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.
iPad 2 : Will 512MB Solve Browsing Issues ?
- Thread starter OSMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is not a memory issue; it is a safari issue.
Atomic web browser seems to handle having 5-6 tabs open without reloadng.
Too bad that Apple integrated safari into the OS so tightly tha it isn't always easy to use another browser (ie hyperlinks in docments open safari instead of whatever web browser you want).
Hmm, that sort of sounds likeMicrosoft and IE....
Atomic web browser seems to handle having 5-6 tabs open without reloadng.
Too bad that Apple integrated safari into the OS so tightly tha it isn't always easy to use another browser (ie hyperlinks in docments open safari instead of whatever web browser you want).
Hmm, that sort of sounds likeMicrosoft and IE....
A faster processor in the iPad2 will help more than RAM. I purchased the Xoom to try for a day or two but will return today. The higher performance CPU make all the difference in the world.
A iPad2 with a faster processor will be much smoother.
A iPad2 with a faster processor will be much smoother.
You think the iPad on 512 MB will perform better than the iPhone 4? Whenever I go into iPhone 4 Safari I can open 4 of 8 open pages without reloading. And that is if I'm lucky.
Is it a consensus that 1 GB will use more battery? Because I really think that iPad needs it. It won't get it, but it needs it. Or Apple will have to start using a swap file.
Is it a consensus that 1 GB will use more battery? Because I really think that iPad needs it. It won't get it, but it needs it. Or Apple will have to start using a swap file.
...
I put the virtual memory hack on my ipad with ios 3.2 and didn't have issue with that anymore. I really regretted upgrading to ios 4 because with the jailbroken 3.2 multiasking was sooooo much better that apples stupid implmentation. With their way of doing it you would have to kill apps when using virtual memory hack manually which is a pain in the butt
I put the virtual memory hack on my ipad with ios 3.2 and didn't have issue with that anymore. I really regretted upgrading to ios 4 because with the jailbroken 3.2 multiasking was sooooo much better that apples stupid implmentation. With their way of doing it you would have to kill apps when using virtual memory hack manually which is a pain in the butt
I think the iPad 2 will need 1gb of ram if its to handle multi tasking, and multiple tabs in a browser well.
I let web pages load fully and don't get checker board unless I am using 5-6 tabs.
I also make sure nothing else is running. My annoyance is with going back a page and having it reload.
I also agree with Stealthipad. I got a more modern desktop, and Safari smokes on it.
I agree that the VM hack was better than iOS's VM handling.
I wish we could have both the VM Hack, and also have some apps do state saving (I don't think many applications need to actually run in the background).
VM hack made the ipad less responsive and I had a lot of freezes using it as well. There's no excuse for not including a gig of ram in the new ipad since memory is CHEAP.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
They are even cheaper than you think. I've heard they've requested Samsung to put RAM into the same package as the SOC(processor chip) instead of a separate spot on the board, which should simplify the logic board and lessen the manufacturing cost but limits the amount of RAM that can be fit in.
With iOS 5, I bet we will have full TRIM support for our flash drives, and so I think Apple will enable virtual memory. so we might not feel so bad about the 512MB that Apple will probably give us this next go around.
Isnt the RAM on the first gen iPad part of the SoC as well?
I had the occasional stutter when I used the VM Hack but the benefits greatly outweighed an odd second or two of load time.
Isnt the RAM on the first gen iPad part of the SoC as well?
I had the occasional stutter when I used the VM Hack but the benefits greatly outweighed an odd second or two of load time.
I agree. 512MB will make things better but won't solve the problem. We need more RAM.
I don't actually see what memory has got to do with the web browsing rendering speed.
Going back a page, yup perhaps
Multiple tabs, yup, I can see that.
But a blank iPad just loading up one web page, and being slow? I can't see why that's anything to do with memory.
It's do do with WiFi speed, we know the iPad is not a true "N" device speed wise due to aerials inside compared to a macbook.
And the CPU / GPU speeds.
Plus of course the rending engine/code by Apple.
I'd think these were the things that were controlling the speed a single web page appeared on screen, not the Ram.
Going back a page, yup perhaps
Multiple tabs, yup, I can see that.
But a blank iPad just loading up one web page, and being slow? I can't see why that's anything to do with memory.
It's do do with WiFi speed, we know the iPad is not a true "N" device speed wise due to aerials inside compared to a macbook.
And the CPU / GPU speeds.
Plus of course the rending engine/code by Apple.
I'd think these were the things that were controlling the speed a single web page appeared on screen, not the Ram.
Yeah, I kinda think Samsung is not involved in the SoC design. They do have something to do with the LCD, but the processor is now done by a subsidiary of Apple themselves.
The difference in power consumption is negligible. iPad 2 won't get it because Apple wants you to keep on upgrading to the latest.
I just found this video, which seems to show on WiFi the iPad and the iPhone are equally as slow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGkiWlZd2jQ
For reference, I just tried those sites myself on my PC.
www.sonystyle.com took about 2 seconds to render on my desktop.
http://www.apple.com takes about 1 second.
http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/GB-EN/Home takes about 1.5 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGkiWlZd2jQ
For reference, I just tried those sites myself on my PC.
www.sonystyle.com took about 2 seconds to render on my desktop.
http://www.apple.com takes about 1 second.
http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/GB-EN/Home takes about 1.5 seconds
It is a combination between chip and bandwidth. Actually, the weakest link is the culprit. Most of the time it is bandwidth. If the site has a bunch of bloatware, it will take longer to load.
Flash !! Desktop has more powerful chip and hard wired Internet access (bandwidth don't deviate like wireless).
It helps with multiple pages but b/n 256 and 512 is small. If apple goes with 1gb or more than it helps with pages even more, however dual core helps even moreso. Consistent bandwidth with low latency solves this than ram or chip.