Well, go on GSMarena and other sites Android and tell people who bought those S6 that they are idiots and not using it right then. Because reviews from people about battery life have been that bad. But, hey, real life doesn't count hmm. Funny, how when Samsung was calling Iphone users wall huggers, it had a worse battery life hmmm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertC
Really? If you have evidence it would be great of you to share it. After a Google search the only thing related to poor battery life I found was a glitch that was patched around the time of launch (even the review of the S6 mentioned that the battery life test was updated to reflect the fix).
Why would I go around calling people idiots?...
Interesting. Not to spell out a 'dooms day' scenario for Qualcomm, but the competition is growing, fast.
Hey, troll, you didn't do any fracking search; yes, I am calling you straight up a liar.
If you google "S6 poor battery life".
(I could have googled 50 different variants of the same and gotten tens of thousands of sites. But, I didn't need to).
These are just a small sampling of what is returned.
If you go on those actual sites, the user reviews (which are often not indexed) are even worse than the editorial ones.
If you had discussed the merit of those sites/people, I probably wouldn't have called you out.
But you're ridiculous response merits a trashing.
---------------
This comment is fun, phone almost perfect... Except for crappy battery life...
No they don't. Single core performance is the most important since there's very little software that can actually utilize multiple cores (and keep all of them working all of the time).
This si extremely misleading. First even if the app is single threaded the other core will still be in use, iOS is a multitasking OS even if half the world doesn't understand that. Beyond that apps are often able to use cores in bursts that highly justify the extra cores being there. These bursts of usage are often when the app most needs them to retain user interactivity.
This is because outside of benchmarks it's extremely difficult to take an application and divide up the workload to keep so many cores busy.
Sometimes yes sometime no, a categorical remark here is out of place and misleading. Beyond that the most important time for parallel exception is when the app can use the capability to remain interactive. Beyond that I'm not sure you understand the threading model used on these devices.
Add to this the fact that software basically just sits around idle waiting for user input before doing something.
In many cases this is very true which make one then ask what are you whining about. The important thing in any case is that when the use inputs action into the app something happens. Cores can at times be very important in the responsiveness of an app when it is called upon to actually do something.
And this is before we start getting into how well iOS is optimized vs the inefficient memory hog virtual machine that is Android.
IOS isn't all that well optimized if you consider the speed ups that are coming with iOS9. In fact that is another meaningless talking point. Further at this time in history there isn't a device platform out there that needs more RAM compared to the iOS devices. In fact RAM is by far the biggest issue on iOS devices when it comes to delivering a better user experience.
This si extremely misleading. First even if the app is single threaded the other core will still be in use, iOS is a multitasking OS even if half the world doesn't understand that. Beyond that apps are often able to use cores in bursts that highly justify the extra cores being there. These bursts of usage are often when the app most needs them to retain user interactivity.
Sometimes yes sometime no, a categorical remark here is out of place and misleading. Beyond that the most important time for parallel exception is when the app can use the capability to remain interactive. Beyond that I'm not sure you understand the threading model used on these devices.
In many cases this is very true which make one then ask what are you whining about. The important thing in any case is that when the use inputs action into the app something happens. Cores can at times be very important in the responsiveness of an app when it is called upon to actually do something.
IOS isn't all that well optimized if you consider the speed ups that are coming with iOS9. In fact that is another meaningless talking point. Further at this time in history there isn't a device platform out there that needs more RAM compared to the iOS devices. In fact RAM is by far the biggest issue on iOS devices when it comes to delivering a better user experience.
Well, it's mostly becoming a bigger issue BECAUSE users use their Iphones more and more like a computer, because if you ran single user level tasks, I'd argue it still is not an issue (except for a few apps). Which is logical, developpers should develop their software so it works on the platform they sell it! So, for most single user apps right now, the amount of memory is sufficient, though who knows what feature/performance boost those apps would have if devs were allowed a bit more space?
Would they be more lazy and use all ram available, would they just develop to the specs of the machines with the lowest RAM so they can sell their wares? Would their usage of RAM be adaptable (it should be) or the effort to do so not be see as worth it, etc. Many scenarios are possible.
