iPhone OS 4.0 only for new hardware? not for iPhone3G/3GS?

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by zub3qin, Apr 5, 2010.

  1. zub3qin macrumors 65816


    Apr 10, 2007
    Apple has been known to allow their oldest Macs to still be compatible with the latest OS -- which keeps people thrilled.

    BUT with iphone, OS 4 with multitasking is going to require some heavy processing.

    The original iPhone (EDGE) will not be able to do this.
    There is a huge speed difference between iPhone 3G and 3GS that I am not sure 3G could do multitasking either.

    So, is OS 4.0 going to be something relevant to 3GS and iPhone 4 only?
    Or maybe only for new hardware only-- 3G/3GS is maxed out?
  2. stridemat Moderator


    Staff Member

    Apr 2, 2008
    The 2G iPhones run the current iPhone OS, so I can see no reason why Apple would not allow it to run, albeit slower than on a 3GS/4G.
  3. Compile 'em all macrumors 601

    Compile 'em all

    Apr 6, 2005
    Good question. I guess OS4 will run but might be slow or some features will be turned off.
  4. outphase macrumors 65816

    Jun 13, 2009
    Parts Unknown
    Snow Leopard does not support PPC-based Macs :p
  5. vizkiz macrumors 6502a


    Jul 22, 2008
    Long Island, NY
    You have to remember that the only difference between the iPhone and iPhone 3G (besides the case and screen [and battery?] ) is the 3G cell chip. They have the same CPU, same RAM, etc. Edge doesn't really come into play, it should perform the same on both phones.

    It has been said that the 3G and 3GS will get 4.0, but the original will not.
    It's safe to assume that this is to try and get people to buy new phones again.

    Also, isn't Snow Leopard and newer only compatible with Intel-powered Macs?
  6. eezing macrumors 6502


    Oct 29, 2008
    The original iPhone has the same processing power as the 3G, so that being said if they did allow a multitasking feature on 3G, I assume it too would be available on the original. But...

    I'm skeptical about multitasking for the original and 3G. My 3G has been jailbroken with multitasking enabled and overall performance is quite slow and damn near impossible to work with at times. I say 3GS no problem, a BIG IF on the original and 3G though.
  7. TSX macrumors 68030


    Oct 1, 2008
    The same reason they said mms wouldn't work on the first iPhone.
  8. beamer8912 macrumors 65816

    May 30, 2009
    This. I'm quite certain the 2G phone and the 3G phone have similar if not the same hardware. But that doesn't stop Apple from disabling certain features, encouraging consumers to upgrade.

    The 2G and 3G will probably also get the upgrade to 4.0, but it wouldn't surprise me if multitasking was disabled.
  9. jtara macrumors 68000

    Mar 23, 2009
    I would not think that processor speed would be a significant issue for multi-tasking. The road-block for multi-tasking on iPhone is RAM.

    If multi-tasking will be enabled only on some models, I would assume it would be only for 3GS (+ later models) and iPad. Both have 256M of RAM. Clearly, Apple did not feel that the iPad needed any more memory than that, and I also assume that they anticipated enabling multi-tasking.

    The 2G and 3G models are quite constrained with only 128M of RAM and no swapping. (The kernel is perfectly capable of it, but swapping to flash is impractical.) Considering the memory used by the OS and "native/Apple" applications, the 3GS approximately triples the amount of RAM available to third-party applications vs. 2G/3G.

    One more assumption - and a prediction - Apple will enforce by technological means a limit on the amount of background processing applications can do. Some developers will bitch, but, IMO, those that do will be those who are less talented. I would be perfectly happy if allowed to use 1% of the processor power in background. But I'm guessing Apple will allow something like 5% to 10%. Nobody needs to do Folding@home or what-not on their battery-operated phone.

    I also wouldn't be surprised to see some enhancements/tweaking to some APIs (which may or may not involve changes visible to developers in the form of changes/additions to interfaces) for dealing with shared access to, say, GPS and audio services. I can see many users running several (perhaps as many as 3-4) location-aware apps in background, and it would make sense to avoid as much unnecessary duplication of processor power.

    I can also see some limited "swap me out" capability, but, again, strictly limited, to avoid exhausting flash memory life. I would think this would be something that would be done at the request of the app (in response to a "user is switching away" message). Perhaps simply some ability to write r/w data segments (as opposed to r/o data segments which would typically contain the executable code) to a file, and to re-constitute an app from the executable file and the saved r/w segments. This would save the overhead of serializing and de-serializing data.

    This would be good for apps (such a GPS turn-by-turn direction apps) which have to load a significant amount of data into RAM at start-up. This would allow these apps to be put "on hold" while another app is brought to the foreground, without having to go through such an extensive initialization process to re-start them. If these apps could also do some limited background processing, so that they could bring themselves back to the foreground (say, if something important happens, like you have a turn coming up...) that's better still. And with some ability added to the location API so that the OS could wake-up an app at a certain location, or after a certain distance, that would be ideal.

