Your analogy reminded me of a Ferrari California vs a Cadillac Sportswagon:
Love it! One can also make the point that there is a difference between going a mile in a straight line and tearing around 2-3 miles of hairpin curves and chicanes. Might even be applicable to the discussion here.
"Any meaningful way"? Being able to look at the source code and edit it in any way possible is not meaningful enough?
The source of what? Android? android? Linux? The bottom line is that you can't look at the source code of Android because much of it is proprietary. There's some Linux code that Google tries to confuse everyone about by calling it Android, but it's not. The source code for Android simply isn't available, you have to license it from Google to get it, which means being a handset OEM and playing by Google's rules. So, yes, I know some of you think you can, but you can't.
The source of what? Android? android? Linux? The bottom line is that you can't look at the source code of Android because much of it is proprietary. There's some Linux code that Google tries to confuse everyone about by calling it Android, but it's not. The source code for Android simply isn't available, you have to license it from Google to get it, which means being a handset OEM and playing by Google's rules. So, yes, I know some of you think you can, but you can't.
This might be an Apple board, but you can't just go rattling off untruths. Google pretty much releases all the source for the core operating system. Device drivers by 3rd parties can come as blobs. If what you said was true, there wouldn't be two generations of Kindle with roots in Android.
And that's the problem with comparing ANY benchmarks from multiple sources (especially anonymous ones). For a benchmark to have any chance of being useful, it has to be run under controlled conditions. Simply pulling benchmarks off the 'net from multiple different sources is largely useless.
Uhm, they were ALL from the geekbench site. I followed one of those links and then just browsed around the results section. They all run the same stuff, the only differences are cores and frequency. There is a ridiculously wide range of scores, even when you look at just the same core count and frequency. It seems way too variable to me.
This might be an Apple board, but you can't just go rattling off untruths. Google pretty much releases all the source for the core operating system. Device drivers by 3rd parties can come as blobs. If what you said was true, there wouldn't be two generations of Kindle with roots in Android.
If what you said was true, Amazon would be advertising Fires as Android devices and Acer would be free to do whatever they want with Android, android, or whatever fork. Google also wouldn't be controlling what location services system OEMs use. And so on, and so on. The lie is that Android is open. It isn't. It never will be. And Google controls Android and rules the "OHA" with an iron fist.
Personally, I don't really care whether it's open or not, I'm just sick of listening to the nonsense and lies that it is.
I think the important thing to remember here is that Apple's Iphone is better than any Android phone on the market, Apple is a superior innovator, they make the best products, the did not copy android features, and they are in generally every way better than android OEMs and google.
Its nice when benchmarks prove that point but lets face it... we already knew as much.
<span style="line-height:16.866666793823242px;">i got the scores off </span> browser.primatelabs own website look it up your self so how is it the apple is faster with a lower Score?
Which hardware and software provides superior performance is effectively irrelevant since the Geekbench performance scores are similar. The critical point is that (apparently) a 1.0 GHz dual-core processor rivals 1.4 GHz quad-core processors (presumably) sharing the same 32nm high-k + metal gate LP process. Furthermore, Apple has much higher power efficiency at virtually the same performance considering 5.45 watt-hours at 3.8 volts for the iPhone 5 versus 7.98 watt-hours at 3.8 volts for the Samsung Galaxy S III yet the batter life performance on the Samsung Galaxy S III is apparently horrid.
Which hardware provides superior performance is effectively irrelevant since the Geekbench performance scores are similar. The critical point is that (apparently) a 1.0 GHz dual-core processor rivals 1.4 GHz quad-core processors (presumably) sharing the same 32nm high-k + metal gate LP process. Furthermore, Apple has much higher power efficiency at virtually the same performance considering 5.45 watt-hours at 3.8 volts for the iPhone 5 versus 7.98 watt-hours at 3.8 volts for the Samsung Galaxy S III.
Im a big apple fan and just ordered 2 of the iphone 5's for my business account with sprint. THat being said.... WHATS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU APPLE FANBOYS? Why dont you look at the facts...
Fact- A dual-core Qualcomm snapdragon S4 in the evo one x scores 1560 in geekbench (3% slower than a purported benchmark of an A6)
Fact-The s4 (according to anandtech) consumes 3.7 w/hr at full throttle (2x750mw/hr cores plus 1.2w/hr gpu)
Fact- The s4 has been out in phones since May of this year. Its 5 months older than the A6, 3% slower, uses less power and with verizon or sprint CAN DO VOICE AND DATA AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!!
The simultaneous voice and data is the MAIN reason thats keeping me from switching my personal phone to a Iphone 5. The a6 is a very good chip and made a big leap to catch up to qualcomms Snapdragon technology. However Id still take the snapdragon with the integreted LTE and radio, lower power consumption and simultaneous voice and data all day long. YES THE A6 BEATS THE HECK OUT OF THE TEGRA3, NO ONE IS ARGUING ABOUT THAT.
BTW... Im typing on my macbook air 11". which imho is by far the best personal computer EVER made. Nothing has ever compared to the build quality, looks and fuctionality of the macbook air's.
