Here's my Moto G reloading on 2 tabs.
Apple.com and TheVerge.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6m6tvtpdrQ
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How fast and fluid does your new iPhone 6/6 plus feel?
- Thread starter lavrishevo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple.com and TheVerge.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6m6tvtpdrQ
Because they know people will buy it anyway.
When you have people defending the low ram and reloading and constant purging as a feature or an intended result you know you can sell them anything at that point.
"Because they know people will buy it anyway" isn't a reason. People would have bought the iPhone 6 Plus if it were the exact same guts as the 5s in a 5.5" package. Same battery life, same 1136x640 display, same A7 processor, no OIS, no 240 FPS slow motion, no landscape mode, etc. And yet they made noticeable improvements, some of which increased the cost of the device.
It's less of people "defending" the low RAM, and more of people saying that it's a great device despite the low amount of RAM. It's really not the end of the world, and there are other options on the market for those that absolutely need extra RAM.
Not to mention, extra RAM doesn't solve the problem behind tab reloading, it merely cures the symptoms. I would rather Apple come up with a software solution that benefits all devices from the iPhone 4S and iPad 2 forward rather than just throw RAM at the problem, which only benefits the newest devices.
Your last paragraph is pointless. That's true with any device that doesn't cache browsers to a swap partition and instead keeps it in the RAM. It's about what is acceptable and with how light ios can be 2gb would greatly have improved tab reloads to a point where I don't think ANYONE would complain.
Then how can older Android devices with 1 GB of RAM hold more tabs without reloading? If Android is capable of doing it, I'd think that iOS could be capable of it too.
Regardless, the 2 GB argument boils down to this- Apple could have and should have put it in the 6 and 6 Plus... but they didn't. The topic has been beaten to death over the last week or so, what more is there to say?
The OS runs smoothly on my new 6...but I can't tell any speed difference between it and my 5s. I'm sure, from past experience that the 6s will run like it's supposed to.
Apple has been doing this for years, and they are pros at it. They know the fanboys and general public alike will flock to buy whatever they produce, to an extent. They generally give just enough of a boost in performance to hook the prospective buyer for another purchase each year.
Apple has been doing this for years, and they are pros at it. They know the fanboys and general public alike will flock to buy whatever they produce, to an extent. They generally give just enough of a boost in performance to hook the prospective buyer for another purchase each year.
Could be better browser memory management, could be it caches tabs to storage, could be a few things. But I haven't seen anything to suggest 1gb android devices run any better tab wise. Some guy posted his moto g reloading with 2 tabs. Pretty sure it has 1 gb of RAM.
Some websites are pigs, especially those. Individual pages can eat up over 300MB. Try as you might, a mobile device is still not a full-blown computer and it's not designed the same way. You can have a dozen lightweight tabs open without incident, but memory pressure is always going to be a factor and web tabs shouldn't get special treatment when far more functional apps make do just fine.
It happens on Android devices all the time--yes, even those with more RAM. iOS is more aggressive about clearing out memory, and it would still be that way even with more RAM. iOS will always be pushier than Android.
Being able to hold another tab or two in memory wouldn't stop the complaints because people like you will always want n+1 tabs open...and it would just encourage lazy app developers to ignore performance. They've made a deliberate engineering choice for performance reasons, and it's really pretty crazy to have to sift through uninformed whining about it and a request for a spec checkbox that wouldn't actually solve the problem.
Look at the games that run on iOS. RAM is not the problem. Bloated websites are the problem.
You're dead wrong, just because you can't get so much ram that you can have 300 tabs open doesn't mean you should just say ******* it and only add 1 gb and the ability to have 3 open. That's absolutely stupid.
Apps reload and purge constantly too. It's not just tabs, so don't act like web pages are getting special treatment.
"Bloated websites are the problem."
Yeah it's everyone's fault but apple. They can do no wrong. Praise our gods, praise be to them and their glory.
I'm coming from a 5s.
Can I tell its faster? A little bit, but 25% faster? No!! Of course Apple said up to 25% faster so I'm not complaining.
The screen however IMO even though it's the same ppi looks much better in my eyes. It's also much nicer feeling.
I honestly really like the iPhone 6.
Can I tell its faster? A little bit, but 25% faster? No!! Of course Apple said up to 25% faster so I'm not complaining.
