It perfectly replaces a NetBook, is more sexy than one, and by the way it is cheaper than an iPhone (without contract)
camera would be nice, and i guess without one many people will hesitate to get one, but still it is a great device!
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.
Possible Details on Apple's ARM-based 'A4' Chip?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It perfectly replaces a NetBook, is more sexy than one, and by the way it is cheaper than an iPhone (without contract)
camera would be nice, and i guess without one many people will hesitate to get one, but still it is a great device!
I have Photoshop on my Atom netbook - I don't think that Photoshop exists on the Ipad.
And, how would I get the photos from the camera's SDHC card into the Ipad, even if it did run Photoshop?
There are lots of things that a netbook can do that the Ipad cannot - why do you think that there
are so many Hackintosh netbooks?
I guess your NetBook is the special kind of powerhouse every graphic artist is dreaming about to use. Amazing, Huge display, blazing fast. real time photo and video effects.
The rest of us might be happy to catch an iPad, for light productivity, reading, and even some entertainment.
there are i camera connection kits, one of them reads SD, the other allows USB cams to be plugged in.
ps:
anyone could imagine tethered photo shooting with iPad+cam connector? Don't think it will come, but would be more useful than having PS there IMO.
Of course not - but more than adequate for doing minor touchups on location, verifying RAW image quality, etc.
Fine - that's what the Ipad will be useful for. I didn't deny that, or say that it wouldn't be useful for some tasks.
I was replying to a claim that "It perfectly replaces a NetBook,...". Not so, since a netbook runs a full x86 OS (even Apple OSX), runs full versions of most applications, has card slots, USB ports, some even have eSATA. A netbook even runs Flash.
Added extra expense, and lump in your bag, that may or may not work with the Ipad.
Sure it does. Just keep in mind that if you want to run two applications simultaneously (for example, IM and movie player) you'll need two iPads to replace one netbook
Sure there is more flexibility on real notebooks. but i think the "verify image quality" part might work just fine with gallery app. i never tried putting RAW onto the iPhone, but ok i for myself use Raw+JPEG, and for that kind of screen i guess JPEG is even enough.
There is some PS app for iPhone already for small corrections, so i would not be surprised if there will be a more capable version on the iPad.
tethered shooting from the iPad would really scream
Flash i do not wanna comment, it's more a religios topic already.
guess that might take 15-20 years to settle.Sure, all the ports and connectors give users hope they buy a real small notebook. but most of these netbooks look and handle like a big old encyclopedia compared to the slick iPad.
The biggest additional expense and lump in the bag is and will still be the cam, i guess a 30$ adapter will fit somewhere between the 2nd 80$ battery, and $$$ of 2nd and 3rd memory cards, not to talk about lenses, charger, cables,
i guess for the netbook approach you carry an external mouse, or do you actually use the tiny trackpad they have for PS?
guess a mouse is several times bigger than the photo connector...
I look at the RAW in "actual pixel" mode, to verify that the 42-bit-per-pixel image has sufficient dynamic range and color balance that it can be processed on the Core i7. Much more than a "focus check".
QuickTransit/Rosetta is just there to make it possible to run older programs. It shouldn't be widely used but frankly, I still run Office 2004 on my MacBook Pro because it is better and faster than running Office 2008. Go figure.
Apple will not leave Intel anytime soon, they are not completely stupid...
I would like to see actual benchmarks before I agree with that. Also, I want to know CPU performance using traditional registers and operations rather than optimising with SSE and the likes because it is quite easy to see massive speedups by doing that. A normal piece of C compiled for each platform would be a better demonstration of how each architecture performs although you are still at the mercy of how well optimised the compiler is.
I'm sure the i3/i5/i7 processors are faster but then they have multiple cores and multiple Ghz clock speeds. It would be interesting to find out the efficiency per clock cycle. ARM chips have always been very fast clock for clock.
