Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Also, RAM costs more than money. It costs power, size and weight -- all things that should be minimized.

Doubling the RAM would not affect the size or weight of the machine. The power would increase by approximately 0.1 W (assuming Apple went with equivalent technology RAM - they could go with more expensive RAM with lower power consumption than what they actually did use), which is essentially unnoticeable. The cost would be approximately $4 per machine.
 
What happens if you want to copy and paste something from the web? Streaming those images is going to get irksome after a while as you switch back and forth between Safari and Pages. Lets hope Safari doesn't reload the webpage each time either, eating into your 3G limit and wasting your time. I agree that the OS probably doesn't require many resources because it runs on a phone, but really, if I were paying this amount of money I would expect it to be more powerful than a phone, and not just in terms of a processor.

I'm not sure what you're getting at in regard to the copying & pasting. I agree that iPhone OS Safari should not reload pages constantly. It doesn't look like a memory issue is driving that though, because it reloads small and large pages alike. It needs better caching before it needs more RAM, IMO. Obviously, more RAM allows more to be cached. But you're talking about pretty big web page and Pages documents before there is a problem. I'm not saying there's no problem, but it doesn't seem like it would come up a lot. Time will tell, I suppose.

The price seems reasonable to me when compared to phones with no contract.
 
Doubling the RAM would not affect the size or weight of the machine. The power would increase by approximately 0.1 W (assuming Apple went with equivalent technology RAM - they could go with more expensive RAM with lower power consumption than what they actually did use), which is essentially unnoticeable. The cost would be approximately $4 per machine.

I don't know where you're getting this from. E.g., what RAM chip is Apple using now and what is the part that's the same size and weight they could have used instead?
 
Must be something you are doing wrong or have done to it. Don't see that on my original iPhone. Each new OS has made it faster.

Essentially you are talking rubbish.

I see. Because you're not experiencing it, it's rubbish?

I have the exact same issue. From the time I upgraded to 3.0, my original iPhone is so slow, it's ridiculous. I'm suspecting (and this is just a guess) that background spotlight indexing is the culprit - a feature I wish I could disable as I never use it.

Sometimes, the phone is so slow that I literally miss calls. The screen lights up with the swipe to answer, I swipe and I swipe and I swipe and the phone appears to be frozen. Then, right at the last second, it answers, but the screen doesn't update and by then the call is sent to voicemail. I've even had situations where the phone never rings at all, but I get a new voicemail notification.

During the rollout keynote of the iPhone, I was in the audience. I remember Steve saying the killer app on a phone should be the ability to use it as a phone. Ok, so why does it take 5-10 seconds to open the "phone" app and make a call after 3.0? Coincidentally, :rolleyes:, the 3GS was released about that time and the buzz was speed speed speed. I can't help but wonder if either 1) making higher demands on existing hardware or 2) not optimizing newer software for older hardware is actually part of Apple's strategy to get us to buy newer equipment. I'm just waiting for the day that my 8 core Mac Pro suddenly feels slow after an OS update.
 

Sunspider on my iPad: http://bit.ly/dr7VEo

Sunspider on my Acer Aspire One Netbook running Firefox: http://bit.ly/cYNgsk

The iPad was about 30% faster than my netbook.. Despite my netbook having a 1.6GHz processor and 8x the RAM (2GB)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Oh noes! :D


Whoa careful there. The estimate of 700, 000 was the guess of one analyst standing in a queue. Where are you getting your 900, 000 from now? Besides it's very easy for that number of people to be ignorant.
Thanks so much for sharing your wisdom. Try not to let their "ignorance" bother you so much though... as I don't believe they're suffering one bit.


The present doesn't give me much hope. The future even less.

I don't want to be the one to have to explain everything though. Personally, I think the realization is much more interesting.
Deep stuff, brother... very deep. :)


Wow, 600+ posts... Guess some people are REALLY angry/disappointed at the 256MB RAM...
If by "some people" you refer to a handful of trolls who don't even own an iPad that just came here to vent their (perceived) frustration with Apple, then... yes, 256 MB is apparently a crisis of world-shaking proportion.

Actual iPad owners OTOH are quite pleased. (and rightfully so).


People complaining about Safari reloading tabs must have never used Safari on an iPhone, it does the same thing.
Only if the web pages are bloated beyond the pale. I had several pages open earlier today as a test (see my previous post), and there was no reloading at all. It's not all that often that folks needs 3 or 4 web pages open simultaneously anyway... so, I don't see any huge concern being generated by all this noise.

But go ahead... knock yourselves out. :cool:


I agree that iPhone OS Safari should not reload pages constantly. It doesn't look like a memory issue is driving that though, because it reloads small and large pages alike.

Are you trying to include the iPad there. If so, that's pure FUD (and we've had too much already, thanks).
 
