It takes power to operate RAM. The more RAM, the more power required. Did anything that Microsoft said really shed any light on this? This clearly is the main point of the article, and I find that very strange.
There were other strange notions in the article. The claim is made that Apple?s iOS strategy makes viruses obsolete. This obviously is a goal of the iOS strategy, and if the intended meaning of the claim is only this, then I get confused, as I always do whenever someone points out something that is obvious and makes it seem that they have said something else. Or, perhaps there is some way that it can be proven that the implementation has no holes, and that this is common knowledge to everyone but me. If the author knows this, then he should shed some light on that, rather than write something that implies that this is true but provide no evidence in support of the claim.
In fact, as I think about it, it is very likely that Apple screens applications that are submitted for distribution through the App store, to make certain that they do not try to get out of the sandbox. I.e., that they do not, for example, use low-level calls to the kernel to open the file system at the root. I think that I read something about Apple doing this, and if by chance this is correct, then what it means is that the sand box critically relies on the screening process to have the net effect that it endeavors to have. But Daniel Dilger wrote that " iOS strategy makes the concepts of viruses essentially obsolete, not only because [apps are screened] but also because [apps live in a sandbox].
No?! iOS developers make considerably more than strictly Android ones.
I should clarify. I really meant; "Targeting a small percentage of devices on a platform is not a good way to make the most amount of money". For example, I wouldn't expect the world to go wild for the next greatest Kinect game, when only 20% at most of the 360 install base has one.
But the CPU and RAM are on different dies. So the other guy is right and you're not.
How do you figure? The article says in the first line that it's built into the processor. It's all contained in the same "chip" though there are multiple dies within that package. It's a semantic issue at best.
The primary issue (more RAM = more power) is accurate to an extent. Dynamic RAM is especially an issue here as you can't stop refreshing it. However there are extensions and considerations that can tip the scales in a different direction. For example if an app has to spend extensive amounts of time accessing secondary store it can have a greater impact on battery life than limiting RAM. Also pressure on RAM can impact responsiveness of the platform.
Now realize that this is an engineering issue. Each time a process shrink comes along the engineering team has to evaluate where the best place is to get additional advantage from the power savings. That may mean more cores, a better GPU or more RAM. Obviously Apple decided that the weak points in their system architecture was in the CPU and GPU this time around. That might not be the case in the next revision.
How do you figure? The article says in the first line that it's built into the processor. It's all contained in the same "chip" though there are multiple dies within that package. It's a semantic issue at best.
You're basing your argument on ... the article?
In today's semiconductor world, packaging is moot.
The CPU module and the memory modules are mounted together using what is known as package on package (PoP). The memory module typically sits on top and the interface is via an array of "balls" in the same way that the CPU is connected to the motherboard.
The two modules are typically designed, manufactured and tested separately (and replaceable). They come together in the last step of manufacturing. You may consider it semantics, for the sake of being intransigent. But if you're really interested in learning how this works, then understand that the meanings of the chip and the term IC are changing.
You are aware that the A5 does not contain 512MB of RAM within the SoC... You seem to be implying this in your article and are incorrect.
The 512MB of DDR SDram is off die, hence the DDR memory interfaces.
Where did he say the RAM was "on the SoC chip?" He did say it was "on the A5 chip," and while technically the A5 is a PoP, not a chip I think his communication is pretty clear clear ? "the thing that says 'A5' on it only has 512MB of RAM in it."
"relatively scarce" RAM??? According to whom? Microsoft and the Android community whose half-baked OS's require higher horsepower hardware that suck more battery juice to perform the exact same processes that iOS can do effortlessly with less RAM?
It looks like the PC/Android community is trying to keep an obsolete hardware business model going by using more and more power-hungry components to keep an industry afloat.
Good for Apple that they can do more with less than the competition.
I remember updating my Mac Plus from 256kb of RAM to an amazing 1Mb.
I did a science degree with that thing, complete with 20Mb hard drive which cost $3000.
Call it what you like, when Apple releases the version of iOS* which has what the rest of the industry calls true multitasking they'll explain it in a way you'll like.
* It may not be in iOS 6 and may have to wait for iOS 7, depending on whether they can get the next generation of batteries in place in time to support the change.
You mean like listening to music while retrieving and reading emails, which I was doing with my iPhone 3G over three years ago and others were doing on their 1st generation iPhones over four years ago, that type of doing more than one thing at once multitasking?
I can't recall ever hearing the term "true multitasking" before the iPhone came along, just goes to show how influential Apple is on society as a whole.
You mean like listening to music while retrieving and reading emails, which I was doing with my iPhone 3G over three years ago and others were doing on their 1st generation iPhones over four years ago, that type of doing more than one thing at once multitasking?
I can't recall ever hearing the term "true multitasking" before the iPhone came along, just goes to show how influential Apple is on society as a whole.
If you watch the 2007 All Things D video of Steve Jobs being interviewed, the topic of RAM comes up. I was struck by his tip of the tongue knowledge of the exact RAM of the early Macs, and got the impression he had been thinking about RAM a lot.