My feeling is that more ram on and individual app level would change very little except in the case of specialized apps matched to hardware. Say, app X needs X specs to run. Those kinds of apps are generally not mainstream, they could be pro or business apps though.
I mean, there's miles of comments about the latest Android Flagship lagging in basic UI! and it is certainly not because they lack CPU/GPU or memory.
The place were more ram is useful is when users switch often from app to app, or need more apps open at a time. In this case, individual apps are still targeted to the wide mainstream, but more ram means those user level programs can coexist better (especially if their still targetting the lower RAM level machines as their baseline).
IF they were targeting the higher bound, getting more Ram would only provide a marginal improvement on those best machine and really bad performance on the rest..
Safari is a special case, because browsers, are basically their own little multitasking OS... Which must cope both with a lot of user inputs and random amount of very complex data. In the past, users didn't open 10 tabs in Safari and thus memory wasn't much of an issue. Web page sizes has also exploded over the last 5 years which compounds the issue. All of this means this mini OS inside the OS does indeed more RAm to reflect a changed use case and a changed context.
Though, again, more Ram doesn't stop the browser experience on Android phones from being generally worse than on the Iphone. Apple must be doing something right with this Ram :-).
No they don't. Single core performance is the most important since there's very little software that can actually utilize multiple cores (and keep all of them working all of the time). This is because outside of benchmarks it's extremely difficult to take an application and divide up the workload to keep so many cores busy. Add to this the fact that software basically just sits around idle waiting for user input before doing something.
And this is before we start getting into how well iOS is optimized vs the inefficient memory hog virtual machine that is Android.
Android kernel scheduler can use all 8 cores and spread the tasks with ease.
Since we're talking about apples future cores here and you seem to be really interested in single core numbers the tegra x2 is brute forcing 2600 single core and the galaxy s7 sporting the quad core mongoose is 2150 single core.
Those chips are competing with apple in the same time frame and I don't know why people are comparing these un released chips against Samsung's older gs6 soc that came out months ago
Disappointing, what happened to the days when every new A-series SoC was twice as powerful as the generation before? And while multi-core scores aren't everything the Samsung part absolutely thrashes the A9 and is only slightly slower than the A9X. In fact the A9-series multi-core performance is weaker than most of the candidates here. The Exynos M1 seems to be the powerhouse of current SoC's in multi-core the Tegra in single-core.I wonder if Qualcomm's upcoming 820 will beat these two? Surprising, I was expecting the A9 to do better than this. Luckily iOS is very efficient and doesn't need the fastest or the best to perform well.
The nvidia Denver 2 is a higher clocked dual core with insane gpu power.its x1 that came out this year will do 1 tera flop and they have murdered it with the new gpu.
Another bench shows Manhattan off screen test at like 117 vs 30 fps on the a9 that chip has 4x the gpu power of the a9 lol
The m1 got 60fps off screen and is a quad core vs the dual of the nvidia chip and is why its multi core bench is much higher
Samsung is working on an 8 core version for the tablet market so next year will be fun with all these guys competing
If nvidia and Samsung teamed up and used each others cores they would be unstoppable. Just imaging the m1 with nvidias 356 gpu core engine
Disappointing, what happened to the days when every new A-series SoC was twice as powerful as the generation before?
Unrealistic. Even these 30% year on year improvements are likely to taper off as die shrink hit limits. Software optimisation and efficiency is going to come to the fore.
Unrealistic. Even these 30% year on year improvements are likely to taper off as die shrink hit limits. Software optimisation and efficiency is going to come to the fore.
Yeah but everyone else is making huge gains from last year.
Samsung hit 7500 multi core while losing 4 cores and said m1 will be 60% faster then before and it looks like they hit the mark.
The nvidia Denver 2 is a higher clocked dual core with insane gpu power.its x1 that came out this year will do 1 tera flop and they have murdered it with the new gpu.
Another bench shows Manhattan off screen test at like 117 vs 30 fps on the a9 that chip has 4x the gpu power of the a9 lol
The m1 got 60fps off screen and is a quad core vs the dual of the nvidia chip and is why its multi core bench is much higher
Samsung is working on an 8 core version for the tablet market so next year will be fun with all these guys competing
If nvidia and Samsung teamed up and used each others cores they would be unstoppable. Just imaging the m1 with nvidias 356 gpu core engine
Nvidia is barely in the tablet market, has a low volume Shield product for gaming, and has abandoned the smartphone market. Ask yourself why that is.
