I try to do that too. But he's read by those who are not Apple users, and his style is pointed to as being typical of an Apple Fanboy. Unfortunately, while his style might thrill some here, it detracts from the usefulness of his writing. And he does exaggerate, and minimize facts, depending whether they're about Apple, or its competitors. I would prefer more objectively written articles.
There's a lot of pent up animosity, and redemption in his writing which makes it difficult to be objective.
Well, at this point I'd like to see 2GB. Maybe we don't really need it for the phone, but
No, you really do need it to keep pace with the rest of the market. 1GB ram is a low end budget device spec at this point no matter how much so called optimization is going on. Maybe the 5.5 will come with 2gb? If not I'll be shocked, but not entirely surprised.
I can't stand that Saffari has to constantly refresh after I switch to anther app, especially on my iPad
I don't normally have memory problems with my 5s but the iPad is another story. The Safari experience on iPad is crap. When I go to diagnostics I always see low memory warnings. I'd love to know what Apple's reasons are for leaving it at 1GB. Hopefully this is a rumor that turns out not to be true.
Better battery life with no improvement in specs would be great for me. 1day of full scale phone usage should be the benchmark.
The elimination of battery anxiety is NECESSARY to make the phone experience great.
What use is an expensive device that you are afraid to use?
Why is the next phone going to be thinner instead of having vastly more battery life is beyond me. I HOPE that they made software and A8 optimization for making up the battery shortfall. Consumers are going to jump off the apple ship if this issue isn't improved. I just got back from India and that's exactly what heavy phone users are doing.
A thicker, larger battery version of the phone with 128gb minimum premium version would be fine. Apple needs an "executive" or "Pro" phone. As a doctor I can barely use any apps or bluetooth without worrying.
Given that the DRAM has always been stacked on top of the A series chip, why would this schematic mean one thing or the other for any particular device? There certainly isn't any reason why Apple couldn't go with 2GB on an iPad and 1GB on an iPhone. This could even be a version for an iPod touch or an Apple TV for all we know.
I'm not sure if you're serious, or being sarcastic.
Either way, I'd like to point out the arguments we had with people when RAM was 256MB, and some people were serious when they said that Apple knew best here, and as they didn't move to more RAM, we obviously didn't need it. They were wrong then too.
I don't see how it's obvious that Apple was wrong to use 256 MB in the devices where that was used. The fact that Apple ultimately released devices with more RAM doesn't prove that Apple made the wrong choice in the devices that did have 256. The nature of the tradeoffs changes as technology improves. What doesn't make sense today in terms of any given spec -- RAM, clock speed, battery size -- might make sense in 2 years thanks to Moore's Law.
I doubt that anyone would argue that, all else equal, more RAM isn't better. The issue is that all else isn't equal. It's a matter of striking the right balance of tradeoffs between cost, performance, battery life, and size. While any individual user might benefit from a different balance than what Apple picks, Apple really is in the best position to pick the balance that is the best for them and for most users. They can make mistakes, but they are less likely to be making a mistake in their assessments than any given person who posts comments here.
I said the same thing more succinctly at the start of the thread and got a strange response from you.
I'm not sure that what you said is quite the same thing. You also didn't respond to that post, so I never did find out what you meant. He's seems to be saying that we shouldn't be discussing this because performance is all that matters. You said that Apple knows best. Is that the same thing?
Does iOS use memory compression like Mavericks? If not, then perhaps the addition of that feature might allow Apple to stick with 1 GB of RAM for longer than they otherwise would have.
There's a lot of pent up animosity, and redemption in his writing which makes it difficult to be objective.
It not difficult being objective, if you want to be. I've talked to him on his own site over the years, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't want to be. If you try to inform him of an error, he becomes very prickly about it. He's a fanboy, and he writes from that perspective. It doesn't mean he isn't informed, because he is, but he's subject to exaggeration, and his comments about competitors could easily be excised. Sometimes, it just embarrassing.
No, you really do need it to keep pace with the rest of the market. 1GB ram is a low end budget device spec at this point no matter how much so called optimization is going on. Maybe the 5.5 will come with 2gb? If not I'll be shocked, but not entirely surprised.
