Will the ipad 3 be fast enough browse without lagging?

Discussion in 'iPad' started by mellofello, Feb 20, 2012.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    #1
    I have owned 3 ipads in the 2 years that they have been out. I love the form factor but I always get frustrated with how slow they are to load pages. The ipad 2 was a step in the right direction, but still laggs behind any decent computer in rendering a page, and wifi throughput. I got rid of my ipad 2 a few months ago.

    While perusing the thread with ipad retina wallpapers, I noticed that it took a good 2-3 seconds to render the photos on my macbook air. This was on a 30 mbps fiber line.

    Unless they have really, really bumped up the horsepower, and ram on the ipad I'm afraid that it will lag terribly trying to push all those pixels. I'm a devoted apple fan, and I will be preordering for day one. My main wish even over the display, was for faster browsing.

    Click some of these wallpapers with your ipad and see how long it takes to load.

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16352168/iPad Retina Wallpapers/Lion.png

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16352168/iPad Retina Wallpapers/Floating Leaves.png

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16352168/iPad Retina Wallpapers/Eagle & Waterfall.png

    Imagine if every page took that long.

    I really hope that they don't put the cart infront of the horse here.
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    iHeartsteve

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    #2
    Yeah took about 2 seconds to load. Im not buying ipad3 unless it's quadcore, retina display and some other perks lol.
     
  3. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #3
    ...it took Chrome a good two seconds to load that lion image. Point?
     
  4. macrumors demi-god

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #4
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

    Think u need to check your connection mate. My iPads load them as quick as any desktop browser
     
  5. macrumors 68020

    miamialley

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Location:
    California
    #5
    Yeah, I don't follow you on this one. My iPad probably took 4 seconds, while my MBP took 2/3 seconds.

    Speedtest.net just clocked my iPad 2 at 21.19 and my MBP 22.02.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Location:
    SF Bay area
    #6
    I find it really hard to make comparisons by looking at web sites. Even though the internet connection may be fast I find all sorts of unexplained latencies that make comparisons difficult.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2011
    #7
    OP, imagine that the iPad 3 comes in two versions, identical hardware with the exception of the screen. There's one with a standard 1024x768 screen, and another with a retina display at 2048x1536. They are still going to take exactly the same amount of time to load a webpage. The same information has to be downloaded from the servers regardless of whether or not all the pixels are displayed.
     
  8. macrumors G4

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #8
    Had my desktop (2009 iMac running Windows 7 through bootcamp) and iPad 2 side-by-side, both connected to the internet through the same wifi network on the same router, clicked the link on both at once, they pretty much both loaded at the same time, that is, close enough that I couldn't really tell any difference.
     
  9. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    #9
    Yes, I have the same problem on my iPad2, very slow to load pages and Map.
    I also would like the iPad 3 will have retina display...
    And don't know if the iPad 3 will be fast, this would be known until the iPad 3 is out!
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    iHeartsteve

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    #10
    ? Who cares about chrome. Safari is on apples and that's what most people use.

    It's not out of the norm that most people want faster processor.
     
  11. MRU
    macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #11

    Emoo is it possible that you don't get sarcasm? Or do all posters have to start their posts with <scarcasm warning> and end with a ;)
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    GekkePrutser

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #12
    I don't really agree... The page loading doesn't just involve the actual download of the content, but also rendering the fonts, rescaling pictures, etc. That's a lot more work when it has to push 4x the pixels.

    Technically the 'loading' time is the same but the time before it's displayed could well be different.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    It sounds like you've got a misconception about how the web works. The web doesn't download huge images of pages to your browser. That would have been so bandwidth intensive the web would have never been feasible on dial-up.

    When you download a web page most of what you are downloading is text in the page itself and any included JavaScript and CSS files. The amount of this stuff is completely independent of the resolution it's rendered at. You also download a bunch of individual images. On this page, for example, there are separate images for the MacRumors logo, the advert, the similes and probably the header. Web designers could decide to upgrade these images to a Retina resolution but until they do the size of these images won't change either.

    The amount of processing it takes an iPad to convert this text and these images into a single image that can be displayed on a Retina display will definitely be higher than for a non-Retina display. However loading a single huge image into the browser is not a good test for this. Firstly the vast majority of the time will be spent loading the image which is irrelevant as I've talked about above. Secondly decompressing a JPEG image is a very different task to rendering text into an image.

    In any case the fact that more processing power is required is obvious and I'm confident that Apple will have realised this and will have supplied the iPad 3 with enough CPU and GPU poke for the job.
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    redscull

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #14
    My iPad 2 renders most web pages in the same amount of time as my laptop or desktop. The rare page that is actually slower to display is always due to terrible coding and massive ad infestation. Those websites are garbage. It is inexcusable for a page to need more hardware than an iPad 2 to render in <2 seconds (and assuming fast broadband).
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Dweez

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Location:
    Down by the river
    #15
    On my iPad 2:

    4 seconds for the lion
    3 seconds for the leaves
    5 seconds for the waterfall.
     
  16. Emoo, Feb 21, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2012

    macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #16
    Ta, it's entirely possible I missed the point. XD I've never noticed an appreciable difference between the iPad 2 I sometimes use and my laptop's browser speed, is all.

    To iHeartSteve, I only mentioned my browser because I don't use Safari unless it's on an iPad/iPhone.

    I think I must have missed the boat here, so my apologies. :)
     

Share This Page