Samsung is always "working" on something. Good for them. I hope they are successful with their new SoC's, but that has little impact on Apple. It's mainly hurting Qualcomm.
Well, it's mostly becoming a bigger issue BECAUSE users use their Iphones more and more like a computer, because if you ran single user level tasks, I'd argue it still is not an issue (except for a few apps). Which is logical, developpers should develop their software so it works on the platform they sell it! So, for most single user apps right now, the amount of memory is sufficient, though who knows what feature/performance boost those apps would have if devs were allowed a bit more space?
Would they be more lazy and use all ram available, would they just develop to the specs of the machines with the lowest RAM so they can sell their wares? Would their usage of RAM be adaptable (it should be) or the effort to do so not be see as worth it, etc. Many scenarios are possible.
My feeling is that more ram on and individual app level would change very little except in the case of specialized apps matched to hardware. Say, app X needs X specs to run. Those kinds of apps are generally not mainstream, they could be pro or business apps though.
I mean, there's miles of comments about the latest Android Flagship lagging in basic UI! and it is certainly not because they lack CPU/GPU or memory.
The place were more ram is useful is when users switch often from app to app, or need more apps open at a time. In this case, individual apps are still targeted to the wide mainstream, but more ram means those user level programs can coexist better (especially if their still targetting the lower RAM level machines as their baseline).
IF they were targeting the higher bound, getting more Ram would only provide a marginal improvement on those best machine and really bad performance on the rest..
Safari is a special case, because browsers, are basically their own little multitasking OS... Which must cope both with a lot of user inputs and random amount of very complex data. In the past, users didn't open 10 tabs in Safari and thus memory wasn't much of an issue. Web page sizes has also exploded over the last 5 years which compounds the issue. All of this means this mini OS inside the OS does indeed more RAm to reflect a changed use case and a changed context.
Though, again, more Ram doesn't stop the browser experience on Android phones from being generally worse than on the Iphone. Apple must be doing something right with this Ram :-).
Ad blocking will have more effect on browser performance by far than a generational SoC upgrade, but RAM will definitely give you a better tab experience.
Ad blocking will have more effect on browser performance by far than a generational SoC upgrade, but RAM will definitely give you a better tab experience.
Actually, if reports from the last few weeks are to be believed, many a site will shrink by 60-90% in size once all the goddamn trackers and scripts are deactivated.
That will be HUGELY beneficial for avoiding the dreaded tab reloading.
Also, I'm looking forward to this site no longer slowing my iPad Air 2 to a crawl when trying to type a reply.
Actually, if reports from the last few weeks are to be believed, many a site will shrink by 60-90% in size once all the goddamn trackers and scripts are deactivated.
That will be HUGELY beneficial for avoiding the dreaded tab reloading.
Also, I'm looking forward to this site no longer slowing my iPad Air 2 to a crawl when trying to type a reply.
So how does this impact the general user outside of battery life? I've never used my iPhone 6 and thought wow this is incredibly slow and laggy. If anything issues I've had with iOS are more related to RAM than CPU/GPU. Are the new iPhones going to get more RAM?
No, 1GB ought to be enough for anyone. /s
I do hope there is more in the next iPhone. I like the fancy memory management and all but...
Well, a lot of those tracker code are in the cache, especially the google one.... So, you're not loading it from the Internet at least every time (on the desktop). But, on mobile, because caching web site would probably trash your flash memory I think they do reload from the net. So, web sites load way slower on a mobile and thus even the god damn tracker code should be stripped out. With Web sites constantly gaining in crap instrumentation code, no matter how much memory you have you'll run into trouble in a few years. They'Re basically stealing our bandwidth to sell us "free" stuff.
From the scores it looks like they're continuing to bolster single threaded performance, and it still has two cores. Interesting. I wonder if the Air 2 will forever (or, for near future ever) be the odd man out?
Cool though. I'm glad Apple gets why single threaded performance is still important, and will pay for the die space and research for larger, higher IPC cores.
Actually, if reports from the last few weeks are to be believed, many a site will shrink by 60-90% in size once all the goddamn trackers and scripts are deactivated.
