iPad doesn't finish rendering websites with lots of images

SebZen

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 12, 2009
360
0
First I'm typing this from iPad :)

Anyway it's pretty bad with rendering many images at once. For example here http://acidcow.com/fun/8608-acid-picdump-165-pics.html

It doesn't render the last 25% or so of the images

Same with images on Gizmodo (article with updated app reviews)

Very disappointing but otherwise the device is excellent. Do you think they can fix this or is this lack of RAM?
 

Diversion

macrumors 6502a
Oct 5, 2007
739
108
Jacksonville, Florida
Also typing from the iPad.. Just tried the link you provided on my iPad and I got the same results at you. It's definitely a ram limitation. If you load that link on your computer (as I did in firefox) the memory used to render the entire page was over 200megs. It is still assumed the iPad has 512megs of ram which is why it can't load a page like that.
 

SebZen

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 12, 2009
360
0
Wow Pad Info app shows 150MB RAM total. That's pathetic!!

Edit: nvm I reset the iPad and now it's showing 222MB
 

iParis

macrumors 68040
Jul 29, 2008
3,662
26
New Mexico
Wow Pad Info app shows 150MB RAM total. That's pathetic!!

Edit: nvm I reset the iPad and now it's showing 222MB
I think what you're seeing, the 150MB and 222MB, is the amount of FREE MEMORY. There is now way they would put in less ram than the iPhone and iPod touch have.
 

yyy

macrumors regular
Feb 10, 2007
172
0
My 3 years old Mac Mini running Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) has exactly 512MB of RAM and loaded the whole page in a little bit more than a minute. It slowed down my computer a little bit but I was already running a few other applications in the background.
 

iParis

macrumors 68040
Jul 29, 2008
3,662
26
New Mexico
My 3 years old Mac Mini running Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) has exactly 512MB of RAM and loaded the whole page in a little bit more than a minute. It slowed down my computer a little bit but I was already running a few other applications in the background.
There's also the fact that your Mac mini have a faster processor and it's ram probably runs at faster speeds.
 

SebZen

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 12, 2009
360
0
I think what you're seeing, the 150MB and 222MB, is the amount of FREE MEMORY. There is now way they would put in less ram than the iPhone and iPod touch have.
No it says total RAM. App must be buggy because it keeps changing but after a fresh restart it shows 222 and goes down as I use the iPad so I guess it's 256 total
 

yyy

macrumors regular
Feb 10, 2007
172
0
There's also the fact that your Mac mini have a faster processor and it's ram probably runs at faster speeds.
If I'm not mistaken, the faster processor might affect the speed in which the pages loads, not the quantity of rendered images. I have a feeling the iPad's Safari is programmed to stop loading after a number of seconds. Maybe the Opera Mini app would do a better job, if it gets approved.
 

iParis

macrumors 68040
Jul 29, 2008
3,662
26
New Mexico
If I'm not mistaken, the faster processor might affect the speed in which the pages loads, not the quantity of rendered images. I have a feeling the iPad's Safari is programmed to stop loading after a number of seconds. Maybe the Opera Mini app would do a better job, if it gets approved.
Well then if the images loaded faster, perhaps they would all load before safari.app timed out.
 

tdream

macrumors 65816
Jan 15, 2009
1,093
41
Also typing from the iPad.. Just tried the link you provided on my iPad and I got the same results at you. It's definitely a ram limitation. If you load that link on your computer (as I did in firefox) the memory used to render the entire page was over 200megs. It is still assumed the iPad has 512megs of ram which is why it can't load a page like that.
It is assumed the iPad has 256MB as no one has reported higher than that.
 

tdream

macrumors 65816
Jan 15, 2009
1,093
41
I'm sure they're aware 256MB is limiting at some things. But 256 in 2010? Really?
I know, pathetic right? The same as the 3GS. Works brilliant on a 480x320 screen. Weaksauce on a 1024x768. Is 512MB a big ask in 2010, when some Android phones come with the same! And it has a smaller screen.

It's akin placing regular tyres on a formula 1 car. You're going to having to keep coming back to the pit to replace them. ie. Refresh, refresh, refresh instead of having the info loaded in RAM.
 

kas23

macrumors 603
Oct 28, 2007
5,625
291
I'm sure they're aware 256MB is limiting at some things. But 256 in 2010? Really?
If you are aware of Apple's business model, this shouldn't surprise you one bit. How else would they be able to name rev B the iPad S?
 

SebZen

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 12, 2009
360
0
It's not too big a deal. For example Engadget fully loads. It's almost as fast as my MBP at loading normal sites
 

john3478

macrumors member
Mar 2, 2009
70
0
First I'm typing this from iPad :)

Anyway it's pretty bad with rendering many images at once. For example here http://acidcow.com/fun/8608-acid-picdump-165-pics.html

It doesn't render the last 25% or so of the images

Same with images on Gizmodo (article with updated app reviews)

Very disappointing but otherwise the device is excellent. Do you think they can fix this or is this lack of RAM?
99% of the websites do not have that many images in one pages. So, I think your subject "iPad bad with images" is bias. It should be "iPad bad with images if you have ridiculously huge numbers of images in one page "
 

SebZen

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 12, 2009
360
0
99% of the websites do not have that many images in one pages. So, I think your subject "iPad bad with images" is bias. It should be "iPad bad with images if you have ridiculously huge numbers of images in one page "
You're right. Changed
 

dave1812dave

macrumors 6502a
May 15, 2009
858
0
99% of the websites do not have that many images in one pages. So, I think your subject "iPad bad with images" is bias. It should be "iPad bad with images if you have ridiculously huge numbers of images in one page "
"bias"? in other words, don't anyone DARE to complain about anything on their iPad, lest they be labeled as being biased.
 

pooryou

macrumors 65816
Sep 28, 2007
1,301
30
NorCal
My 3 years old Mac Mini running Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) has exactly 512MB of RAM and loaded the whole page in a little bit more than a minute. It slowed down my computer a little bit but I was already running a few other applications in the background.
Virtual Memory.