You're talking about marketing. I was talking about need.
Now with Flash storage paging files are far more practical on systems with lower RAM.
Dont gorget that flash writes aren't really battery friendly. I think true RAM would outperform flash based page files battery-wise. (Meaning doubling RAM vs flash based page files)
The linked article of DED mentions RAM battery usage when the tablet sits unused on the coffee table - wonder if you can or iOS already supports hibernation to flash. I do think it should be possible to boot part of the kernel into say lower address space and turn off parts of the RAM when saved to flash (higher address space). On top of this with MMU built-in perhaps the system only refreshes allocated memory anyway ?
On top of this we all shouldn't forget that iOS8 comes out - and with it hopefully a new sleuth of updated apps that ship 64bit versions so the system doesn't need to load the 32 bit libraries anymore. If all your installed apps are 64 bit you save quite a bit of memory.
According to reports and my experience, battery life under iOS8 is improved (and it's still beta!) I have high expectations to iOS 8.
I don't see how it's obvious that Apple was wrong to use 256 MB in the devices where that was used. The fact that Apple ultimately released devices with more RAM doesn't prove that Apple made the wrong choice in the devices that did have 256. The nature of the tradeoffs changes as technology improves. What doesn't make sense today in terms of any given spec -- RAM, clock speed, battery size -- might make sense in 2 years thanks to Moore's Law.
I doubt that anyone would argue that, all else equal, more RAM isn't better. The issue is that all else isn't equal. It's a matter of striking the right balance of tradeoffs between cost, performance, battery life, and size. While any individual user might benefit from a different balance than what Apple picks, Apple really is in the best position to pick the balance that is the best for them and for most users. They can make mistakes, but they are less likely to be making a mistake in their assessments than any given person who posts comments here.
Apple stayed with 256 a year too long. We were all having problems because of that. In addition, developers were complaining that they couldn't do what was needed because of it. They were right.
As I said, 1GB RAM might still be enough for the iPhone, though maybe not, what with some of the new features coming out this year, but for the iPad, 2GB is really required. I do photo editing, video editing, drawing and 3D CAD on my iPad Air, and developers tell me that a major reason why they don't support larger files is the lack of RAM. I think they know what they're talking about.
I have 32GB RAM in my Mac Pro, and I run out of RAM on some work. Another GB on my iPad would work wonders.
Dont gorget that flash writes aren't really battery friendly. I think true RAM would outperform flash based page files battery-wise. (Meaning doubling RAM vs flash based page files)
The linked article of DED mentions RAM battery usage when the tablet sits unused on the coffee table - wonder if you can or iOS already supports hibernation to flash. I do think it should be possible to boot part of the kernel into say lower address space and turn off parts of the RAM when saved to flash (higher address space). On top of this with MMU built-in perhaps the system only refreshes allocated memory anyway ?
On top of this we all shouldn't forget that iOS8 comes out - and with it hopefully a new sleuth of updated apps that ship 64bit versions so the system doesn't need to load the 32 bit libraries anymore. If all your installed apps are 64 bit you save quite a bit of memory.
According to reports and my experience, battery life under iOS8 is improved (and it's still beta!) I have high expectations to iOS 8.
64 bit apps will require about 10- 25% more memory than the older 32 bit version. That's another reason why more memory is needed.
64 bit apps will require about 10- 25% more memory than the older 32 bit version. That's another reason why more memory is needed.
I am aware of this but hte situation is worse when you (as it is right now for many users)have to load 32 and 64 bit libraries at the same time. And guess what - memory was sufficient until now even under less than ideal conditions. Somebody also mentioned memory compression a la Mavericks. Again a reason to believe ios8 wil rock.
lilgto64 mentioned a paging file. This to me seems the most logical. Neither iOS or Android use a paging file which is why you run into memory limits (and why Apps get suspended and closed when memory is low).
Paging files back in the days of hard disk drives sucked because of the speed compared to memory. Running Windows on a system with low memory was horribly slow. I'm sure we all remember the light for your hard drive blinking madly as Windows was constantly paging stuff to disk. This is the main reason people upgraded their RAM.
Now with Flash storage paging files are far more practical on systems with lower RAM.