Im a big apple fan and just ordered 2 of the iphone 5's for my business account with sprint. THat being said....
…with verizon or sprint CAN DO VOICE AND DATA AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!!
Do you not know about VoLTE? That's what Apple is doing. When Verizon turns VoLTE on, Apple will have done with two antennas what everyone else takes three to do. The existing CDMA+LTE data+voice is a stopgap solution.
Do you not know about VoLTE? That's what Apple is doing. When Verizon turns VoLTE on, Apple will have done with two antennas what everyone else takes three to do. The existing CDMA+LTE data+voice is a stopgap solution.
The S4 does it WITHOUT any LTE service. It does it using standard cdma.
Wait for verizon to turn it on? Again, the S4 is five months old and does not need it "to be turned on".
Most sprint users dont have LTE and wont have it anytime soon. Thanks sprint for screwing us with your stupid wimax expiriment.
Do you not know about VoLTE? That's what Apple is doing. When Verizon turns VoLTE on, Apple will have done with two antennas what everyone else takes three to do. The existing CDMA+LTE data+voice is a stopgap solution.
Apple buys its radio chip from Qualcomm. Its not built in house. Nice try fanboy.
It places the call on 1xRTT and keeps the EvdoA for data. Its really nice if you tether alot (I do) when a text or phone call comes in your internet doesnt go out.
It places the call on 1xRTT and keeps the EvdoA for data. Its really nice if you tether alot (I do) when a text or phone call comes in your internet doesnt go out.
Actually, because they are using the qualcomm radio.... It looks like the iphone 5 might support simultaneous voice and data on sprint. A few articles seem to point to this. Ill try it out on one of mine as soon as it gets in.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asim Soofi
Your analogy reminded me of a Ferrari California vs a Cadillac Sportswagon:
Love it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
"Any meaningful way"? Being able to look at the source code and edit it in any way possible is not meaningful enough?
The source of what? Android? android? Linux? The bottom line is that you can't look at the source code of Android because much of it is proprietary. There's some Linux code that Google tries to confuse everyone about by calling it Android, but it's not. The source code for Android simply isn't available, you have to license it from Google to get it, which means being a handset OEM and playing by Google's rules. So, yes, I know some of you think you can, but you can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
The source of what? Android? android? Linux? The bottom line is that you can't look at the source code of Android because much of it is proprietary. There's some Linux code that Google tries to confuse everyone about by calling it Android, but it's not. The source code for Android simply isn't available, you have to license it from Google to get it, which means being a handset OEM and playing by Google's rules. So, yes, I know some of you think you can, but you can't.
This might be an Apple board, but you can't just go rattling off untruths. Google pretty much releases all the source for the core operating system. Device drivers by 3rd parties can come as blobs. If what you said was true, there wouldn't be two generations of Kindle with roots in Android.
Originally Posted by mcrs
I think you're right…
Yeah, I was making fun of your completely pointless and irrelevant post. Sorry you were too blind to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And that's the problem with comparing ANY benchmarks from multiple sources (especially anonymous ones). For a benchmark to have any chance of being useful, it has to be run under controlled conditions. Simply pulling benchmarks off the 'net from multiple different sources is largely useless.
Uhm, they were ALL from the geekbench site. I followed one of those links and then just browsed around the results section. They all run the same stuff, the only differences are cores and frequency. There is a ridiculously wide range of scores, even when you look at just the same core count and frequency. It seems way too variable to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanl
This might be an Apple board, but you can't just go rattling off untruths. Google pretty much releases all the source for the core operating system. Device drivers by 3rd parties can come as blobs. If what you said was true, there wouldn't be two generations of Kindle with roots in Android.
If what you said was true, Amazon would be advertising Fires as Android devices and Acer would be free to do whatever they want with Android, android, or whatever fork. Google also wouldn't be controlling what location services system OEMs use. And so on, and so on. The lie is that Android is open. It isn't. It never will be. And Google controls Android and rules the "OHA" with an iron fist.
Personally, I don't really care whether it's open or not, I'm just sick of listening to the nonsense and lies that it is.
I think the important thing to remember here is that Apple's Iphone is better than any Android phone on the market, Apple is a superior innovator, they make the best products, the did not copy android features, and they are in generally every way better than android OEMs and google.
Its nice when benchmarks prove that point but lets face it... we already knew as much.
look at that, someone at Samsung didn't like how this was going and replaced and faked some over clocked scores in for the Galaxy SIII now....
that is truly funny....
someone just did a java score too, iphone really kicked arse there too...
iPhone 5 Beats Everything In Javascript Benchmarks, Twice As Fast As iPhone 4S | Cult of Mac
Sorry, but S3 running Jelly Bean easily outperforms iPhone 5 running iOS6: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1056598 ;
Samsung Galaxy S III Samsung Exynos 4412 1400 MHz (4 cores) Score 1756
iPhone5,2" dual-core ARMv7 processor clocked at 1.02GHz (2 cores) Score 1601
i got the scores off browser.primatelabs own website look it up your self so how is it the apple is faster with a lower Score?
