I second that, this is a lot faster than a netbook, I have been hammering on it for two days and not a problem, just fast!
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 Tech Specs: Cortex A8, 256MB Ram, PowerVR SGX 535
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I second that, this is a lot faster than a netbook, I have been hammering on it for two days and not a problem, just fast!
My very first car here, in the UK was a 1999 VW Golf 1.6 (Mk 4, 8v, not 16v). Unusual golden colour with grey interior and full extras. That was a very long time ago, but I'm trying to get a few pics of it.
My point was not about speed or the exact power of the car. Even that 1.6 8v had over 100 bhp, maybe the 1.9 non-turbo diesel here had not much more than 60, but my point was that once something is underpowered, there are not many ways to improve it, even when we take other factors into consideration.
But I agree with the fundamentals of the argument that this iPad motorbike needs less power than a car in general. But we can also see that Apple put the same engine in its scooters. THAT is worrying and I understand people not understanding, why their big bike has the same as the small one.
Or to be precise, it's a slightly bigger engine with slightly more horsepower but with the same torque.
Hmmm...Normally when someone says "link please" They're actually referring to something the other person referenced. I only referenced 2GB netbooks under $500.
So....you're paying that extra money because it has a touch screen, is half an inch thinner, and one pound lighter? I couldn't imagine that making all that much of a difference with the portability unless that actually made the ipad small enough to fit in your pocket which it isn't.
Really? Run some Sunspider benchmarks have you? Measured the time it takes the iPad to render a webpage compared to a netbook?
I am enjoying the iPad, let them pooh pooh the iPad, I will just enjoy away!
They will in a matter of weeks. Over 500k in just a few days. It will hit a million shortly. Especially when the 3G's are released.
the iPad hasn't been on sale for 48 hours yet. (48 hours= 2 days)
Uh, go it yesterday around 12 noon, it is now 8pm, ok, 1 day! To me it was two days, Saturday and Sunday.
You know, you need to buy a M$ netbook and be happy!
Uh, this is subjective, speed is perception, when I enter a URL and the page loads in a second, I think that is fast. I have a M$ PC, my Macbook Pro will blow it away.
At 1.5 lbs, no hard drive, 10+ hours on the battery, always on and NO crashes (unlike Mickey Soft). I am satisfied, real happy.
You run the benchmarks, they do not make a lot of sense anyway.
Quite possibly, that could be because most developers only got access to an actual Ipad yesterday.
In a few weeks we'll know if the memory is a red herring, or if the developers are screaming.
The issue of memory relating to multi-tasking, though, could become quite real if Apple updates the phone OS to allow 3rd-party apps to multi-task.
They'd also be impossible due to the amount of time it would take to debug them.
You obviously do understand the issues, though. In the final analysis, the wetware ("humans") is the most expensive and most unreliable part of the equation. Throwing MiB and MHz at the problem is the cheapest, fastest solution. OO makes it faster for the humans to write better software - so bloat (MiB and MHz) is a very acceptable cost.
That's why 4 GiB seems to be the minimum on the low midrange and above for systems, and why 256 MiB on the Ipad is generating concern. When disks have 64 MiB buffers, and graphics cards have 1 GiB VRAM - 256 MiB for main RAM just seems old-fashioned for an OS based on a multi-user UNIX.
I won't be happy. I just want an iPad, and assurance that it can multitask seamlessly with a software update.
i'm sure people have already hammered this, but...
TWICE as fast is 100% faster.
200% faster is 4x times as fast.
if it's 4x faster than 3gs, that's great. but that's not what benchmarks are showing.
THIS THING, IN ITS CURRENT FORM WILL NOT EVEN REACH THE PREDICTED 8-10 MILLION SHIPPING FIGURES THIS YEAR.
But if I'm wrong, I will leave Macrumors in January for good.
It does not multi-task like the iPhone and you know (I am a hacker) I do not miss it. If they put it in the next software update and it runs like the no multi-tasking OS, GREAT, BRING IT ON.
But, what they have produced is exceptional! Plain and simple it works! I like it. I am going to develop some applications for the iPad and enjoy every minute of it.
See ya, we will miss you!
Apple will sell millions, it is a fantastic device, not a computer but a device. It is much better than a computer, it works and works well.
No, you won't, but thanks!
"It works..." We've heard it, we shall see.
Much better than a computer? No, it's different. We'll see, whether those tasks that the iPad might be better at are worth the premium for "millions in weeks".
Forsaking Flash and 2+ background apps vastly reduces the memory requirement.
To 256mb.
Rocketman
"Build a better life by frugal living. It's disturbing to see the worship of greed, profits, and possessions." - Eidorian
Correct.
My operapluginwrap for Flash on Linux with Opera 10.52 top produces the following:
Virtual Memory: 655MB
Physical Memory: 55MB
Shared Memory: 11MB
That's an extremely poor use of memory, but then again that's Adobe.
Opera 10.52
Virtual Memory: 961MB
Physical Memory: 543MB
Shared Memory: 15MB
Those are abysmal numbers. That's 3 tabs after using 6. The deallocation of memory is non-existent.
The Shared-Memory is PATHETIC. So is the Virtual Memory.
Throwing more physical RAM at the problem is the wrong solution.
The reality is this, it is expensive. No matter what anyone here says it is bleeding edge technology, not necessarily from the aspect of having the fastest chips and loads of RAM. It is the whole package including the software that makes the machine.
In terms of hardware there has to be a balance when you get down to it. The outside of the machine is a large capacitive touch screen and an aluminum casing which is not exactly cheap. It is meant to be a premium item and look good and feel good in the hands. Apple's intention is to provide users with the "whole" experience. So, maybe you get scaled back on some RAM and the processor speed. On the other hand they have given you dual batteries that insure that you have plenty of juice to use the thing a long time.