That will be HUGELY beneficial for avoiding the dreaded tab reloading.
Also, I'm looking forward to this site no longer slowing my iPad Air 2 to a crawl when trying to type a reply.
Actually, if reports from the last few weeks are to be believed, many a site will shrink by 60-90% in size once all the goddamn trackers and scripts are deactivated.
I have not tested any betas. Do you get to block selective scripts like Ghostery does? In my sites I only use Analytics and jQuery which are both pretty massive load on the device even though they are less than 100 kb. It is all the processing it takes to load and maintain all those functions in memory. This site with all the ads is for all intents and purposes, totally unusable using an iPad over cellular.
Comments
Well, go on GSMarena and other sites Android and tell people who bought those S6 that they are idiots and not using it right then. Because reviews from people about battery life have been that bad. But, hey, real life doesn't count hmm. Funny, how when Samsung was calling Iphone users wall huggers, it had a worse battery life hmmm.
Really? If you have evidence it would be great of you to share it. After a Google search the only thing related to poor battery life I found was a glitch that was patched around the time of launch (even the review of the S6 mentioned that the battery life test was updated to reflect the fix).
Why would I go around calling people idiots?...
Interesting. Not to spell out a 'dooms day' scenario for Qualcomm, but the competition is growing, fast.
Hey, troll, you didn't do any fracking search; yes, I am calling you straight up a liar.
If you google "S6 poor battery life".
(I could have googled 50 different variants of the same and gotten tens of thousands of sites. But, I didn't need to).
These are just a small sampling of what is returned.
If you go on those actual sites, the user reviews (which are often not indexed) are even worse than the editorial ones.
If you had discussed the merit of those sites/people, I probably wouldn't have called you out.
But you're ridiculous response merits a trashing.
---------------
This comment is fun, phone almost perfect... Except for crappy battery life...
http://fortune.com/2015/04/27/samsung-galaxy-s6-2/
From Tom's hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-s6-s6-edge,4157-10.html
They call battery life the phone's god damn Achile's heel... No issue hey!
http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/mobile-devices/galaxy-s6-battery-achilles-heel-or-no-big-deal/a/d-id/1320329
Article in July
http://www.androidorigin.com/samsung-galaxy-s6-vs-lg-g4-battery-life/
http://forums.androidcentral.com/ask-question/557880-galaxy-s6-battery-life-really-bad.html
http://forums.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-s6/561003-love-my-s6-but-not-happy-battery-lag.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2015/07/03/galaxy-s6-vs-galaxy-s6-edge-review/3/ (phone runs out at or before 4pm every day...)
http://www.phonearena.com/news/13-tips-and-tricks-to-improve-battery-life-on-the-Galaxy-S6S6-edge_id71353
http://www.justtechthings.com/how-to-fix-galaxy-s6-poor-battery-life/
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-s6-edge-1286088/review/5
http://www.justtechthings.com/samsung-galaxy-how-to-replace-fix-galaxy-s6-b.html?ytid=rZk0sCauius&qs=Samsung+Galaxy
http://inphonetech.blogspot.com/2015/07/7-reasons-not-to-buy-samsung-galaxy-s6.html
This one talks about update might give hope to S6 users and their battery life and lag...
http://news.softpedia.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s6-receiving-first-update-after-android-5-1-1-lollipop-487845.shtml
Hope springs eternal.... But, no, it didn't fix things as August articles point out.
If you think that was solved hey, this is August
http://www.phonearena.com/news/T-Mobile-update-to-Samsung-Galaxy-S6-and-Galaxy-S6-edge-sent-to-improve-battery-life_id71988
http://www.tmonews.com/2015/08/t-mobile-offering-solid-discounts-on-galaxy-s6-gs6-edge-lg-g4-and-more/ (seems the July update to fix battery didn't work..)
Oh, then there's all those other web sites... A small sampling, could have copied all day long.
