cjmillsnun
macrumors 68020
Sorry but his experience was exactly the same as mine. My 3G ran well enough on OS 3.0 (runs a lot better on 3.1.3) but was still slower than under OS 2.x and remains slower than OS 2.x using 3.1.3
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
Sorry but his experience was exactly the same as mine. My 3G ran well enough on OS 3.0 (runs a lot better on 3.1.3) but was still slower than under OS 2.x and remains slower than OS 2.x using 3.1.3
Yes and no. It does everything brilliantly except for a few things and the RAM is one of them and because of that it won't multitask well. However there is nothing else like the iPad so I'm getting one. It would be sweet if there was 512MB of RAM so then the next version would have 1GB!
NT1440
macrumors P6
cmaier
Suspended
No one should be making buying decisions based on the speculation that if Apple ever allows third-party multitasking it won't work well. That's speculation on top of speculation.
An your MSI Wind I running a generic OS and software, whereas iPad runs OS and apps that are tailor-made for it. Hell, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the iPad was more responsive them your netbook is!
The complaints are pointless and stupid. iPad could have 64megs of RAM for all I care. Why? Because specs do not matter, capabilities and performance do. And if Apple is capable of getting excellent performance and capabilities from 256 (or 64 for that matter) megs of RAM, great! Paper-specs are irrelevant, what matters is real-life performance.
Instead of staring at a number in a spec-sheet, look how the device actually performs. And everyone is saying that the performance is excellent. So who cares if it has 256 megs of RAM, and not 512? You are falling victim to number-specs, as opposed to actually looking how the device functions.
Show performance benchmarks to prove they get slower... right now its all opinion...
In the end - I don't really care if anyone buys an iPad, iPhone, etc.. buy whatever you like...
You're insinuating the company is purposely making the devices slower to get people to upgrade.. maybe they are - I have no idea - but right now - there's 0 proof...
Have you tried surfing the net with a ps3 that tHing takes 5 minutes to load a webpages and it has 8 core CPU a faster gpu and the same ram so as you can see the two are totally irrelevant products. You can't compare them.
cjmillsnun
macrumors 68020
The third gen touch only came with OS 3.x so that isn't a fair comparison with an iPhone 3G that shipped with OS 2.0
ouimetnick
macrumors 68040
Steve Jobs says its better than a netbook. The dudes at the Apple Store say its a netbook killer.
No - criticism is perfectly fine - but everyone that has a device loves the speed of it - yet because its listed as 256MB of RAM - the device is going to be obsolete in a few weeks
So which is it?
rhett7660
macrumors G5
You think this has all been criticism? Really? Because resorting to name calling, you know "fanboy" has everything to do with constructive criticism. Yeah give me a freaking break.
ouimetnick
macrumors 68040
I agree, but how long will it be at that amazing speed? I feel cheated when my iphone slows down after a new major software upgrade 12 months later. Windows 7 is the same speed the same hardware Windows Vista came on, yet it has new features and improvements. Same for Leopard to Snow Leopard, but not 2.0 to 3.0
With more Ram, this wouldn't happen so easily:
Or take a look at this video (-> 11:26): http://www.viddler.com/explore/engadget/videos/1300/72.266
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/888925/
Or take a look at this video (-> 11:26): http://www.viddler.com/explore/engadget/videos/1300/72.266
ouimetnick
macrumors 68040
Well calling someone a fanboy when they defend Apple in every way sounds fine to me. someone who defends a company, and makes a poor excuse for lacking features= fanboy.
NT1440
macrumors P6
I think its interesting how we were all hoping for a tablet computer (with all its functions. And then when the iPad was announced people started settling for a device that was almost a laptop. Then almost a netbook. Now its all about justifying 256 MB of RAM, justifying the real cost. Whats next?
Ill go with everything that shines isn't gold on this one.
Ill go with everything that shines isn't gold on this one.
All man made objects are flawed but 256MB of RAM is a joke.
Frankly I'm glad I didn't rush out and buy this thing like the gullible masses did. The information that is slowly leaking out doesn't paint a pretty picture.
1.
Developers are already reporting less RAM available than the 256 would imply. Solid speculation is that a good portion of the RAM goes to the frame buffer and OS. So in actuality you have less than 200MB available for user apps.
3.
Reportedly there is LESS FREE RAM THAN ON THE LATEST TOUCH. Read that again guys, I Pad is a step back for user apps.
4.
The noise in this thread about ARM code density is just that and means nothing. It is all about data and what structures you can keep in memory. It will be very interesting to see how the iWork software performs with respect to large or complex documents.
