Testing multitasking with 4.2 beta...

Discussion in 'iPad' started by Coukos34, Sep 17, 2010.

  1. Coukos34 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    #1
    So I ran a simple test with my iPhone 4 and my ipad running 4.2. I first took the iPhone and started up Epic Citadel. I then used quick app switcher to safari, and opened 3 different non-mobile sites. I then continued into mail, settings, facebook app, app store, and sportacular.

    I was able to fast app switch between all these apps without loading, and even can flick through all 3 tabs of sites too. I then took my iPad, launched Epic Citidel (known to have added iPad 4.2 support already) and then switched to safari, and opened the same 3 sites. I tried fast-app switching between the two and it couldn't really handle it too well. It was able to switch to the current safari page, but the tabs needed to be reloaded. Typically if I stay in safari in 4.2, I can have up to 5 tabs open before it starts reloading the tabs.

    I realize this is not the BEST way to compare, but I though it would be great to test with Epic citadel as its known to require a bunch of ram (also keep in mind that the iPhone version has better textures).

    This just shows how stupid it was for apple to have cheaped out with the iPad and it's much talked about 256mb of ram. The iPad can multitask, but it can only handle a few things at a time. Seems weak to me. I realize I am using a beta version of iOS, but I don't see it getting much better. The ram is going to come out of nowhere. The iPad feels gimped because of this and it really is disappointing. Oh well, I guess apple did it's job cause I know I'll be looking to line up for the iPad 2, and I don't even are about the camera...

    I know this has been topic has been beaten down already but I felt the need to report where iOS 4 stands with the iPad. Don't get me wrong, it works great (especially for a beta) and everyone will love ios4 on their iPad.
     
  2. Don Kosak macrumors 6502a

    Don Kosak

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    #2
    I've been updating my apps to work under 4.2. It's honestly like having a brand new version 2 iPad.

    I admire your testing, but Epic Citadel (a tech demo designed to push the platform to its limits) is probably not a fair "background" task.

    I have Skype, Numbers, Pages, and two web browsers going and it's smooth as silk.

    One thing I've noticed though, Skype is a battery killer. If I leave it backgrounded my iPad goes from 90% to 0 overnight.
     
  3. DiamondGCoupe macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #3
    iOS4.2 is still a beta, a first beta. Each file is slightly different for each device, and clearly will not be EXACTLY the same, at least not worth comparing one to the other. I sincerely doubt there will be any performance issues with the iOS4 on the iPad when the GM is released. The hardware can handle it. It just needs a bit of tweaking thus the reason why Apple has allowed it self a good month or two to test and release 3-4 betas. Also keep in mind that the App are not updated to 4.2 either yet.
     
  4. bcaslis macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #4
    I think what some are missing is that Apple didn't "cheap" out the iPad. They introduced it in January, the iPhone 4 six months later. That big IPS display isn't cheap. Technology simply moves on. I'm sure that the next iPad will have more ram.

    But what do people want Apple to do? Not introduce products? Not add new software features? It's really a dumb discussion.
     
  5. Coukos34 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    #5
    You are probably right, and otherwise 4.2 has been very smooth. I though it would be easier to compare other than trying to compare a bunch of smalller apps that arent actually the same thing. I just think it's telling that the iPhone 4 has no issues at all with Epic Citadel being backgrounded. I actually think it is amazing considering how much resources it must take up, for it to be able to switch all around like that.
     
  6. Coukos34 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    #6
    Not so sure about that. If apple wanted the iPad to be a device that stands between a phone and a computer, than one would surmise that the phone would be less powerful right? Also, if apple is trying to start a new segment, why would they think that putting an iPhone out with twice the memory months after launching the iPad, be good for the iOS market? And so when they release the new iPad with more ram, are they going to have apps that only run on the new iPad and iPhone 4, further segmenting the market? Look at the iPhone when it was introduced. They didn't even change the hardware for the 3G. Shouldn't it be the same for the new iPad? They should just add the camera that they were originally going to. Only reason they didn't, is because they were saving face time for the launch of the iPhone. The poor iPad came out a little too early
     
  7. kntgsp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    #7
    That's an argument you can justify quite easily for things like cpu/gpu, display, NAND, etc. Not so much with the RAM. Most teardowns have the cost of the RAM pegged between $6-8. Even on the 16GB wifi model it wouldn't have eaten into the profits all that much. On the more expensive units the added cost would have been negligible.

    It was certainly not a matter of technology. Stacking 512MB RAM onto various Cortex A8 derivatives is not difficult and the bus connecting the memory to the A4 clearly supports it. They simply opted for two 128MB chips rather than two 256MB chips.

    Whether that was due to wanting even higher profit margins, ignorance of the larger footprint ipad apps leave on multitasking, etc is up to debate. But the ipad has the same A4 and the same bus width as the iphone so it was not a matter of it being older tech or 256MB chips not existing.
     
  8. bcaslis macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #8
    It's not a matter of technology. It's a matter of when development began. Once the hardware is frozen to hit price goals it doesn't get changed. Additionally iOS 4 was still in development when the iPad hardware specs were frozen. It may be that they decided later more ram was necessary for a certain performance.