Not that this would convince you hey. Not one fracking bit.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/galaxy-s6-problems-and-fixes/3/
http://www.gottabemobile.com/2015/04/15/how-to-fix-bad-samsung-galaxy-s6-battery-life/
http://www.androidcentral.com/galaxy-s6-battery-life-bad-update-might-help
http://bgr.com/2015/05/20/galaxy-s6-battery-life-google-now/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/this-one-tweak-could-boost-battery-life-on-your-galaxy-s6-or-s6-edge/
http://www.androidauthority.com/galaxy-s6-battery-life-update-601620/
http://www.sammobile.com/2015/05/19/having-bad-galaxy-s6-battery-life-blame-google/
http://www.ibtimes.com/samsung-galaxy-s6-problems-bad-battery-life-dodgy-wi-fi-among-top-issues-how-get-your-1885099
http://wccftech.com/fix-galaxy-s6-battery-issues/
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/615389-android/71714909
http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsung-galaxy-s6-review-battery-life-and-charging-page-4
http://news.softpedia.com/news/how-android-5-1-1-ruined-samsung-galaxy-s6-s-sheer-perfection-486645.shtml
http://www.portablechimp.com/how-to-maximize-samsung-galaxy-s6-battery-life/
http://www.androidbeat.com/2015/06/fix-5-common-samsung-galaxy-s6-edge-problems/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/3eq1a8/samsung_s6_psa_poor_battery_life_and_performance/
http://thenextweb.com/gadgets/2015/08/14/samsung-galaxy-s6-edge-3-month-review-im-worried-about-the-s6-edge/
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/galaxy-s6-s6-edge-how-improve-battery-life-1498547
https://crowdsupport.telstra.com.au/t5/Samsung-Galaxy-S6-S6-edge/Galaxy-S6-Battery-Issues-Poor-Performanc-e/td-p/466460
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/androidauthority/if_youre_experiencing_poor_battery_life_on_your_galaxy_s6_try_updating_this_app/
http://www.mobileburn.com/24400/news/samsung-galaxy-s6-has-worse-battery-life-than-galaxy-s5-but-it?s-not-that-bad
http://sonictech101.blogspot.com/2015/05/galaxy-s6-what-about-battery-life.html
http://www.authcom.com/a-simple-google-now-trick-might-fix-poor-battery-life-on-galaxy-s6-and-other-phones/
http://www.droidforums.xyz/threads/fix-poor-battery-life-after-rooting-galaxy-s6.281174/
http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/31/8317743/samsung-galaxy-s6-edge-review
http://droidsolve.com/samsung-galaxy-s6-battery-life-draining-fast-how-to-fix-the-issue/
http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/350329-samsung-galaxy-s6-battery-life/
https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/start-up-s6-battery-life-datasift-squeezed-notifying-apple-watch-and-more/
http://www.engadget.com/products/samsung/galaxy/s6/ (Good review except... You guessed it battery life)
http://www.cnet.com/uk/products/samsung-galaxy-s6/user-reviews/ (worse user reviews anywhere!)
This si extremely misleading. First even if the app is single threaded the other core will still be in use, iOS is a multitasking OS even if half the world doesn't understand that. Beyond that apps are often able to use cores in bursts that highly justify the extra cores being there. These bursts of usage are often when the app most needs them to retain user interactivity.
Sometimes yes sometime no, a categorical remark here is out of place and misleading. Beyond that the most important time for parallel exception is when the app can use the capability to remain interactive. Beyond that I'm not sure you understand the threading model used on these devices.
In many cases this is very true which make one then ask what are you whining about. The important thing in any case is that when the use inputs action into the app something happens. Cores can at times be very important in the responsiveness of an app when it is called upon to actually do something.
IOS isn't all that well optimized if you consider the speed ups that are coming with iOS9. In fact that is another meaningless talking point. Further at this time in history there isn't a device platform out there that needs more RAM compared to the iOS devices. In fact RAM is by far the biggest issue on iOS devices when it comes to delivering a better user experience.
Well, it's mostly becoming a bigger issue BECAUSE users use their Iphones more and more like a computer, because if you ran single user level tasks, I'd argue it still is not an issue (except for a few apps). Which is logical, developpers should develop their software so it works on the platform they sell it! So, for most single user apps right now, the amount of memory is sufficient, though who knows what feature/performance boost those apps would have if devs were allowed a bit more space?
Would they be more lazy and use all ram available, would they just develop to the specs of the machines with the lowest RAM so they can sell their wares? Would their usage of RAM be adaptable (it should be) or the effort to do so not be see as worth it, etc. Many scenarios are possible.