    One enhancement that might be needed for this would be a change in the way the Mach (BSD-derived) kernel handles backing store for swapping. Actually, I dunno how Mach does it, but I am familiar with Unix/Linux and Windows, and the Windows approach does have a significant advantage here. I'm assuming that Mach works similarly to Unix/Linux. In Windows, the executable file (.exe) acts as backing-store for read-only code segments. When code (as opposed to data) is to be "swapped out" it is simply discarded. When it is needed again, it is reloaded from the original .exe. There's no need to swap out code - just data. There is one negative to this, which explains the relative ease of hot-updating Unix/Linux/OSX - updating on Windows almost always requires a re-boot, because overwriting an .exe (or shared library, as well) for a running program (or the kernel) would be a disaster. It almost never requires a re-boot for unix-like OS's, because there's no need to go back to the executable file to swap-in. This is not an issue on the iPhone, though, which always requires a re-boot for a (system) software update anyway, and you can't update applications while they are actually running. For OSX, then, I could see some serious issues but for iPhone OS, not a problem.
  10. thelordnyax macrumors regular

    Feb 18, 2008
    i recall reading that Apple had to provide iPhone updates for free due to some account/tax reasons...something about reporting it as revenue being stretch over two years
    AND...since the iphone OG will have been off the shelves for two years this july...maybe they don't have to give it a free update anymore, but the 3G and the 3GS still have to get it

    purely speculative
  11. FSMBP macrumors 68020


    Jan 22, 2009
    Almost 100% sure on this scenario, iPhone 4 OS will support all iPhones except the original one released in 2007.

    Reasons for this is mostly that it Apple encourage people out contract with their original iPhones to upgrade and being new hardware. Also, the hardware is old and does not even support 3G speeds/GPS.

    I already think that Apple supported the original iPhone pretty well. I don't know too many software makers who supported a phone over two years after its release with major firmware updates. That's what I like about Apple and disliked about Windows Mobile and other OSes.
  12. CocoaPuffs macrumors 68010

    Aug 23, 2008
    Why worry about something that you can only speculate and cannot do anything about?

    For example if 4.0 comes with a front facing camera hardware, and logically this new feature won't be supported by any of the current hardware, which there isn't anything you can do except to upgrade. Beyond that, both iPhone 2.0 and iPhone 3.0 are available to the original iPhone, which is safe to assume the same for 4.0 to at least the 3G and 3G S.

    So the bottom line is, why would you even concern yourself about 4.0?
  13. Nermal Moderator


    Staff Member

    Dec 7, 2002
    New Zealand
    There are many apps out there that require OS 3, and I foresee developers jumping to OS 4-only apps once that OS has been released. Hopefully OS 4 will still run on first-gen devices, even if some of the new features (eg. multitasking) are not supported.
  14. jaw04005 macrumors 601


    Aug 19, 2003
    It’ll at least support the iPhone 3G simply because Apple still sells that product. I think the writing is on the wall for the original iPhone though. It has been three years, time to let it go unless their iPhone OS development is modular (and new features can be added without substantial time and effort spent on developing for old hardware).

    Apple is fairly good about weighing the pros and cons. If 4.0 doesn’t provide a good experience for original iPhone users, they won’t release it for it.
  15. vizkiz macrumors 6502a


    Jul 22, 2008
    Long Island, NY
    Because 4.0 doesn't come with any hardware, it is iPhone OS 4.0.
    I think you mean if it supports front facing camera hardware. And obviously they're concerned over which features will be supported across all iPhones that receive the update.
  16. ARF900 macrumors 65816


    Oct 30, 2009
    well obviously the ipad will fully support all features, as youd have a lot of pissed off people if it didnt, I think apple will abandon support for the 2g, but the 3g and s will probably support it with lesser features.
  17. TurboSC macrumors 65816


    Aug 4, 2007
    No way Apple is going to pull the rug under any percentage of their iPhone userbase.. if anything some featurea may be disabled, but not having 4.0 running on all platforms would be a stupid move on Apple's part.
  18. DaGreat01 macrumors 6502a


    Jun 11, 2009
    Atlanta, Georgia
    I REALY dont think the 3G will ever be able to multitask. My 3G wont even let my type a new tweet while it is updating the feed, so i have no idea how multiple apps will be able to run.

    My 3G even forgets what number the song is when its on shuffle. I listen to a song on shuffle in the morning and it number 5 of 100 and when i go back later in the afternoon it goes to like 64......
  19. Applejuiced macrumors Westmere


    Apr 16, 2008
    At the iPhone hacks section.
    They will probably put out a watered down version of 4.0 for 2G and 3G models. Even the 3.0 for those iphones is a drag.
    I highly doubt multitasking will be supported on those 2 models at all.
    3GS can handle it so I think it will support native multitasking.
    Again there will be features that will be exclusive to the new iphone only to make people want to upgrade to the newest model.
  20. dccorona macrumors 68020


    Jun 12, 2008
    its the other way around actually
    because of the way its reported in their books, and due to some law, they HAVE to charge for iPod touch updates, and, one would assume, original iPhone updates now. They could charge for iPhone updates if they wanted, but don't have to because the revnue is reported over 2 years.
    at least thats my understanding of it
  21. Intell macrumors P6


    Jan 24, 2010
    I'm thinking that only the device with 256MB of ram or more will get multitasking. The 2G iPhone will still get it, but a more limited version. I also think that as long as the 3G is supported the 2G will be too. As they run the same CPU with 128MB of ram.
  22. Applejuiced macrumors Westmere


    Apr 16, 2008
    At the iPhone hacks section.
    I highly doubt it has anything to do with any law.
    If that was the case they would have to charge for iPod updates also.
    Its Apples choice what they want to charge or not charge for and not a law.
  23. Moe UK macrumors regular

    Apr 28, 2009
    I have never understood that about the updates either, even if it was law that law would only apply in teh US and not the rest of the world. i think there is more to it, I will not simply say that Apple are money grabbers as I am sure we don't have all teh facts.
  24. btx2brother macrumors newbie


    Apr 4, 2010
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    IMHO, it's definitely needed the higher memory Capacity if the new feature, like "Multitasking", is proposed in the new OS 4.0 :apple:

Share This Page