Something I'm curious about: if the iPad Wi-Fi has the extra space where the iPad 3g's cell equipment goes, why didn't Apple do something like what they did with the iPod touch & iPhone? Add extra memory? With the bigger screen, some people may want to put video on it. Granted, some people might not want/need a whole bunch of video on theirs, but some might. I don't want to be like "Ooh, I'd really like to watch this episode of the TV show. Oh darn it! I don't have it on here since I didn't have the space."

As for the RAM & having an A8 processor, I don't like it but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple kept those so they can add it to rev 2 & make people who bought the current iPad want to buy the new one also. Sometimes I just hate this kind of business, but at least no one's forcing me to buy it.
 
Hold on a sec . . .

SOFTWARE tells us its only 256Mb of RAM, iFixit's scans say it's 512. Is there a possibility that half the RAM is hidden from devs before iPhone OS 4.0 (Multitasking, for example)?

Just a thought.
 
Something I'm curious about: if the iPad Wi-Fi has the extra space where the iPad 3g's cell equipment goes, why didn't Apple do something like what they did with the iPod touch & iPhone? Add extra memory?

By "memory" I assume you mean storage, and I'm sure there's no reason Apple couldn't fit more in there (128 GB or more) even with the 3G radio stuff. Gotta save something for Rev 2. ;)
 
Hold on a sec . . .

SOFTWARE tells us its only 256Mb of RAM, iFixit's scans say it's 512. Is there a possibility that half the RAM is hidden from devs before iPhone OS 4.0 (Multitasking, for example)?

Just a thought.

iFixit says 256MB. Unless Apple told them to correct themselves as a surprise. I believe one of the Android phones had more RAM than was being advertised (I forget which one though)
 
Hold on a sec . . .

SOFTWARE tells us its only 256Mb of RAM, iFixit's scans say it's 512. Is there a possibility that half the RAM is hidden from devs before iPhone OS 4.0 (Multitasking, for example)?

Just a thought.

iFixit never claimed it was 512Mb (512 megaBITS). They had, for a while, claimed there were 2 dies, each with 2Gb RAM (2gigaBITS), equivalent to 512MB (512 megaBYTES) in total.

They have since retracted that earlier statement, and now agree that it is really 1Gb of RAM per die, for a total of 256MB.
 
iFixit never claimed it was 512Mb (512 megaBITS). They had, for a while, claimed there were 2 dies, each with 2Gb RAM (2gigaBITS), equivalent to 512MB (512 megaBYTES) in total.

They have since retracted that earlier statement, and now agree that it is really 1Gb of RAM per die, for a total of 256MB.

Hey, Mr. Literal, it was clear the guy meant MB.
 

The people who make webkit make sunspider benchmarks too. He compared a non-webkit browser to a webkit browser. Not a very good comparison.

Thanks so much for sharing your wisdom. Try not to let their "ignorance" bother you so much though... as I don't believe they're suffering one bit.



Deep stuff, brother... very deep. :)

You missed the main point and so did he. That figure was someone's guess, and because it suited his argument he treated it as a fact. The actual figures were less than half that. No need to thank me this time for sharing my wisdom. Those people don't know what they are missing out on because they know no better. But come the next generation, when Apple add more features, they suddenly will want those features.

Only if the web pages are bloated beyond the pale. I had several pages open earlier today as a test (see my previous post), and there was no reloading at all. It's not all that often that folks needs 3 or 4 web pages open simultaneously anyway... so, I don't see any huge concern being generated by all this noise.

I suppose I could reload all my tabs in one window if I wanted but I think that wouldn't be very convenient. That is the reason browsers evolved tabs. Are you talking about when you open those windows then switch to another application, or just switching within Safari. If it's just within Safari I wouldn't expect it to reload. If the other app happened to be something quite chunky (like Pages) then I would expect the iPad might have to reload. However I can't know for sure as I don't have one and I don't know the memory footprint of Pages.
 
The OS architecture fundamentally can swap. But out of the box, there is no swap partition or swapfile or whatever else you may call it. And to create a swap requires an unauthorized hack (jailbreaking).

Out of the box, Apple OSX doesn't have a swap partition/file either.

If it takes an "unauthorized hack" to create backing store, then it's reasonable to say that the Ipad does not support backing store, and cannot use VM to expand available memory in the way that the desktop OS does.
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at in regard to the copying & pasting. I agree that iPhone OS Safari should not reload pages constantly. It doesn't look like a memory issue is driving that though, because it reloads small and large pages alike. It needs better caching before it needs more RAM, IMO. Obviously, more RAM allows more to be cached. But you're talking about pretty big web page and Pages documents before there is a problem. I'm not saying there's no problem, but it doesn't seem like it would come up a lot. Time will tell, I suppose.

