Which Android phones have you experienced poor battery life with, and how much did they weigh?
I charge my own about once a day, which doesn't seem terribly inconvenient because I tend to sleep once a day as well.
I don't quite understand the presumption that Apple customers somehow have less access to electrical outlets than the majority who use Android. The demographics of Apple's consumer base would suggest that such basic essentials are not scarce to them, that most even have access to running water as well.
FWIW, my Samsung Galaxy S is actually lighter than the iPhone, not heavier, at 116 grams to the iPhone's 140 grams, though I don't imagine such small differences in weight between phones would produce much in the way of arm strain or back pain.
phone wise: nexus one, htc HD, htc sensation, motorola droid. same gripe: terrible battery life.
weight wise i bled over into android tablets....but same sentiment. screw the specs, build a better designed product all around. thats what apple does.
as far as the samsung galaxy products weight, in particular the tablet, it is acheived with plastic instead of metal. they feel a bit 'cheaper' than apple counterparts.
Do you believe that swapping data between RAM and storage is without energy cost?
No
[QUOTE=MacRulez;1965093Do you believe that network connectivity is without energy cost?[/QUOTE]
No
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
On most such devices, connectivity is often the second most energy-consuming operation after display. And, not surprisingly, connectivity itself requires RAM.
Of course connectivity, and any other operation, uses RAM, that's not the point. Increasing the RAM from 512MB to 1GB isn't going to have any impact on the amount of 3G usage, that's the point.
As you yourself state, connectivity is second only to display for energy consumption, so accordingly, reading data from storage uses less energy than connectivity (which is not only true, but a whole lot faster as well).
The original point of this thread, which was highly flawed, was that with insufficient RAM, resources would be read / data swapped via 3G, which is just incredibly false.
Whether RAM energy consumption versus needing to swap resources and data to flash consumes more energy is a worthy debate for any specific platform. If you're an engineer on the project could argue that the platform either can stay under the memory threshold for energy savings or would go over.
Looking at the iPhone now as a user, it's speculative as a whole, but as an individual, I've witnessed very little swapping of data and resources do to memory limitations on iOS 4. I'm jailbroken and have monitored my memory use. If iOS 5 uses the same or less memory, then it makes sense, for me, that 512MB would use less power than 1GB.
The problem with a system that uses dynamic RAM is that it constantly has to be refreshed. That ends up being a significant power draw for something that might spend most of its day in your pocket. I honestly think the guy from Microsoft was addressing those loads that impact idle battery lifetimes. Let's face it when an app is being ran or used the power demand can vary widely and more importantly the user expects power to be used when the app is in use. What the user doesn't like is his cell phone going dead in his pocket.
Now here one has to expect that a device will have significant idle periods which many iOS devices do. The always on nature of most iOS devices though require that idle power be minimized as much as possible.
Memristors can't get here fast enough. Ridiculously fast, single feature persistent storage doing the job of 6 transistors in a SRAM IC.
Purdue also stumbled on some neat persistent no power when not in use memory too, but it's between flash and DRAM in speed.
I don't expect memristors to be routine for around 10 years though, maybe some prototype stuff with it 5 or so. HP and IBM independently found out how to build them repeatably in the past year. Now it's onto production quality and how to incorporate a previously only theoretical circuit element into an IC.
A Macbook Air doesn't last any longer on battery with 1GB RAM than it does with 4GB. If anything, it's the opposite because not being able to maintain data in RAM requires you to download content again and redraw the screen using wifi, CPU, GPU and Flash memory.
There is something to be said for efficient use of memory but a lack of RAM is not something we should hope for. Competing tablets/phones can have lower battery life for any number of reasons - using inefficient code, using highly clocked CPUs and GPUs, Adobe Flash support, larger displays with less efficient illumination methods.
I reckon iPad 3 will have 1GB RAM and I also reckon it won't affect battery life.
The difference is completely obviated by the power cord. The power draws really aren't that different from 1GB to 4GB in an absolute sense. But when you put the system on a hard power budget at the milli level, not the 15 Amp 1500 W/H level those little differences become very significant.
Now spread that relatively very significant fixed milli-budget difference over a week with a source that gets less efficient as it gets depleted and we magnify power draw differences even more.