Only if you are an idiot. I've spent the last 20 years writing C and most of it ports very easily with a simple recompile. In fact, ensuring your code compiles on at least two architectures is a great way to avoid some really nasty little processor specific bugs. With Xcode the compiler will produce a PPC and x86 build if you tell it to and if your code is so processor specific that it won't compile on PPC you should really have a good reason for that.
x86 is entrenched because of Windows for sure, but if other platforms such as Linux get popular enough then better architectures will have an opportunity. I used to run Linux on my 64 bit Alpha 12 years back and it was an awesome system but it never really caught on despite being massively fast, especially floating point and pure 64 bit. Lack of proper Windows support did for it (Windows NT 4.0 Alpha was 32 bit FFS!).
Agreed. A lot of up-front work on getting build scripts/makefiles working, and the occasional glitch to deal with, but once someone figures out the magic recipes, cross-compiling for multiple simultaneous architectures is no big deal for a typical app. (Different story for things like OS's and drivers that have to know about the underlying hardware). For years I built C++ software simultaneously for Sparc, x86 linux, and PA-RISC with a single "make all" shell command (though it took me a couple of months to get it working smoothly
I've heard this untruth once too often. A change in architecture for most high-level languages (and C qualifies) is generally held up by changes base byte structure (32/64-bit, word alignment, endianness). The bigger killer is changes in API from OS version-to-version or different OS entirely).
Architecture of the chip is the least problem, Different API's are the bigger problem. Adobe didn't get killed by 64-bit, it got killed by having to change API's to get to 64-bit.
Quite a lot of Objective-C code compiled with no problems on multiple architectures. Heck, I remember the old NeXT quad-fat-binaries (Motorola 68K, Intel, SPARC, and HP-RISC).
I have a set of utilities written in C that do file and text manipulation and have compiled them on multiple different chipsets with no change. The change comes when the base assumptions (ex. line endings) are different.
The biggest problem is when the code on each platform has to share data with code running on another platform - endianness rears its ugly head. There are ways to deal with that, however. Particularly if you do I/O through OS-level libraries instead of C I/O.
You can get a 12" asus netbook with the nvidia ion platform, a dual core atom processor, 2 gigs of ram, and over 200 gigs of space for the same price as the lowest end iPad. That actually is quite a powerful netbook and can game, run photoshop, high deffinition video, and tons of other stuff VERY well. Also it has VGA, HDMI outputs, usb ports, card readers, etc...
Throw OSX on that bad bad and you basically have a macbook with a slower processor (dual core atom instead of core 2 duo). Also the resolution 1300 something or other by 700 something, which plays 'high def' content properly.
It doesn't have the same cool touch screen interface as the ipad and it isn't as fancy, but it is infinitely better for work, productivity, and games.
You fanboys keep on comparing the ipad to the netbooks that were first released a couple of years ago. With the ion platform and dual core atom processors in newer models the game has changed a lot. They are no longer underpowered computers that can barely run video.
The ipad is obviously lacking some key features that would actually make it a killer device and useful to anyone, BUT I think by the time generation 2 is out things will change. By that time there will be added features that were missing, AND there will have a ton of ipad specific software made and THAT will make or break the ipad. We won't know for a year or so until we see what developers can come up with for the iPad to know if it will flop or not. As it is right now it's a big ipod touch with a lot of potential but not much substance. In a year it could be a game changing device if developers can be creative enough and make high enough quality apps to really make it a must have device.
I used the 64-bit Windows 2000 pre-releases on Alpha - but it was dropped before release. FWIW, the 64-bit Windows port was done on Alpha.
Yeah, that tis a pain. When I did NeXTSTEP / OpenStep stuff, I just used the provided kits instead of the C-level stuff. I really never though much of the chip architecture. Generally, the API / Compiler people got those issues handled and I should just make sure and obey some common sense when I write first write my app.
Untruth??
You guys have obviously no idea about big apps. Yeah, it's fairly easy to port some basic command line tools between different architectures. And in theory, if you make sure, you don't use dirty little tricks and platform dependent code and libs, and your GUI framework doesn't either, most applications SHOULD be pretty portable. In practice, they aren't. It took bloody ages until most big applications were fully ported to PowerPC, and it took exactly the same time until everyone had a x86 port of their big software.
So either you are all geniuses and the big software companies only employ "idiots" (like someone said here) or you simply underestimate the task BIG TIME.
