finally, the resolution of the iPad is fine for it's intended use, which is from your lap, not directly in front of your face like an iPod or iPhone. On my lap I can barely see any pixelation.
The resolution of the iPhone 3GS was fine too, but that doesn't mean that the upgrade to Retina Display isn't much appreciated
The term "Retina Display" does not refer to any specific resolution. It refers to the concept that at an optimal viewing distance the eye can no longer see individual pixels.
iPad has 132 ppi. iPhone 4 has 326 ppi. The Motorola Xoom has 160 ppi. I don't see any reason why Apple can't beat Motorola with a ppi somewhere inbetween the Xoom and the iPhone 4. Cleary if Motorola can do something than Apple can outdo them.
Don't forget that Apple would need at least 20x what Moto would and making that quantity mat not be viable yet.
The importance of the screen resolution is to keep both the iPad, iTouch, and iPhone within divisible numbers for the developers.
Using non-divisible numbers creates odd resolutions that have to be supported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF
I didn't say it has to be greater than the Xoom, I said there is no real reason that it can't be. If Motorola can acheive 160 ppi then I'm sure Apple can find a way to acheive greater than 132 ppi and in the volumes that they need.
Yeah! I bought 200 extra when it dropped on the SJ news a few weeks ago so I am really happy at the jump. Normally I don't do rash things and most of my AAPL dates way back but I couldn't resist.
OMG I just hit 4000 posts ... I need to get a life.
The importance of the screen resolution is to keep both the iPad, iTouch, and iPhone within divisible numbers for the developers.
Using non-divisible numbers creates odd resolutions that have to be supported.
This has been repeated ad nauseam. I think we will still be talking about this when apple really releases their iPad retina display model, and further beyond. People are usually ignorant, and when not, just plain stupid.
Comments
I'm in for one regardless of the display... and then next year I'll upgrade my Wife's v1 to a v3.
Same here, I will order one the second it is possible to. I am actually quite excited
Higher res means any RAM gain the iPad would get wouldn't be noticeable. In fact the iPad might even lag more. Double the current res of the iPad isn't possible right now. If Apple even tried to surprise with a double resolution iPad I'd be mega-cautious. I want to notice the improvements in "performance". I don't want the improvements to be used up by a higher quality display. Ideally, you'd like it both ways, but that's not possible right now. I'm glad the iPad will have the same display - this means for every performance improvement iPad 2 gets you get to actually feel it.
Did you see the article at Anand about the a15 CPUs that TI is working on?
I doubt Apple is far behind them. It will be absolutely astonishing how much more powerful an iPad will be with these. I'm trying to figure out exactly how Apple will utilize these powerful CPUs.
Like I said in my thread I started about the a15, iPhone upgrade this year and iPad upgrade in 2012.
No mention either of the matte or non-glare factor (as previously reported on AI) which would be a big plus for many.
The 'it must have a non-glare screen' team will be able to buy a Kindle (for those occasions they want to read in full sunlight) and an iPad2 for less than a Xoom it would appear so that is at least something
Keeping or increasing the battery life, page rendering speed, ability to store more tabs without blanking them out, and weight are all way more important than increasing the iPad's current 132dpi screen.
This is BS. Stop thinking like a shareholder like most of the appleinsider crowd, and start thinking like a consumer.
Ram is dirt cheap, and the retina display would be the single biggest improvement you could POSSIBLY make to the iPad. 512 megs of ram not enough for a retina display? How about Apple stops cheaping out and puts in 1 gig like everyone else in the world? Ram is dirt cheap, what is it going to cut into their profits by a few cents?
Did you see the article at Anand about the a15 CPUs that TI is working on?
I doubt Apple is far behind them. It will be absolutely astonishing how much more powerful an iPad will be with these. I'm trying to figure out exactly how Apple will utilize these powerful CPUs.
Like I said in my thread I started about the a15, iPhone upgrade this year and iPad upgrade in 2012.
Oh no you mean I should wait for iPad3!
This is BS. Stop thinking like a shareholder like most of the appleinsider crowd, and start thinking like a consumer.
Ram is dirt cheap, and the retina display would be the single biggest improvement you could POSSIBLY make to the iPad. 512 megs of ram not enough for a retina display? How about Apple stops cheaping out and puts in 1 gig like everyone else in the world? Ram is dirt cheap, what is it going to cut into their profits by a few cents?