The reason a potential 1GB iPad3 won't affect apparent battery life is that other places will be engineered to offset, like add a little more battery mass and manufacture the greater amount of RAM in the next smaller stepping to reduce it's power consumption by a third or so. The Apple engineers know with with pretty good certainty what the state of the art for iPad3 production will give in power performance because Apple isn't operating on the bleeding edge. They are adapting well known tech into previously unused configurations because they have a product that supports the R&D for the relatively new production configurations.
I'm going to ignore the latent Microsoft and Windows bashing. What I find interesting is that traditionally, the screen has been the biggest power hog in most modern electronics. Clearly robust processors with numerous cycles and extended memory are also a factor (as anyone who has ever done significant overclocking will tell you) in sucking battery, but I'm sort of shocked that RAM is that big of a factor. I guess it certainly is a bigger factor than the screen in the "sitting on your coffee table" mode described in the article, but on, wouldn't the display be the issue?
I'm going to ignore the latent Microsoft and Windows bashing. What I find interesting is that traditionally, the screen has been the biggest power hog in most modern electronics. Clearly robust processors with numerous cycles and extended memory are also a factor (as anyone who has ever done significant overclocking will tell you) in sucking battery, but I'm sort of shocked that RAM is that big of a factor. I guess it certainly is a bigger factor than the screen in the "sitting on your coffee table" mode described in the article, but on, wouldn't the display be the issue?
The RAM is an issue because it draws power at a more or less constant rate even when the screen is off and the processor is sleeping. If you are actively using the device RAM power draw is not a significant issue, but the hours and hours you aren't using it are where it is a big deal.
Sorry but this is a pet peeve of mind. Flash is not accessed randomly and in fact is more disk like than RAM like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixnaHalfFeet
What you say is undoubtedly true of hard drive based systems, but we are talking about the iPhone here and Dynamic RAM will most likely always consume more power than Flash RAM.
I suspect it would be more correct to say it depends upon the app and user.
Quote:
Therefore accessing secondary storage will most likely have very little power hit (especially if it is just read cycles) compared to the power hit from increasing Dynamic RAM. As the article points out, Dynamic RAM consumes power whether the RAM is being used or not, whether it is actually holding any data or not. Flash RAM only consumes power when an actual read or write is in progress.
Even that is not entirely correct, if it is turned on flash will consume some power. How much that some is will likely depend upon its size. On the whole though flash burns a considerable amount of power during writes which can't be discounted if an app creates data.
As others have pointed out the lack of RAM can cause power usage due to reloading data from the net when it might not have too. The difference in behavior between my old 3G and iPhone 4 was dramatic and directly due to more RAM. I don't deny the validity of this story, I'm just saying that the value in having more RAM is dependent upon usage. Further more RAM can actually extend run times in some situations. Right now I just think Apple is shooting for maximum idle time and cost control more than anything.
Of course connectivity, and any other operation, uses RAM, that's not the point. Increasing the RAM from 512MB to 1GB isn't going to have any impact on the amount of 3G usage, that's the point.
And your point is wrong. I can see a difference in reload patterns just between my iPad and iPhone 4. More RAM means that Apple doesn't have invalidate page data to free up memory for the page you are going to. This means a greater likely hood that when you hit the back button the page you are going to gets reloaded from RAM not 3G.
Quote:
As you yourself state, connectivity is second only to display for energy consumption, so accordingly, reading data from storage uses less energy than connectivity (which is not only true, but a whole lot faster as well).
So why did you say the above? You are right in the above statement so you have us confused.
Quote:
The original point of this thread, which was highly flawed, was that with insufficient RAM, resources would be read / data swapped via 3G, which is just incredibly false.
I'm not sure how you even came up with that position. 3G comes into play when using net centric apps and yes the lack of RAM can result in re-reading data over 3G. I really don't understand how you can not see that point.
Quote:
Whether RAM energy consumption versus needing to swap resources and data to flash consumes more energy is a worthy debate for any specific platform. If you're an engineer on the project could argue that the platform either can stay under the memory threshold for energy savings or would go over.
one thing we can agree on is that it is not as simple as some would imply. In apples case though they are very biased to minimal memory machines and have been for years. I'm not convinced Apple made the decision based on merits related to power usage. It could simply be an issue of margins.
Quote:
Looking at the iPhone now as a user, it's speculative as a whole, but as an individual, I've witnessed very little swapping of data and resources do to memory limitations on iOS 4. I'm jailbroken and have monitored my memory use. If iOS 5 uses the same or less memory, then it makes sense, for me, that 512MB would use less power than 1GB.