I've written plenty of big multi-architecture apps. Most of the software AMD uses to design microprocessors was written by me for three different processor architectures (sparc, x86-64, and pa-risc). Millions of lines of C++ code. If the APIs abstract away differences such as endianness, as we've said, it's easy to port. If not, then there's some work to be done. The trick is to avoid using standard c libraries and instead relying on common frameworks to get the job done.
This thing will suck SO BADLY when using Photoshop. Netbook CPUs are total crap. Atom is fine for very light task, but nothing else. It's so slow, Flash will noticeable slow down the web surfing experience. (like a computer anno 2003 or so)
And too bad, Ion is dead now, thanks to Intel's new CPU interface... (no I am not happy about that). We'll have to see if and for what price netbooks with dedicated Nvidia graphics will ever materialize.
If they don't, you'll have a piece of hardware that doesn't even play HD properly. Atom is too slow for that and unfortunately the new integrated graphics STILL doesn't support HD acceleration....
See for yourself, how painfully slow Atom CPUs are:
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-4801-view-Intel-atom-1.6-Ghz-benchmark.html
This chart doesn't even show the new Core i3 and i5 CPUs that are substantially faster than a Core 2 Duo at the same clock speed. An 1.6 GHz Atom is about as fast as a Core 2 Duo clocked at 600 MHz. And no, Ion won't make the CPU any faster and the new Pineview Atom is not faster either.
True. I know that.
However, you'll have trouble finding one big app (similar to Photoshop, Office etc) that is built using a multiplatform framework. I know that quite a few bigger open source apps are multiplatform, but unfortunately, the big software companies wouldn't listen...
Edit: I'd like to point out again that I'm not saying that multiplatform apps are impossible.They are simply not very common in the wild, and that's what makes switching platforms so hard.
12" for me that sounds more like a crippled notebook, but ok after all that's the netbook idea.
so even if it is possible to run a full Photoshop and still open 42bit/pix photos, i doubt it would be fast to do anything with a reasonable sized photo.
I remember Adobe was/is using Carbon C/C++ for their GUIs, and now for 64bit only Cocoa Obj-C is supported. Rewriting the UI is of course quite some work!
There are many such apps, but they tend to be specialized (Electronic Design Automation comes to mind) - these tend to be apps with their own user interfaces that ignore the UI's of the host OS. MS Office used to be p-code that was multi-platform, but that was a very long time ago.
Since OS X runs on multiple processors, what's the technical possibility that Apple could include an A# chip as a supplemental chip in their systems? With Grand Central Dispatch, it could tap into even more power from their own additional chip. Benefits include:
1) Massive speed gain for CPU-intensive chips
2) If Apple finally decides to license OS X (even to one or two vendors only), Macs would always have the speed advantage, since the other vendors would not get the A# chip for extra power/speed.
Of course, I have 0 knowledge on whether an A4 (or whatever) could be shoehorned into the motherboard.
1) Massive speed gain for CPU-intensive chips
2) If Apple finally decides to license OS X (even to one or two vendors only), Macs would always have the speed advantage, since the other vendors would not get the A# chip for extra power/speed.
Of course, I have 0 knowledge on whether an A4 (or whatever) could be shoehorned into the motherboard.
heterogenous multiprocessing on different architectures is not likely to be very useful for the cost increase.
When developing in a commercial environment it is common to end up targeting one platform if that is where most of your customers are. Windows NT was plenty cross platform and originally was available for MIPS, PPC, x86 and Alpha processors but the MIPS and PPC versions were dropped quite early on in 4.0 and only Alpha and x86 survived when Win2K was being developed. Alpha was dropped prior to the release of Win2K because the vast majority of customers were using x86 so it wasn't deemed sensible to support other platforms. It does add required resources to make sure a large project is cross platform. Where I work we support Linux, Windows and OS X with our software on x86 and PPC and both 32 and 64 bit. This does add significantly to our testing but enough of our customers use the non-Windows versions that it is worth our while.
As I said though, only idiots don't at least maintain a port. Apple inherited NextStep which was very cross platform and they kept the x86 port alive through all releases up to Tiger when they came out and said they were switching to x86. I wonder if MS will continue to even maintain the Itanium port for much longer? Maybe they have an ARM port of Windows 7 in hiding just in case these ARM netbooks really hit it off and they need to force Linux off them?