Do we know what the iPad2 RAM configurations will be yet? WSJ could be wrong. Perhaps they might be a high end version with exactly what you say, i.e. higher res screen and RAM on the top end models. I suspect there is enough demand for a increased range of iPads now.
Lighter, absolutely. Thiner... fine. The faster processor is a given. They have to. More storage is also something fairly obvious I think. Front facing camera for FaceTime, please. No rear one is needed. I honestly think the rear camera would be a waste of space. They might put it in to keep up with the Joneses, but it's certainly not necessary.
I really don't know what else is needed on the iPad. EXCEPT FOR FLASH. I'll keep on asking for it as long as just about every restaurant website and many other vanity websites are written in Flash. Give me a disclaimer saying that turning this switch will cause more crashing... anything... I just want to be able to see every website. I mostly read blogs, but the not-so-rare time I go to a site with Flash, I'd like to be able to see it.
I'm convinced investors saw the Motorola Xoom Superbowl ad and thought it was the iPad 2. That's why it jumped up suddenly.
Yeah. Whew! 2.5% "jump" over two days. Hold onto your shorts!
The iPhone 4 display is so beautiful, that when I read on the iPad, I find myself noticing the pixels. If the tech isn't available for a 4X resolution display (2X for each dimension) then I'll wait 'til next year.
That said, the other features I look for, in order of importance: faster CPU and graphics, 1 GB RAM, less weight.
Cameras - fine, but I'll rarely use them.
What I'd love to see in a software update: Bluetooth tethering to my iPhone (I know that mobile hotspot is coming, but BT tethering would be much less battery hungry); and how about being able to automatically set the system clock over the Internet via NTP?
Yeah. Whew! 2.5% "jump" over two days. Hold onto your shorts!
Yeah! I bought 200 extra when it dropped on the SJ news a few weeks ago so I am really happy at the jump. Normally I don't do rash things and most of my AAPL dates way back but I couldn't resist.
OMG I just hit 4000 posts ... I need to get a life.
Why does the iPad's ppi have to beat the Xoom's? That doesn't make any sense.
I didn't say it has to be greater than the Xoom, I said there is no real reason that it can't be. If Motorola can acheive 160 ppi then I'm sure Apple can find a way to acheive greater than 132 ppi and in the volumes that they need.
Finally, the resolution of the iPad is fine for it's intended use, which is from your lap, not directly in front of your face like an iPod or iPhone. On my lap I can barely see any pixelation.
The resolution of the iPhone 3GS was fine too, but that doesn't mean that the upgrade to Retina Display isn't much appreciated
The term "Retina Display" does not refer to any specific resolution. It refers to the concept that at an optimal viewing distance the eye can no longer see individual pixels.
iPad has 132 ppi. iPhone 4 has 326 ppi. The Motorola Xoom has 160 ppi. I don't see any reason why Apple can't beat Motorola with a ppi somewhere inbetween the Xoom and the iPhone 4. Cleary if Motorola can do something than Apple can outdo them.
Don't forget that Apple would need at least 20x what Moto would and making that quantity mat not be viable yet.
Don't forget that Apple would need at least 20x what Moto would and making that quantity mat not be viable yet.
That's why I wondered if there might be an optional and expensive high end iPad2. You know, the 'Limited Edition'. You never know.
512 megs of ram not enough for a retina display? How about Apple stops cheaping out and puts in 1 gig like everyone else in the world?
Using non-divisible numbers creates odd resolutions that have to be supported.
I didn't say it has to be greater than the Xoom, I said there is no real reason that it can't be. If Motorola can acheive 160 ppi then I'm sure Apple can find a way to acheive greater than 132 ppi and in the volumes that they need.
That's why I wondered if there might be an optional and expensive high end iPad2. You know, the 'Limited Edition'. You never know.
Yes. Fork the platform.
Yeah! I bought 200 extra when it dropped on the SJ news a few weeks ago so I am really happy at the jump. Normally I don't do rash things and most of my AAPL dates way back but I couldn't resist.
OMG I just hit 4000 posts ... I need to get a life.
No worries - you're not at 20,000 yet.
The importance of the screen resolution is to keep both the iPad, iTouch, and iPhone within divisible numbers for the developers.
Using non-divisible numbers creates odd resolutions that have to be supported.
This has been repeated ad nauseam. I think we will still be talking about this when apple really releases their iPad retina display model, and further beyond. People are usually ignorant, and when not, just plain stupid.