The screen however IMO even though it's the same ppi looks much better in my eyes. It's also much nicer feeling.
I honestly really like the iPhone 6.
I wonder how much of the battery drain is iOS 8. I installed iOS on both my iPhone 5 and iPad Air - and both seem to be using battery more quickly. Maybe it's the continuity feature? After all, for that to work, the device constantly has to scan its environment.
Oh, is that so? Tell me, which LPDDR3 package would you integrate into the A8? What's the impact on the thermal envelope? Surely you can show me the math on standby power consumption vs. NAND I/O. How does the custom memory controller handle write leveling and latency? You've got it all figured out, clearly, and this braindead obvious solution has been ignored for some nefarious conspiracy to give Apple customers a poor experience.
Yes, by design.
Settle yourself down. All I'm saying is that more RAM won't fix the problem.
Nothing is going to fix the problem one hundred percent stop saying that, that's the nature of the beast if it doesn't have a swap partition, even then you could get reloads if you exceeded that.
That does not mean that the problem wouldn't be much better or even a non issue with more RAM.
As for the power that's an old cop out apologist argument. Ram power usage is completely negligible and if you weren't reloading tabs and apps constantly you would actually probably save a small amount of power.
I don't think my 6+ is faster than my 5S. That said, ios 8 slowed my 5S down considerably upon installation.
My LTE is also slower. I was used to getting over 40 Mbps, now I'm getting 25-30 Mbps.
As for battery, I'm getting less life than my 5S. Yes, the Keynote said 12 hours of surfing LTE, but that's not what I'm experiencing. I guess I'll see how it goes over the next few days.
My LTE is also slower. I was used to getting over 40 Mbps, now I'm getting 25-30 Mbps.
As for battery, I'm getting less life than my 5S. Yes, the Keynote said 12 hours of surfing LTE, but that's not what I'm experiencing. I guess I'll see how it goes over the next few days.
I'm realising more and more it has more power all round. The OS really needs to be sorted out so the camera app can be completely efficient and reliable, but otherwise, no complaints.
If "much better" is being able to hold one or two more tabs in memory in more conditions, then fine. Keep in mind that iOS memory clearing is still going to be very aggressive, and all the other apps will expand to fill the available memory. Another 1GB wouldn't be dedicated entirely to Safari.
No, it is not. RAM is one of the largest overall power drains on a phone or tablet because it must be powered in all states: active, idle, or standby/sleep. In active use, it is dwarfed by the display and processing, and wireless radios can pull a lot of power, but is still one of the top 5-6 consumers of power even then. Depending on the density you select, it can also be extremely inefficient since 4x8Gb carries a large power overhead over 2x16Gb. Which package would you use? What are the engineering and design consequences of that decision? What are yield volumes and lead times for that product? Can it be produced in the tens of millions at a marketable price?
Again, I look forward to your careful and detailed analysis.
I believe an arstechnica article stated more ram would result in maybe a 5 or 10 minute usage loss on power that's nothing. We're talking about 1 freaking GIG here buddy.
So youre saying 1 whole gig of ram would result in one or two more tabs being able to be opened? That's flat out wrong. You have a whole nother gig that has nothing on it. The os is taking up say 6 hundred megabytes (guessing here) currently, that leaves the rest for apps, tabs everything else now. If you could hold onto 5 now, imagine how much more you could hold with another untouched one gigabyte.
So if RAM is so power-hungry, how come the Android phones with 3GB return significantly better battery life than the 1GB i6? Nobody is getting Apple's quoted battery life, and even that is less than some of the premium Android competition.
5-10 minutes in active usage is actually quite a large drop considering that the screen and CPU/GPU consume 75% of the power during that time. That's about a 10% hit to battery life for the balance of the system on a straight rundown, active the whole time. But again, the big hit is in idle and standby time, when RAM jumps ahead of the processor and display in power consumption, and can change standby performance by hours or even days on some of these huge-battery devices.
You keep saying that so emphatically, and yet with nothing to support it. If you're so convinced that it's a magic solution, surely you have data to show for it. Let's see it.
It wouldn't have nothing on it. That's the point. You're not understanding how memory management works. It would be full of other pages from all sorts of threads. It'd be far from an "untouched" gigabyte.