Samsung Galaxy S III Samsung Exynos 4412 1400 MHz (4 cores) Score 1756
iPhone5,2" dual-core ARMv7 processor clocked at 1.02GHz (2 cores) Score 1601
i got the scores off browser.primatelabs own website look it up your self so how is it the apple is faster with a lower Score?
Which hardware and software provides superior performance is effectively irrelevant since the Geekbench performance scores are similar. The critical point is that (apparently) a 1.0 GHz dual-core processor rivals 1.4 GHz quad-core processors (presumably) sharing the same 32nm high-k + metal gate LP process. Furthermore, Apple has much higher power efficiency at virtually the same performance considering 5.45 watt-hours at 3.8 volts for the iPhone 5 versus 7.98 watt-hours at 3.8 volts for the Samsung Galaxy S III yet the batter life performance on the Samsung Galaxy S III is apparently horrid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Which hardware provides superior performance is effectively irrelevant since the Geekbench performance scores are similar. The critical point is that (apparently) a 1.0 GHz dual-core processor rivals 1.4 GHz quad-core processors (presumably) sharing the same 32nm high-k + metal gate LP process. Furthermore, Apple has much higher power efficiency at virtually the same performance considering 5.45 watt-hours at 3.8 volts for the iPhone 5 versus 7.98 watt-hours at 3.8 volts for the Samsung Galaxy S III.
Im a big apple fan and just ordered 2 of the iphone 5's for my business account with sprint. THat being said.... WHATS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU APPLE FANBOYS? Why dont you look at the facts...
Fact- A dual-core Qualcomm snapdragon S4 in the evo one x scores 1560 in geekbench (3% slower than a purported benchmark of an A6)
Fact-The s4 (according to anandtech) consumes 3.7 w/hr at full throttle (2x750mw/hr cores plus 1.2w/hr gpu)
Fact- The s4 has been out in phones since May of this year. Its 5 months older than the A6, 3% slower, uses less power and with verizon or sprint CAN DO VOICE AND DATA AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!!
The simultaneous voice and data is the MAIN reason thats keeping me from switching my personal phone to a Iphone 5. The a6 is a very good chip and made a big leap to catch up to qualcomms Snapdragon technology. However Id still take the snapdragon with the integreted LTE and radio, lower power consumption and simultaneous voice and data all day long. YES THE A6 BEATS THE HECK OUT OF THE TEGRA3, NO ONE IS ARGUING ABOUT THAT.
BTW... Im typing on my macbook air 11". which imho is by far the best personal computer EVER made. Nothing has ever compared to the build quality, looks and fuctionality of the macbook air's.
Originally Posted by WESALLEN
Im a big apple fan and just ordered 2 of the iphone 5's for my business account with sprint. THat being said....
…with verizon or sprint CAN DO VOICE AND DATA AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!!
Do you not know about VoLTE? That's what Apple is doing. When Verizon turns VoLTE on, Apple will have done with two antennas what everyone else takes three to do. The existing CDMA+LTE data+voice is a stopgap solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Do you not know about VoLTE? That's what Apple is doing. When Verizon turns VoLTE on, Apple will have done with two antennas what everyone else takes three to do. The existing CDMA+LTE data+voice is a stopgap solution.
The S4 does it WITHOUT any LTE service. It does it using standard cdma.
Wait for verizon to turn it on? Again, the S4 is five months old and does not need it "to be turned on".
Most sprint users dont have LTE and wont have it anytime soon. Thanks sprint for screwing us with your stupid wimax expiriment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Do you not know about VoLTE? That's what Apple is doing. When Verizon turns VoLTE on, Apple will have done with two antennas what everyone else takes three to do. The existing CDMA+LTE data+voice is a stopgap solution.
Apple buys its radio chip from Qualcomm. Its not built in house. Nice try fanboy.
Originally Posted by WESALLEN
The S4 does it WITHOUT any LTE service. It does it using standard cdma.
How? That doesn't sound correct.
Originally Posted by WESALLEN
Apple buys its radio chip from Qualcomm. Its not built in house. Nice try fanboy.
How is this a rebuttal to anything that I have said? We don't use "fanboy" here.
Quote:
Apple will have done with two antennas what everyone else takes three to do.
Apple hasnt done this... qualcomm has and the S4 radios are built into the SoC. It doesnt need an additional radio chip as the a6 does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
How? That doesn't sound correct.
It places the call on 1xRTT and keeps the EvdoA for data. Its really nice if you tether alot (I do) when a text or phone call comes in your internet doesnt go out.
heres a link http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/05/24/sprints-htc-evo-4g-lte-supports-simultaneous-voice-and-data-over-3g/
Quote:
Originally Posted by WESALLEN
It places the call on 1xRTT and keeps the EvdoA for data. Its really nice if you tether alot (I do) when a text or phone call comes in your internet doesnt go out.
heres a link http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/05/24/sprints-htc-evo-4g-lte-supports-simultaneous-voice-and-data-over-3g/
Actually, because they are using the qualcomm radio.... It looks like the iphone 5 might support simultaneous voice and data on sprint. A few articles seem to point to this. Ill try it out on one of mine as soon as it gets in.