Evidently, immediately before the iPhone launch, he must have been thinking about this topic, as there was so little RAM, and yet even the original iPhone could to a lot (for so little RAM).
I think the amount of RAM is a very well thought out compromise, inspired by what all an original Mac could do with even less RAM. One of the great feats of iOS, i.e. to be able to run on so little RAM so well.
And yes, more RAM is better for computing, but what counts is the user experience, and longer battery life significantly alters user experience in a positive way.
Steve Jobs always talked about the user experience as being the most import thing. Everything else is just what it takes to create an AMAZING experience....
Is this really even an issue about whether or not more RAM is better? It seems to me that engineering complex devices is always a series of compromises. Performance, weight, power consumption, size, and cost constraints all shape the contours of design. At the end of the day, it would be a ridiculous understatement to call the iOS line of devices "successful," as they have defined an entire genre of products. I would say then, that to the extent that Apple's goal was to create a successful product, their hardware choices have been superb.
The obvious reason for more RAM is so that the phone has to spend less energy getting costly resources over a 3G data connection again. It is important to note that all desktop operating systems are different from their mobile counterparts in that desktops can stick data in RAM onto the hard disk to be used later. Sure, there's a penalty when you have to grab that data from the hard disk again instead of RAM, but it's MUCH better than having to access network resources (and on a mobile device, using 3G is the largest penalty there is).
As far as I know, none of the mobile operating systems have virtual memory because they don't want to wear out their Flash chips with continuous read/write cycles. Desktops and laptops don't really have this problem. Even Windows 8 tablets will write data to virtual memory.
So I don't really buy the "less RAM = more power savings" argument on a mobile device. Any savings gained from having less RAM would quickly be wiped out by having to re-download images and other media assets from the web.
Yes because you know more about this subject than the ENGINEERS at 2 of the biggest companies in the world....
I have always said this to my cousin who seems to love the phone with the best specs. I would just say "wats the point of having these 'SUPER GREAT SPECS' if your really not going to use them all that much on the phone, its more efficient to put in the specs NEEDED to perform the tasks that it can"....my point is that all these android fans love their specced out phones but is it really worth it to having a shitload of memory if your batter life is going to be shit? Apple knows how to make use of what they have and somehow still beat out the competiton with better specs, and then to put the their foot a little further up Android's ass they have way better battery life.
Comments
It takes power to operate RAM. The more RAM, the more power required. Did anything that Microsoft said really shed any light on this? This clearly is the main point of the article, and I find that very strange.
There were other strange notions in the article. The claim is made that Apple?s iOS strategy makes viruses obsolete. This obviously is a goal of the iOS strategy, and if the intended meaning of the claim is only this, then I get confused, as I always do whenever someone points out something that is obvious and makes it seem that they have said something else. Or, perhaps there is some way that it can be proven that the implementation has no holes, and that this is common knowledge to everyone but me. If the author knows this, then he should shed some light on that, rather than write something that implies that this is true but provide no evidence in support of the claim.
In fact, as I think about it, it is very likely that Apple screens applications that are submitted for distribution through the App store, to make certain that they do not try to get out of the sandbox. I.e., that they do not, for example, use low-level calls to the kernel to open the file system at the root. I think that I read something about Apple doing this, and if by chance this is correct, then what it means is that the sand box critically relies on the screening process to have the net effect that it endeavors to have. But Daniel Dilger wrote that " iOS strategy makes the concepts of viruses essentially obsolete, not only because [apps are screened] but also because [apps live in a sandbox].
No?! iOS developers make considerably more than strictly Android ones.
I should clarify. I really meant; "Targeting a small percentage of devices on a platform is not a good way to make the most amount of money". For example, I wouldn't expect the world to go wild for the next greatest Kinect game, when only 20% at most of the 360 install base has one.
But the CPU and RAM are on different dies. So the other guy is right and you're not.
How do you figure? The article says in the first line that it's built into the processor. It's all contained in the same "chip" though there are multiple dies within that package. It's a semantic issue at best.
Now realize that this is an engineering issue. Each time a process shrink comes along the engineering team has to evaluate where the best place is to get additional advantage from the power savings. That may mean more cores, a better GPU or more RAM. Obviously Apple decided that the weak points in their system architecture was in the CPU and GPU this time around. That might not be the case in the next revision.
How do you figure? The article says in the first line that it's built into the processor. It's all contained in the same "chip" though there are multiple dies within that package. It's a semantic issue at best.
You're basing your argument on ... the article?
In today's semiconductor world, packaging is moot.
The CPU module and the memory modules are mounted together using what is known as package on package (PoP). The memory module typically sits on top and the interface is via an array of "balls" in the same way that the CPU is connected to the motherboard.
The two modules are typically designed, manufactured and tested separately (and replaceable). They come together in the last step of manufacturing. You may consider it semantics, for the sake of being intransigent. But if you're really interested in learning how this works, then understand that the meanings of the chip and the term IC are changing.
Because that's where active processes live.
When Apple adopts true multitasking in iOS 6 the benefits will become self-evident.