It will vary by user but I suspect you don't know what you think you know.
Apple's loaded like an Russian officer's gun during the siege of Moscow, why don't they do some research into production-quality MRAM to remove any question of power requirements, allowing capacities to skyrocket?
Comments
Which Android phones have you experienced poor battery life with, and how much did they weigh?
I charge my own about once a day, which doesn't seem terribly inconvenient because I tend to sleep once a day as well.
I don't quite understand the presumption that Apple customers somehow have less access to electrical outlets than the majority who use Android. The demographics of Apple's consumer base would suggest that such basic essentials are not scarce to them, that most even have access to running water as well.
FWIW, my Samsung Galaxy S is actually lighter than the iPhone, not heavier, at 116 grams to the iPhone's 140 grams, though I don't imagine such small differences in weight between phones would produce much in the way of arm strain or back pain.
phone wise: nexus one, htc HD, htc sensation, motorola droid. same gripe: terrible battery life.
weight wise i bled over into android tablets....but same sentiment. screw the specs, build a better designed product all around. thats what apple does.
as far as the samsung galaxy products weight, in particular the tablet, it is acheived with plastic instead of metal. they feel a bit 'cheaper' than apple counterparts.
Would you be kind enough to explain what you mean by "true multitasking" and why iOS does not have it?
The ability to have your games running in the background as you have a movie running in the background as you type a document as you answer texts.
Do you believe that swapping data between RAM and storage is without energy cost?
No
[QUOTE=MacRulez;1965093Do you believe that network connectivity is without energy cost?[/QUOTE]
No
On most such devices, connectivity is often the second most energy-consuming operation after display. And, not surprisingly, connectivity itself requires RAM.
Of course connectivity, and any other operation, uses RAM, that's not the point. Increasing the RAM from 512MB to 1GB isn't going to have any impact on the amount of 3G usage, that's the point.
As you yourself state, connectivity is second only to display for energy consumption, so accordingly, reading data from storage uses less energy than connectivity (which is not only true, but a whole lot faster as well).
The original point of this thread, which was highly flawed, was that with insufficient RAM, resources would be read / data swapped via 3G, which is just incredibly false.
Whether RAM energy consumption versus needing to swap resources and data to flash consumes more energy is a worthy debate for any specific platform. If you're an engineer on the project could argue that the platform either can stay under the memory threshold for energy savings or would go over.
Looking at the iPhone now as a user, it's speculative as a whole, but as an individual, I've witnessed very little swapping of data and resources do to memory limitations on iOS 4. I'm jailbroken and have monitored my memory use. If iOS 5 uses the same or less memory, then it makes sense, for me, that 512MB would use less power than 1GB.
The problem with a system that uses dynamic RAM is that it constantly has to be refreshed. That ends up being a significant power draw for something that might spend most of its day in your pocket. I honestly think the guy from Microsoft was addressing those loads that impact idle battery lifetimes. Let's face it when an app is being ran or used the power demand can vary widely and more importantly the user expects power to be used when the app is in use. What the user doesn't like is his cell phone going dead in his pocket.
Now here one has to expect that a device will have significant idle periods which many iOS devices do. The always on nature of most iOS devices though require that idle power be minimized as much as possible.
Memristors can't get here fast enough. Ridiculously fast, single feature persistent storage doing the job of 6 transistors in a SRAM IC.
Purdue also stumbled on some neat persistent no power when not in use memory too, but it's between flash and DRAM in speed.
I don't expect memristors to be routine for around 10 years though, maybe some prototype stuff with it 5 or so. HP and IBM independently found out how to build them repeatably in the past year. Now it's onto production quality and how to incorporate a previously only theoretical circuit element into an IC.
A Macbook Air doesn't last any longer on battery with 1GB RAM than it does with 4GB. If anything, it's the opposite because not being able to maintain data in RAM requires you to download content again and redraw the screen using wifi, CPU, GPU and Flash memory.
There is something to be said for efficient use of memory but a lack of RAM is not something we should hope for. Competing tablets/phones can have lower battery life for any number of reasons - using inefficient code, using highly clocked CPUs and GPUs, Adobe Flash support, larger displays with less efficient illumination methods.
I reckon iPad 3 will have 1GB RAM and I also reckon it won't affect battery life.
The difference is completely obviated by the power cord. The power draws really aren't that different from 1GB to 4GB in an absolute sense. But when you put the system on a hard power budget at the milli level, not the 15 Amp 1500 W/H level those little differences become very significant.