5.
Since virtual memory isn't a part of this devices OS the paltry amount of RAM will impact how apps are designed for the iPad. In some cases the lack of RAM will mean that apps that have potential will not be produced or will perform poorly when they are finally realized.
6.
Likewise all the reports about how speedy iPad is means nothing if you can't quantify the performance against real work loads. Sure Apps load fast, but honestly what did you expect, they are loading from Flash memory. The real question is this: can you take a complex Excel spreadsheet from work, load it into numbers and if that succeeds get reasonable performance? It is no wonder MS has declined to commit to Office on the iPad.
7.
Even worst for things like the iWork suite is how the apps will behave a release or two down the road as they become more feature complete. All that Flash memory is not going to do any good if you run out of code space for your app.
8.
That brings up an interesting idea. I'm wondering if Apple could implement a virtual memory of sorts for code segments only. Code being read only wouldn't not cause Flash wear like trying to page program data would. Or maybe they will implement libs for user programs.
9.
This brings up why many of us see the lack of RAM as a far greater issue than the use of a 1GHz processor. The processor is admittedly a good performer but it does not limit functionality the way the lack of RAM will. This really doesn't have anything to do with user app multitasking either, though the issue is related. Rather it is the stark reality of what sorts of apps can be written for iPad when it has less RAM than the current Touch for user apps.
Now there are many here that likely don't follow what I'm trying to say but in a nut shell this machine is a ripoff. It is way to expensive for what it delivers. Between the lack of RAM (cheap), the lack of Flash (also cheap) it really doesn't offer the user long term value. This doesn't even touch upon issues like a USB port, or and SD slot.
The iPad may do some things perfectly well but it is at a high cost for what you get. There is talk about schools issuing these to students, but I can hardly see where 16GB would be suitable for the average highschool student. Just loading the mandatory apps, books and other documents would tend to plug up the machines. Not to mention that no matter what iPhone OS 4 delivers it is likely to take up even more room on the device. In this case the comparison to early netbooks is stark as they too came with far to little flash storage.
I don't know about the rest of you but $500 for 16GB of flash memory and a fancy screen is a lot of hard earned cash to layout. We will see how sales go after the mad frenzy. I think many will step back and say hey what value am I getting for my cash. It is not like iPhone where that is easy to answer.
Frankly I'm glad I didn't rush out and buy this thing like the gullible masses did. The information that is slowly leaking out doesn't paint a pretty picture.
1.
Developers are already reporting less RAM available than the 256 would imply. Solid speculation is that a good portion of the RAM goes to the frame buffer and OS. So in actuality you have less than 200MB available for user apps.
3.
Reportedly there is LESS FREE RAM THAN ON THE LATEST TOUCH. Read that again guys, I Pad is a step back for user apps.
4.
The noise in this thread about ARM code density is just that and means nothing. It is all about data and what structures you can keep in memory. It will be very interesting to see how the iWork software performs with respect to large or complex documents.
5.
Since virtual memory isn't a part of this devices OS the paltry amount of RAM will impact how apps are designed for the iPad. In some cases the lack of RAM will mean that apps that have potential will not be produced or will perform poorly when they are finally realized.
6.
Likewise all the reports about how speedy iPad is means nothing if you can't quantify the performance against real work loads. Sure Apps load fast, but honestly what did you expect, they are loading from Flash memory. The real question is this: can you take a complex Excel spreadsheet from work, load it into numbers and if that succeeds get reasonable performance? It is no wonder MS has declined to commit to Office on the iPad.
7.
Even worst for things like the iWork suite is how the apps will behave a release or two down the road as they become more feature complete. All that Flash memory is not going to do any good if you run out of code space for your app.
8.
That brings up an interesting idea. I'm wondering if Apple could implement a virtual memory of sorts for code segments only. Code being read only wouldn't not cause Flash wear like trying to page program data would. Or maybe they will implement libs for user programs.
9.
This brings up why many of us see the lack of RAM as a far greater issue than the use of a 1GHz processor. The processor is admittedly a good performer but it does not limit functionality the way the lack of RAM will. This really doesn't have anything to do with user app multitasking either, though the issue is related. Rather it is the stark reality of what sorts of apps can be written for iPad when it has less RAM than the current Touch for user apps.
Now there are many here that likely don't follow what I'm trying to say but in a nut shell this machine is a ripoff. It is way to expensive for what it delivers. Between the lack of RAM (cheap), the lack of Flash (also cheap) it really doesn't offer the user long term value. This doesn't even touch upon issues like a USB port, or and SD slot.