Paging would add a lot of wear to the Flash memory as the writes would be very frequent. They could however put something like 4GB dedicated NAND storage just for paging and that wouldn't use any power on standby. It would even allow them to flush RAM and power it off saving even more power. It's more needed in the iPad than iPhone. If that dedicated NAND wore out, it's no big deal, they'd just gradually eliminate bad blocks or worst case stop writing to it.
Safari really needs to get its memory management sorted out. Moving to individual process tabs was a good move because it means that when one tab shuts down, that memory can be wiped clean but it would be good if they compressed background tabs individually in memory and only decompressed them when they were made active. That way Safari's active RAM would only ever be as much as the foremost uncompressed tab plus the compressed background ones.
I can't stand that Saffari has to constantly refresh after I switch to anther app, especially on my iPad
It hadn't occurred to me that memory was causing the Safari refresh rather than time away from the app for example.
Even at $5 extra for the component that doesn't take into consideration all the other engineering concerns and design trade-offs such as space, heat, battery life etc. Though I suspect they have prototypes with more and as opposed to other companies who make spec changes simply because the component is available rather than because it provides value I think Apple gets it right far more often than the get it wrong.
Would it be possible for Apple to release a quad core 7" screen iPhone with 24 hour batter life - sure, would that make an insanely great product that would fly off the shelves, probably not, especially if it cost $4996.66 and required oven mitts while using it.
This partial schematic shows external NAND Flash memory. It is not the on die RAM in the AX processor which wouldn't show up on a iphone schematic. You would only see one block that represents the entire Ax microcontroller.
Comments
There's a lot of pent up animosity, and redemption in his writing which makes it difficult to be objective.
Well, at this point I'd like to see 2GB. Maybe we don't really need it for the phone, but
No, you really do need it to keep pace with the rest of the market. 1GB ram is a low end budget device spec at this point no matter how much so called optimization is going on. Maybe the 5.5 will come with 2gb? If not I'll be shocked, but not entirely surprised.
The elimination of battery anxiety is NECESSARY to make the phone experience great.
What use is an expensive device that you are afraid to use?
Why is the next phone going to be thinner instead of having vastly more battery life is beyond me. I HOPE that they made software and A8 optimization for making up the battery shortfall. Consumers are going to jump off the apple ship if this issue isn't improved. I just got back from India and that's exactly what heavy phone users are doing.
A thicker, larger battery version of the phone with 128gb minimum premium version would be fine. Apple needs an "executive" or "Pro" phone. As a doctor I can barely use any apps or bluetooth without worrying.
Given that the DRAM has always been stacked on top of the A series chip, why would this schematic mean one thing or the other for any particular device? There certainly isn't any reason why Apple couldn't go with 2GB on an iPad and 1GB on an iPhone. This could even be a version for an iPod touch or an Apple TV for all we know.
I'm not sure if you're serious, or being sarcastic.
Either way, I'd like to point out the arguments we had with people when RAM was 256MB, and some people were serious when they said that Apple knew best here, and as they didn't move to more RAM, we obviously didn't need it. They were wrong then too.
I don't see how it's obvious that Apple was wrong to use 256 MB in the devices where that was used. The fact that Apple ultimately released devices with more RAM doesn't prove that Apple made the wrong choice in the devices that did have 256. The nature of the tradeoffs changes as technology improves. What doesn't make sense today in terms of any given spec -- RAM, clock speed, battery size -- might make sense in 2 years thanks to Moore's Law.
I doubt that anyone would argue that, all else equal, more RAM isn't better. The issue is that all else isn't equal. It's a matter of striking the right balance of tradeoffs between cost, performance, battery life, and size. While any individual user might benefit from a different balance than what Apple picks, Apple really is in the best position to pick the balance that is the best for them and for most users. They can make mistakes, but they are less likely to be making a mistake in their assessments than any given person who posts comments here.
It would seem to me that more RAM (within reason) would also improve battery life.
I'm not sure that what you said is quite the same thing. You also didn't respond to that post, so I never did find out what you meant. He's seems to be saying that we shouldn't be discussing this because performance is all that matters. You said that Apple knows best. Is that the same thing?