Now spread that relatively very significant fixed milli-budget difference over a week with a source that gets less efficient as it gets depleted and we magnify power draw differences even more.
The reason a potential 1GB iPad3 won't affect apparent battery life is that other places will be engineered to offset, like add a little more battery mass and manufacture the greater amount of RAM in the next smaller stepping to reduce it's power consumption by a third or so. The Apple engineers know with with pretty good certainty what the state of the art for iPad3 production will give in power performance because Apple isn't operating on the bleeding edge. They are adapting well known tech into previously unused configurations because they have a product that supports the R&D for the relatively new production configurations.
I'm going to ignore the latent Microsoft and Windows bashing. What I find interesting is that traditionally, the screen has been the biggest power hog in most modern electronics. Clearly robust processors with numerous cycles and extended memory are also a factor (as anyone who has ever done significant overclocking will tell you) in sucking battery, but I'm sort of shocked that RAM is that big of a factor. I guess it certainly is a bigger factor than the screen in the "sitting on your coffee table" mode described in the article, but on, wouldn't the display be the issue?
The RAM is an issue because it draws power at a more or less constant rate even when the screen is off and the processor is sleeping. If you are actively using the device RAM power draw is not a significant issue, but the hours and hours you aren't using it are where it is a big deal.
What you say is undoubtedly true of hard drive based systems, but we are talking about the iPhone here and Dynamic RAM will most likely always consume more power than Flash RAM.
I suspect it would be more correct to say it depends upon the app and user.
Therefore accessing secondary storage will most likely have very little power hit (especially if it is just read cycles) compared to the power hit from increasing Dynamic RAM. As the article points out, Dynamic RAM consumes power whether the RAM is being used or not, whether it is actually holding any data or not. Flash RAM only consumes power when an actual read or write is in progress.
Even that is not entirely correct, if it is turned on flash will consume some power. How much that some is will likely depend upon its size. On the whole though flash burns a considerable amount of power during writes which can't be discounted if an app creates data.
As others have pointed out the lack of RAM can cause power usage due to reloading data from the net when it might not have too. The difference in behavior between my old 3G and iPhone 4 was dramatic and directly due to more RAM. I don't deny the validity of this story, I'm just saying that the value in having more RAM is dependent upon usage. Further more RAM can actually extend run times in some situations. Right now I just think Apple is shooting for maximum idle time and cost control more than anything.
No
No
Of course connectivity, and any other operation, uses RAM, that's not the point. Increasing the RAM from 512MB to 1GB isn't going to have any impact on the amount of 3G usage, that's the point.
And your point is wrong. I can see a difference in reload patterns just between my iPad and iPhone 4. More RAM means that Apple doesn't have invalidate page data to free up memory for the page you are going to. This means a greater likely hood that when you hit the back button the page you are going to gets reloaded from RAM not 3G.
As you yourself state, connectivity is second only to display for energy consumption, so accordingly, reading data from storage uses less energy than connectivity (which is not only true, but a whole lot faster as well).
So why did you say the above? You are right in the above statement so you have us confused.
The original point of this thread, which was highly flawed, was that with insufficient RAM, resources would be read / data swapped via 3G, which is just incredibly false.
I'm not sure how you even came up with that position. 3G comes into play when using net centric apps and yes the lack of RAM can result in re-reading data over 3G. I really don't understand how you can not see that point.
Whether RAM energy consumption versus needing to swap resources and data to flash consumes more energy is a worthy debate for any specific platform. If you're an engineer on the project could argue that the platform either can stay under the memory threshold for energy savings or would go over.
one thing we can agree on is that it is not as simple as some would imply. In apples case though they are very biased to minimal memory machines and have been for years. I'm not convinced Apple made the decision based on merits related to power usage. It could simply be an issue of margins.
Looking at the iPhone now as a user, it's speculative as a whole, but as an individual, I've witnessed very little swapping of data and resources do to memory limitations on iOS 4. I'm jailbroken and have monitored my memory use. If iOS 5 uses the same or less memory, then it makes sense, for me, that 512MB would use less power than 1GB.
It will vary by user but I suspect you don't know what you think you know.
Apple's loaded like an Russian officer's gun during the siege of Moscow, why don't they do some research into production-quality MRAM to remove any question of power requirements, allowing capacities to skyrocket?