The iPad may do some things perfectly well but it is at a high cost for what you get. There is talk about schools issuing these to students, but I can hardly see where 16GB would be suitable for the average highschool student. Just loading the mandatory apps, books and other documents would tend to plug up the machines. Not to mention that no matter what iPhone OS 4 delivers it is likely to take up even more room on the device. In this case the comparison to early netbooks is stark as they too came with far to little flash storage.
I don't know about the rest of you but $500 for 16GB of flash memory and a fancy screen is a lot of hard earned cash to layout. We will see how sales go after the mad frenzy. I think many will step back and say hey what value am I getting for my cash. It is not like iPhone where that is easy to answer.
rhett7660
macrumors G5
But when you purchased your iPhone it worked fine and it worked like it was supposed to correct? Apple never said your software/hardware from a year ago would work like it would with a new update. Nobody forced you to upgrade either.
Do you also feel cheated when say Adobe/Microsoft/Apple upgrades it's suite of software products and now it requires more system resources to run, yet the version you were using and purchased from day one worked fine? No one said you had to upgrade. In fact no one made you upgrade.
The product you bought on day one worked like it should of. Anything after that is on the end consumer.
Up until now, there really hasn't been an upgradable os software for a phone. With the exception of a few blackberry updates. And please go back and look at the forums and see how those went. Most of the time you upgraded your phone not the software.
And it has major issues loading image heavy sites in its browser because of the lack of RAM.
Jollins
macrumors regular
Okay... yes, it runs great with 256MB of RAM. I've used an iPad, and I think it works beautifully.
But the fact that it works well now with 256MB isn't the point. Remember, this is a $500+ computing device from mid-2010, so why does it have the same amount of RAM as the mid-2009 3GS, and less ram than most middle-end smart phones from this year? Many of us expect the iPad to receive some sort of 3rd-party multitasking ability and other nifty features. True multitasking and other OS add-ons take RAM, and this applies to any mobile OS. How much would it have cost apple to add another 256MB, when 512MB would have allowed better implementations of multitasking or other features?
I don't think its unreasonable to expect Apple to maintain parity spec-wise with what their competition is doing. Arguing that the iPhone OS is efficient and therefore doesn't need more memory doesn't make low specs acceptable.
But the fact that it works well now with 256MB isn't the point. Remember, this is a $500+ computing device from mid-2010, so why does it have the same amount of RAM as the mid-2009 3GS, and less ram than most middle-end smart phones from this year? Many of us expect the iPad to receive some sort of 3rd-party multitasking ability and other nifty features. True multitasking and other OS add-ons take RAM, and this applies to any mobile OS. How much would it have cost apple to add another 256MB, when 512MB would have allowed better implementations of multitasking or other features?
I don't think its unreasonable to expect Apple to maintain parity spec-wise with what their competition is doing. Arguing that the iPhone OS is efficient and therefore doesn't need more memory doesn't make low specs acceptable.
cmaier
Suspended
parapup
macrumors 65816
Guys - look at what Apple is charging for this device - $499 for a base model with no 3G and only 16GB storage and a sadly paltry 256Mb of RAM. Then there are all those restrictions on use and lack of flexibility. If they were to charge $199 - it would have been justified to have these type of specs and limitations. As it stands, it's a rip off - magical not withstanding.
Even if iPhone OS 4.0 was to add multitasking - with this amount of RAM it would have to be limited to 3-4 apps at the most depending on various factors.
Even my N1 comes unlocked with 512Mb RAM and all the flexibility. Google should get a Giant Nexus One out - 1Gb RAM, Gobi, Dual Core Cortex A9 with Android and that could be something I wanna buy for $699.
Gen3 of the iPad will be somewhat more compelling - many will bet it will come with Camera, more RAM and may be some more goodies. Until then let the early adopters go thru their revision upgrades 😀
Even if iPhone OS 4.0 was to add multitasking - with this amount of RAM it would have to be limited to 3-4 apps at the most depending on various factors.
Even my N1 comes unlocked with 512Mb RAM and all the flexibility. Google should get a Giant Nexus One out - 1Gb RAM, Gobi, Dual Core Cortex A9 with Android and that could be something I wanna buy for $699.
Gen3 of the iPad will be somewhat more compelling - many will bet it will come with Camera, more RAM and may be some more goodies. Until then let the early adopters go thru their revision upgrades 😀
Except multitasking would perform better with 512. Would you like to hold one page of the internet in the palm of your hand or multiple pages? 😉