Because battery life is complicated. Nothing is power hungry compared to the displays in these devices, which eat half or more of the battery. Battery life is also heavily influenced by individual use patterns. Most of those phones have higher battery capacity than an iPhone, too. Even if you control for all of those things as best you can, phones have very different hardware once you move past broad specs. Usage and optimization has a lot to do with it--Android needs more RAM to work fluidly, and so it's a higher priority when engineering an Android device to make sure there's enough power for it. There are different tradeoffs for different components as a result.
If you need 3GB of RAM, you can find the power to make it happen and still keep the phone running for a competitive amount of time, but it comes at the expense of something else the phone could otherwise do.
I see no difference between the 5s and the 6 in terms of speed. Instant everything vs instant instant everything. It's all well past the point of diminishing returns.
Apple isn't going to pay you for this you know that right? You keep saying RAM has no effect and that android needs more ram all this stuff, nothing to support it. You have the burden of proof on you buddy not me, RAMs purpose is clear and has been for a while. It's use on desktops is apparent with the effect on multitasking and other tasks.
I don't think you understand how memory management works either.
I have:
OS: 600 megabytes
Twitter: 100 megabytes
Instagram: 150 megabytes
Now lets say the rest of the free RAM is allocated to tabs. That's not much is it?
Now add another gigabyte of ram with the same applications above. Far more RAM then right? What's so hard about that? It's simple math.
Give me an iphone with 2gb of RAM and I will show you, but unfortunately that doesn't exist yet now does it? Now sure they could still purge tabs even with more RAM if they wanted but there would be no point if you had free memory.
I don't see why Safari would have a need for more RAM... We're talking about a phone here, not a desktop computer.
The phone can mostly only display a single window at once. Applications in the background only need to be active if they're actually doing something in the background - and if they are, only the active portion of the applications really needs to be loaded in RAM. There is no point in keeping the fully loaded tabs of Safari in RAM when Safari is not in the foreground: there is no background processing being done there. Keeping these tabs in RAM would only deprive the application in the foreground and the active applications in the background of that RAM.
That's why iOS works well with a low amount of RAM : it's only used when it is needed and the OS is pretty aggressive about giving that RAM to the applications that really need it.
The problem with Safari is not with a lack of RAM (I suspect Safari would behave the same even with 64 Go of RAM), it's not a problem with the OS (the design is good, the application gets all it needs to implement different strategies), it's really only a problem with the strategy chosen for Safari.
You could solve tab reloading without any additional RAM, you just need to serialize the tab content to the filesystem everytime you need to free some RAM and then reload it from the filesystem when it is needed again (with necessary checks to avoid stale content). Doing that, you can have dozens of tabs without needing any additional RAM, at the cost of some disk space.
I suspect some alternative browsers might do that, especially if they are power users oriented. Safari is certainly not power user oriented, and the strategy chosen by its developers makes sense if you consider the average user use case with only a couple of tabs opened and mostly forgotten instead of manually closed.
The phone can mostly only display a single window at once. Applications in the background only need to be active if they're actually doing something in the background - and if they are, only the active portion of the applications really needs to be loaded in RAM. There is no point in keeping the fully loaded tabs of Safari in RAM when Safari is not in the foreground: there is no background processing being done there. Keeping these tabs in RAM would only deprive the application in the foreground and the active applications in the background of that RAM.
That's why iOS works well with a low amount of RAM : it's only used when it is needed and the OS is pretty aggressive about giving that RAM to the applications that really need it.
The problem with Safari is not with a lack of RAM (I suspect Safari would behave the same even with 64 Go of RAM), it's not a problem with the OS (the design is good, the application gets all it needs to implement different strategies), it's really only a problem with the strategy chosen for Safari.
You could solve tab reloading without any additional RAM, you just need to serialize the tab content to the filesystem everytime you need to free some RAM and then reload it from the filesystem when it is needed again (with necessary checks to avoid stale content). Doing that, you can have dozens of tabs without needing any additional RAM, at the cost of some disk space.
I suspect some alternative browsers might do that, especially if they are power users oriented. Safari is certainly not power user oriented, and the strategy chosen by its developers makes sense if you consider the average user use case with only a couple of tabs opened and mostly forgotten instead of manually closed.