The price seems reasonable to me when compared to phones with no contract.

Yes it could be a caching thing, but I thought that they would have sorted caching out tbh considering the low bandwidth this thing is supposed to operate on.
 
iFixit never claimed it was 512Mb (512 megaBITS). They had, for a while, claimed there were 2 dies, each with 2Gb RAM (2gigaBITS), equivalent to 512MB (512 megaBYTES) in total.

They have since retracted that earlier statement, and now agree that it is really 1Gb of RAM per die, for a total of 256MB.

Ah, my mistake. I stand corrected.
 
Hey, Mr. Literal, it was clear the guy meant MB.

Sorry. I actually meant to leave it with the second observation - that iFixit had already retracted its statement about 512 MB. And that part of my post still stands. But then this urge overtook me to bring up the other part about bits vs bytes. I'll try to practise more restraint in the future.
 
Out of the box, Apple OSX doesn't have a swap partition/file either.

If it takes an "unauthorized hack" to create backing store, then it's reasonable to say that the Ipad does not support backing store, and cannot use VM to expand available memory in the way that the desktop OS does.

I can understand why they wouldn't put swap on a handheld though. It would take up precious space that Apple has advertised to the user (bad thing) and NAND doesn't do too well with constant read/write.
 
Out of the box, Apple OSX doesn't have a swap partition/file either.

If it takes an "unauthorized hack" to create backing store, then it's reasonable to say that the Ipad does not support backing store, and cannot use VM to expand available memory in the way that the desktop OS does.

Half correct, half wrong. Application code and operating system code is automatically swapped in/swapped out, using the files containing the code as the backing store. I think non-modifiable data will work the same. Modifiable data, however, cannot be swapped out.
 
@Ries - I didn't mention a) the pixels or b) the amount of memory needed to load and work with the image. So I'm not sure what you think I didn't understand? (For the record, I stated the size of the RAW image on the memory card.)

And none of the above has anything to do with my post. To reiterate: the original argument was invalid as no one would seriously attempt to make a montage of 6 RAW images on a 9.7" screen.

Look at it like this: Imagine a friend wants to buy a Mac, and asks you for advice which one to buy. Obviously you ask what he wants to do with it. Depending on his answer, you will say "a MacMini or MacBook will be fine", or you will say "you should get at least a quad core iMac", or "get a MacPro if that's what you want to do". If someone wants to edit RAW images from a 22 megapixel camera, that's when people start recommending a quad core at least, and a fast hard drive. That's what we have here. That's the kind of things that an iPad can't do, and arguing that it should is ridiculous.
 
Both of you are overcomplicating things so much you've gone onto a tangential plane that doesn't exist in the realms of reality.

Let me spell it out for you.

R-E-S-T-A-R-T-I-N-G
I-S
B-E-T-T-E-R
T-H-A-N
E-X-I-T-I-N-G
F-O-R
M-E-M-O-R-Y

Any modern operating system disagrees with you.

We were only replying to the tangents you started, which brings us back to the first point. Why should we have to restart the iPad if the Apps were properly coded.

Not even that: Why would you restart the iPad if an app is _not_ properly coded? It's just the same as with MacOS X on a Macintosh. If an application crashes, it's gone. All the memory it has eaten up is free again. All files it opened are closed. All sockets it opened are closed. The operating system will be working just fine. On the iPad the situation is even better, because there is only one application running. So when it exits, there is the operating system running, still in perfect shape, and nothing else.
 
"Does it work?" that is the question
"How does it work?" - that isn't.

10% of the planet know/care what a 'kernel' is - the iPad is aimed at the other 90%
 
Half correct, half wrong. Application code and operating system code is automatically swapped in/swapped out, using the files containing the code as the backing store. I think non-modifiable data will work the same. Modifiable data, however, cannot be swapped out.

Apple disagrees with you.

Although Mac OS X supports a backing store, iPhone OS does not. In iPhone applications, read-only data that is already on the disk (such as code pages) is simply removed from memory and reloaded from disk as needed. Writable data is never removed from memory by the operating system.

http://developer.apple.com/iPhone/l...tual/ManagingMemory/Articles/AboutMemory.html

All VM systems that I know of simply reload read-only pages from the original file. Re-reading the original pages does not involve a backing store.

"Backing store" is where you put the modified pages when they won't fit in memory. Since the OP discussed image files, the OP is talking about modifiable pages.

It's a minor semantics issue. As you say, "Modifiable data, however, cannot be swapped out" - that would require a backing store.
 
"Does it work?" that is the question
"How does it work?" - that isn't.

10% of the planet know/care what a 'kernel' is - the iPad is aimed at the other 90%

Your point is clear, but I think you have to be realistic : I don't think even 0,01% of the planet knows what a kernel is ;)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.