My feeling is that more ram on and individual app level would change very little except in the case of specialized apps matched to hardware. Say, app X needs X specs to run. Those kinds of apps are generally not mainstream, they could be pro or business apps though.
I mean, there's miles of comments about the latest Android Flagship lagging in basic UI! and it is certainly not because they lack CPU/GPU or memory.
The place were more ram is useful is when users switch often from app to app, or need more apps open at a time. In this case, individual apps are still targeted to the wide mainstream, but more ram means those user level programs can coexist better (especially if their still targetting the lower RAM level machines as their baseline).
IF they were targeting the higher bound, getting more Ram would only provide a marginal improvement on those best machine and really bad performance on the rest..
Safari is a special case, because browsers, are basically their own little multitasking OS... Which must cope both with a lot of user inputs and random amount of very complex data. In the past, users didn't open 10 tabs in Safari and thus memory wasn't much of an issue. Web page sizes has also exploded over the last 5 years which compounds the issue. All of this means this mini OS inside the OS does indeed more RAm to reflect a changed use case and a changed context.
Though, again, more Ram doesn't stop the browser experience on Android phones from being generally worse than on the Iphone. Apple must be doing something right with this Ram :-).
Android kernel scheduler can use all 8 cores and spread the tasks with ease.
Since we're talking about apples future cores here and you seem to be really interested in single core numbers the tegra x2 is brute forcing 2600 single core and the galaxy s7 sporting the quad core mongoose is 2150 single core.
Those chips are competing with apple in the same time frame and I don't know why people are comparing these un released chips against Samsung's older gs6 soc that came out months ago
Disappointing, what happened to the days when every new A-series SoC was twice as powerful as the generation before? And while multi-core scores aren't everything the Samsung part absolutely thrashes the A9 and is only slightly slower than the A9X. In fact the A9-series multi-core performance is weaker than most of the candidates here. The Exynos M1 seems to be the powerhouse of current SoC's in multi-core the Tegra in single-core.I wonder if Qualcomm's upcoming 820 will beat these two? Surprising, I was expecting the A9 to do better than this. Luckily iOS is very efficient and doesn't need the fastest or the best to perform well.
Another bench shows Manhattan off screen test at like 117 vs 30 fps on the a9 that chip has 4x the gpu power of the a9 lol
The m1 got 60fps off screen and is a quad core vs the dual of the nvidia chip and is why its multi core bench is much higher
Samsung is working on an 8 core version for the tablet market so next year will be fun with all these guys competing
If nvidia and Samsung teamed up and used each others cores they would be unstoppable. Just imaging the m1 with nvidias 356 gpu core engine
Yeah but everyone else is making huge gains from last year.
Samsung hit 7500 multi core while losing 4 cores and said m1 will be 60% faster then before and it looks like they hit the mark.
The nvidia Denver 2 is a higher clocked dual core with insane gpu power.its x1 that came out this year will do 1 tera flop and they have murdered it with the new gpu.
Another bench shows Manhattan off screen test at like 117 vs 30 fps on the a9 that chip has 4x the gpu power of the a9 lol
The m1 got 60fps off screen and is a quad core vs the dual of the nvidia chip and is why its multi core bench is much higher
Samsung is working on an 8 core version for the tablet market so next year will be fun with all these guys competing
If nvidia and Samsung teamed up and used each others cores they would be unstoppable. Just imaging the m1 with nvidias 356 gpu core engine
Nvidia is barely in the tablet market, has a low volume Shield product for gaming, and has abandoned the smartphone market. Ask yourself why that is.
Samsung is always "working" on something. Good for them. I hope they are successful with their new SoC's, but that has little impact on Apple. It's mainly hurting Qualcomm.
Well, it's mostly becoming a bigger issue BECAUSE users use their Iphones more and more like a computer, because if you ran single user level tasks, I'd argue it still is not an issue (except for a few apps). Which is logical, developpers should develop their software so it works on the platform they sell it! So, for most single user apps right now, the amount of memory is sufficient, though who knows what feature/performance boost those apps would have if devs were allowed a bit more space?