Does iOS use memory compression like Mavericks? If not, then perhaps the addition of that feature might allow Apple to stick with 1 GB of RAM for longer than they otherwise would have.
It not difficult being objective, if you want to be. I've talked to him on his own site over the years, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't want to be. If you try to inform him of an error, he becomes very prickly about it. He's a fanboy, and he writes from that perspective. It doesn't mean he isn't informed, because he is, but he's subject to exaggeration, and his comments about competitors could easily be excised. Sometimes, it just embarrassing.
You're talking about marketing. I was talking about need.
Dont gorget that flash writes aren't really battery friendly. I think true RAM would outperform flash based page files battery-wise. (Meaning doubling RAM vs flash based page files)
The linked article of DED mentions RAM battery usage when the tablet sits unused on the coffee table - wonder if you can or iOS already supports hibernation to flash. I do think it should be possible to boot part of the kernel into say lower address space and turn off parts of the RAM when saved to flash (higher address space). On top of this with MMU built-in perhaps the system only refreshes allocated memory anyway ?
On top of this we all shouldn't forget that iOS8 comes out - and with it hopefully a new sleuth of updated apps that ship 64bit versions so the system doesn't need to load the 32 bit libraries anymore. If all your installed apps are 64 bit you save quite a bit of memory.
According to reports and my experience, battery life under iOS8 is improved (and it's still beta!) I have high expectations to iOS 8.
Apple stayed with 256 a year too long. We were all having problems because of that. In addition, developers were complaining that they couldn't do what was needed because of it. They were right.
As I said, 1GB RAM might still be enough for the iPhone, though maybe not, what with some of the new features coming out this year, but for the iPad, 2GB is really required. I do photo editing, video editing, drawing and 3D CAD on my iPad Air, and developers tell me that a major reason why they don't support larger files is the lack of RAM. I think they know what they're talking about.
I have 32GB RAM in my Mac Pro, and I run out of RAM on some work. Another GB on my iPad would work wonders.
Well, at lest they differentiate themselves from other smartphones. And to differentiate is a good thing¡
64 bit apps will require about 10- 25% more memory than the older 32 bit version. That's another reason why more memory is needed.
I am aware of this but hte situation is worse when you (as it is right now for many users)have to load 32 and 64 bit libraries at the same time. And guess what - memory was sufficient until now even under less than ideal conditions. Somebody also mentioned memory compression a la Mavericks. Again a reason to believe ios8 wil rock.
Paging would add a lot of wear to the Flash memory as the writes would be very frequent. They could however put something like 4GB dedicated NAND storage just for paging and that wouldn't use any power on standby. It would even allow them to flush RAM and power it off saving even more power. It's more needed in the iPad than iPhone. If that dedicated NAND wore out, it's no big deal, they'd just gradually eliminate bad blocks or worst case stop writing to it.
Safari really needs to get its memory management sorted out. Moving to individual process tabs was a good move because it means that when one tab shuts down, that memory can be wiped clean but it would be good if they compressed background tabs individually in memory and only decompressed them when they were made active. That way Safari's active RAM would only ever be as much as the foremost uncompressed tab plus the compressed background ones.
ugg.
This is horrible.
How expensive is 1 extra GB of RAM? $5?
I can't stand that Saffari has to constantly refresh after I switch to anther app, especially on my iPad
It hadn't occurred to me that memory was causing the Safari refresh rather than time away from the app for example.
Even at $5 extra for the component that doesn't take into consideration all the other engineering concerns and design trade-offs such as space, heat, battery life etc. Though I suspect they have prototypes with more and as opposed to other companies who make spec changes simply because the component is available rather than because it provides value I think Apple gets it right far more often than the get it wrong.
Would it be possible for Apple to release a quad core 7" screen iPhone with 24 hour batter life - sure, would that make an insanely great product that would fly off the shelves, probably not, especially if it cost $4996.66 and required oven mitts while using it.
Electronics Engineer here!
This partial schematic shows external NAND Flash memory. It is not the on die RAM in the AX processor which wouldn't show up on a iphone schematic. You would only see one block that represents the entire Ax microcontroller.
This is a non-story.