The software in my opinion is the key. It is all in how Apple has executed their OS and how much overhead it leaves for other things to run. On the other hand it also depends heavily on how the developers code their apps to make them run efficiently within the limits of the machines. Anyone who was PC gaming back in the early to mid 90's can tell you that Origin systems made some of the most beautiful games out there but usually most of the high end systems on the market could not handle them. I found myself waiting to upgrade to new mobo, CPU, and RAM before I could play them. I always had top end processors and components back in the day. They unfortunately just liked to make things their way and not optimized to any current systems on the market.
Apple has a closed system. Similar to consoles with their iPhones, iPod Touch's, and now the iPad. They like Sony, Micorsoft, and Nintendo are controlling the experience.
If you look at the hardware for consoles they are not really giving you anything that would be considered high end by any stretch of the imagination. They just have a closed system, specialized OS, and a standardized set of tools for developers to work with so that a limited hardware set can provide a "limited" utilitarian experience.
I may end up buying an iPad. But, I am going into it fully knowing that it is not a full fledged computer and that it operates in a closed system.
As for all the comments being made about iPhones getting slower with updates. I can honestly say that the speed of my first generation iPhone did not change with OS updates. I used it for over two years. The original iteration of the iPhone was supposed to use the web apps which I thought were complete crap (my opinion) and I did not use them. With the opening of the app store I felt that the hardware was a little "taxed" by some apps.
Case in point is with the DianHua Chinese dictionary. When I first installed it and used (for a long time I might add) the first iterations were slow. Some of the searches could take over 10 seconds. But, the developer kept releasing updates and ended up with an app that would deliver almost instantaneous search results. I had seen other people using 3G phones and noticed that their's was much quicker with search results. But, when the developer went back and optimized their code the playing field was pretty much leveled and gave a consistent experience on three different hardware platforms.
After having upgraded to the iPhone 3GS I go back to the first generation iPhone and I just cannot believe how slow it is, but at the time it was all I had experienced and I was satisfied. I even felt that the iPhone 3G was pretty unsatisfying after upgrading to a 3GS.
The bad part about buying new technology is that it all becomes worthless obsolete junk in a short period of time. That's just the way it is.
In terms of hardware there has to be a balance when you get down to it. The outside of the machine is a large capacitive touch screen and an aluminum casing which is not exactly cheap. It is meant to be a premium item and look good and feel good in the hands. Apple's intention is to provide users with the "whole" experience. So, maybe you get scaled back on some RAM and the processor speed. On the other hand they have given you dual batteries that insure that you have plenty of juice to use the thing a long time.
The software in my opinion is the key. It is all in how Apple has executed their OS and how much overhead it leaves for other things to run. On the other hand it also depends heavily on how the developers code their apps to make them run efficiently within the limits of the machines. Anyone who was PC gaming back in the early to mid 90's can tell you that Origin systems made some of the most beautiful games out there but usually most of the high end systems on the market could not handle them. I found myself waiting to upgrade to new mobo, CPU, and RAM before I could play them. I always had top end processors and components back in the day. They unfortunately just liked to make things their way and not optimized to any current systems on the market.
Apple has a closed system. Similar to consoles with their iPhones, iPod Touch's, and now the iPad. They like Sony, Micorsoft, and Nintendo are controlling the experience.
If you look at the hardware for consoles they are not really giving you anything that would be considered high end by any stretch of the imagination. They just have a closed system, specialized OS, and a standardized set of tools for developers to work with so that a limited hardware set can provide a "limited" utilitarian experience.
I may end up buying an iPad. But, I am going into it fully knowing that it is not a full fledged computer and that it operates in a closed system.
As for all the comments being made about iPhones getting slower with updates. I can honestly say that the speed of my first generation iPhone did not change with OS updates. I used it for over two years. The original iteration of the iPhone was supposed to use the web apps which I thought were complete crap (my opinion) and I did not use them. With the opening of the app store I felt that the hardware was a little "taxed" by some apps.
Case in point is with the DianHua Chinese dictionary. When I first installed it and used (for a long time I might add) the first iterations were slow. Some of the searches could take over 10 seconds. But, the developer kept releasing updates and ended up with an app that would deliver almost instantaneous search results. I had seen other people using 3G phones and noticed that their's was much quicker with search results. But, when the developer went back and optimized their code the playing field was pretty much leveled and gave a consistent experience on three different hardware platforms.
After having upgraded to the iPhone 3GS I go back to the first generation iPhone and I just cannot believe how slow it is, but at the time it was all I had experienced and I was satisfied. I even felt that the iPhone 3G was pretty unsatisfying after upgrading to a 3GS.
The bad part about buying new technology is that it all becomes worthless obsolete junk in a short period of time. That's just the way it is.
You know, most of the time a computer with windows on it crashes, it's because the user did something remarkably stupid on it
I don't understand your post.
The first section shows the browser using 55 MiB, which seems reasonable. The second section shows it using 543 MiB. I don't understand what changed between the two snapshots.
You know, most of the time a computer with windows on it crashes, it's because the user did something remarkably stupid on it
And you know with Vista and now 7 I don't think I've ever had one actual OS crash.
erm...
Twice as fast is 100% faster as you said. 100%+100%.
200% faster is only 3x as fast. 100%+200%
Don't get your numbers mixed up, please.
The iPad is on average twice as fast as the 3GS.
You know, most of the time a computer with windows on it crashes, it's because the user did something remarkably stupid on it
+1 to both those posts. Im a Mac, but windows does not crash. windows 7 is just as solid for every day use as SL.
You know, most of the time a computer with windows on it crashes, it's because the user did something remarkably stupid on it
yup... they turned it on!
zing!