Would they be more lazy and use all ram available, would they just develop to the specs of the machines with the lowest RAM so they can sell their wares? Would their usage of RAM be adaptable (it should be) or the effort to do so not be see as worth it, etc. Many scenarios are possible.
My feeling is that more ram on and individual app level would change very little except in the case of specialized apps matched to hardware. Say, app X needs X specs to run. Those kinds of apps are generally not mainstream, they could be pro or business apps though.
I mean, there's miles of comments about the latest Android Flagship lagging in basic UI! and it is certainly not because they lack CPU/GPU or memory.
The place were more ram is useful is when users switch often from app to app, or need more apps open at a time. In this case, individual apps are still targeted to the wide mainstream, but more ram means those user level programs can coexist better (especially if their still targetting the lower RAM level machines as their baseline).
IF they were targeting the higher bound, getting more Ram would only provide a marginal improvement on those best machine and really bad performance on the rest..
Safari is a special case, because browsers, are basically their own little multitasking OS... Which must cope both with a lot of user inputs and random amount of very complex data. In the past, users didn't open 10 tabs in Safari and thus memory wasn't much of an issue. Web page sizes has also exploded over the last 5 years which compounds the issue. All of this means this mini OS inside the OS does indeed more RAm to reflect a changed use case and a changed context.
Though, again, more Ram doesn't stop the browser experience on Android phones from being generally worse than on the Iphone. Apple must be doing something right with this Ram :-).
Ad blocking will have more effect on browser performance by far than a generational SoC upgrade, but RAM will definitely give you a better tab experience.
Ad blocking will have more effect on browser performance by far than a generational SoC upgrade, but RAM will definitely give you a better tab experience.
Actually, if reports from the last few weeks are to be believed, many a site will shrink by 60-90% in size once all the goddamn trackers and scripts are deactivated.
That will be HUGELY beneficial for avoiding the dreaded tab reloading.
Also, I'm looking forward to this site no longer slowing my iPad Air 2 to a crawl when trying to type a reply.
Actually, if reports from the last few weeks are to be believed, many a site will shrink by 60-90% in size once all the goddamn trackers and scripts are deactivated.
That will be HUGELY beneficial for avoiding the dreaded tab reloading.
Also, I'm looking forward to this site no longer slowing my iPad Air 2 to a crawl when trying to type a reply.
Very good point on the site size. Kudos.
So how does this impact the general user outside of battery life? I've never used my iPhone 6 and thought wow this is incredibly slow and laggy. If anything issues I've had with iOS are more related to RAM than CPU/GPU. Are the new iPhones going to get more RAM?
No, 1GB ought to be enough for anyone. /s
I do hope there is more in the next iPhone. I like the fancy memory management and all but...
Where's a phone or table with X1? If you put a X1 on a phone: Burn, burn, burn, burn.
Learn before posting anything.
Very good point on the site size. Kudos.
Well, a lot of those tracker code are in the cache, especially the google one.... So, you're not loading it from the Internet at least every time (on the desktop). But, on mobile, because caching web site would probably trash your flash memory I think they do reload from the net. So, web sites load way slower on a mobile and thus even the god damn tracker code should be stripped out. With Web sites constantly gaining in crap instrumentation code, no matter how much memory you have you'll run into trouble in a few years. They'Re basically stealing our bandwidth to sell us "free" stuff.
Apple phones and tablets have a disadvantage because of the display technology: oled uses a lot less energy than led backlighted IPS screens.
From the scores it looks like they're continuing to bolster single threaded performance, and it still has two cores. Interesting. I wonder if the Air 2 will forever (or, for near future ever) be the odd man out?
Cool though. I'm glad Apple gets why single threaded performance is still important, and will pay for the die space and research for larger, higher IPC cores.
In which case tests should be done over time and that factored in surely?
Have you tried http://www.adblockforios.com?
Actually, if reports from the last few weeks are to be believed, many a site will shrink by 60-90% in size once all the goddamn trackers and scripts are deactivated.
I have not tested any betas. Do you get to block selective scripts like Ghostery does? In my sites I only use Analytics and jQuery which are both pretty massive load on the device even though they are less than 100 kb. It is all the processing it takes to load and maintain all those functions in memory. This site with all the ads is for all intents and purposes, totally unusable using an iPad over cellular.