Sorry dude, but we need to be more precise about this. IOS has true multitasking just fine. It's a matter of how Apple gives access to 3rd party apps.
You are aware that the A5 does not contain 512MB of RAM within the SoC... You seem to be implying this in your article and are incorrect.
The 512MB of DDR SDram is off die, hence the DDR memory interfaces.
Where did he say the RAM was "on the SoC chip?" He did say it was "on the A5 chip," and while technically the A5 is a PoP, not a chip I think his communication is pretty clear clear ? "the thing that says 'A5' on it only has 512MB of RAM in it."
"relatively scarce" RAM??? According to whom? Microsoft and the Android community whose half-baked OS's require higher horsepower hardware that suck more battery juice to perform the exact same processes that iOS can do effortlessly with less RAM?
It looks like the PC/Android community is trying to keep an obsolete hardware business model going by using more and more power-hungry components to keep an industry afloat.
Good for Apple that they can do more with less than the competition.
I remember updating my Mac Plus from 256kb of RAM to an amazing 1Mb.
I did a science degree with that thing, complete with 20Mb hard drive which cost $3000.
Call it what you like, when Apple releases the version of iOS* which has what the rest of the industry calls true multitasking they'll explain it in a way you'll like.
* It may not be in iOS 6 and may have to wait for iOS 7, depending on whether they can get the next generation of batteries in place in time to support the change.
You mean like listening to music while retrieving and reading emails, which I was doing with my iPhone 3G over three years ago and others were doing on their 1st generation iPhones over four years ago, that type of doing more than one thing at once multitasking?
I can't recall ever hearing the term "true multitasking" before the iPhone came along, just goes to show how influential Apple is on society as a whole.
You mean like listening to music while retrieving and reading emails, which I was doing with my iPhone 3G over three years ago and others were doing on their 1st generation iPhones over four years ago, that type of doing more than one thing at once multitasking?
I can't recall ever hearing the term "true multitasking" before the iPhone came along, just goes to show how influential Apple is on society as a whole.
What you are doing there is false multitasking.
Evidently, immediately before the iPhone launch, he must have been thinking about this topic, as there was so little RAM, and yet even the original iPhone could to a lot (for so little RAM).
I think the amount of RAM is a very well thought out compromise, inspired by what all an original Mac could do with even less RAM. One of the great feats of iOS, i.e. to be able to run on so little RAM so well.
And yes, more RAM is better for computing, but what counts is the user experience, and longer battery life significantly alters user experience in a positive way.
Steve Jobs always talked about the user experience as being the most import thing. Everything else is just what it takes to create an AMAZING experience....
the Galaxy S2 has 1 GB of RAM and comparable battery life to iPhone 4 (longer talk time
Many posters here have found that the battery life of Android phones is just plain unacceptable. The article explains that is due to excess RAM.
Because that's where active processes live.
When Apple adopts true multitasking in iOS 6 the benefits will become self-evident.
what the hell is true multitasking? i play musics while using pages; browse while talking on the phone. isn't that true multitasking? i am confused.
what the hell is true multitasking? i play musics while using pages; browse while talking on the phone. isn't that true multitasking? i am confused.
Ahh this takes me back to high school.. the endless debates as to whether the mac had multitasking,
? which of course it didn't because you could hold the mouse button down and halt the system (pre-emptive multitasking).
?but of course it did, because apps written to take advantage of (co-operative) multitasking could.
bottom line, if you can do what you want, who really cares what it's called.
If devs want to play nice in the environment, it works well. better now than then even.
Many posters here have found that the battery life of Android phones is just plain unacceptable. The article explains that is due to excess RAM.
I have a Samsung Android phone and find its battery life to be adequate. Not as good as iPhone 4 but superior to 3GS.
The obvious reason for more RAM is so that the phone has to spend less energy getting costly resources over a 3G data connection again. It is important to note that all desktop operating systems are different from their mobile counterparts in that desktops can stick data in RAM onto the hard disk to be used later. Sure, there's a penalty when you have to grab that data from the hard disk again instead of RAM, but it's MUCH better than having to access network resources (and on a mobile device, using 3G is the largest penalty there is).
As far as I know, none of the mobile operating systems have virtual memory because they don't want to wear out their Flash chips with continuous read/write cycles. Desktops and laptops don't really have this problem. Even Windows 8 tablets will write data to virtual memory.
So I don't really buy the "less RAM = more power savings" argument on a mobile device. Any savings gained from having less RAM would quickly be wiped out by having to re-download images and other media assets from the web.
Yes because you know more about this subject than the ENGINEERS at 2 of the biggest companies in the world....
I have always said this to my cousin who seems to love the phone with the best specs. I would just say "wats the point of having these 'SUPER GREAT SPECS' if your really not going to use them all that much on the phone, its more efficient to put in the specs NEEDED to perform the tasks that it can"....my point is that all these android fans love their specced out phones but is it really worth it to having a shitload of memory if your batter life is going to be shit? Apple knows how to make use of what they have and somehow still beat out the competiton with better specs, and then to put the their foot a little further up Android's ass they have way better battery life.