    Every product is a tradeoff. I'm involved in product definition and the successful products are ones were you say no to certain things, not yes to everything you can.
     
  9. Dr Kevorkian94 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    SI, NY
    #9
    I like it it runs well on bolth the ipad and iPhone they really did a great job
     
  10. DiamondGCoupe macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #10
    iPhone 4 development began 18 months before it was released.
     
  11. JulianL macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #11
    Yes! Someone else gets it. Well said on all the above, and your previous post in this thread. I suspect that you might have spent time doing things like this for a living (as have I).

    For the iPad I think it might have been even more than you say, I.e. not just cost but also risk containment. The 2010 iPad was Apple's first implementation of the A4 chip and their first tablet. I suspect that they wanted to de-risk particularly the A4 bit of the package and if the 128KB wafers being bonded into the A4 had more manufacturing history, better yield, better thermals or whatever then they would want to stay safe.

    - Julian
     
  12. saberahul macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #12
    Really? I haven't tested that yet but from my experience [this is from before 4.2 installation as I just did that] Skype drains about 20% per hour WHILE talking on it.
     
  13. bcaslis macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #13
    I agree with you. I'm still continually amazed at the complaints on boards like this. People seem to think it's some sort of conspiracy to make an inferior product. Products are tradeoffs and it takes enormous work and discipline to make a great one. This is why tablets existed for ten years as failures until the iPad was released.

    The next iPad will likely have more ram for multitasking simply because that will have been one of it's product goals.
     
  14. Coukos34 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    #14
    But its not like they didn't kow the iPad wasn't going to get Multitasking a few months after launch. It should have been built with that in mind (as a product goal). Also for people that say that it was in development for a long time and they don't make changes....uh, do we not remember the 256mb of ram that was on the "found" iPhone 4 prototype? They decided to change that very late in the game.
    Looking back at it now, maybe with the iPhone 4, Apple just decided, "hey, maybe this would all work a lot better if we gave it more ram". Unfortunately too late for the iPad as it was already released, but I guess that's just how the cookie crumbles. My only point is that Apple goofed with not going for 512mb for the iPad. I think that is part of the reason why 4.2 is taking so long (along with the printing, and air streaming).

    Anyways, the point of this thread was to give people an idea of where the iPad stood in multitasking performance compared to the iPhone 4. Obviously the differences are due to that difference in ram. To be honest, this 4.2 beta works extremely well for a first beta, and I am quite happy to have it on my iPad finally. I'm also anxious to see how the betas differ from here going forward. I'm sure performance could get even better
     
  15. iBeast macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2007
    #15
    So the point of this thread is to speculate and bitch about the iPad's performance with beta software? Do you really develop software? :confused: Please close this thread.
     
  16. saberahul macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #16
    You are definitely confused, no doubt. Re-reading the OP may help... no one is complaining.
     
  17. monaarts macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Location:
    Kennesaw, GA
    #17
    Okay… Next time they will release the iPad with all of the features they want to and start the selling price at $1000. Seriously people, this is the way things work! They had decisions like 512MB or 256MB ram, cam or no cam, higher res screen or not, etc. They base most of the decisions off of what is in demand for the price point they are trying to meet or exceed.

    It seriously is common economics. If you think otherwise, you clearly need to learn ALOT before you will ever successfully move up in any company. I'm tired of posts like this.


    - Joe
     
  18. bcaslis macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #18
    Seriously, have you ever been involved in the development of a technology product? I am and it just doesn't work this way. It's easy to randomly speculate like this but you really have no concept of the amount of planning needed to hit price and performance targets. The unsubsidized price of an iPhone is as much as the iPad. There is no way they could have hit the price target without paring back things not considered to be essential. And the hardware was probably in development for two years. You don't change this stuff at the last minute. Apple didn't "goof", this was one of the design parameters. You may not agree with the decision but that doesn't make it a mistake.
     
  19. kevingaffney macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    #19
    Maybe I'm the exception but I'm delighted with my iPads performance on 4.2.
    Can't say it needs an extra 256 ram. Can the moaners please explain to me, what exactly can their ipads not do because they've been starved of memory?
     
  20. JulianL macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #20
    How do you know that they decided to change that very late in the game?

    Again this is all just standard stuff for people who develop products. We do product planning. We break down product development into separate activities that can be worked on in parallel in order to speed up product development. Those prototypes were field units so were almost certainly built to test real-life reception characteristics. My guess is that when that prototype was put together they were still waiting for the silicon to come back (in meaningful quantities) for the A4-512MB but, for the purposes of prototypes for field reception testing, the amount of RAM made no difference so they built them using the iPad A4-256MB part since waiting for the A4-512MB would have pushed out the start of reception testing so far as to push back the launch to well after July.

    - Julian
     
  21. Josh0806 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    #21
    An the iPad has been in development since before the original iPhone
     
  22. JulianL macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #22
    True, but it depends of what stage of development we're talking about.

    In 1999 I was at a work conference and I was talking over lunch with a group of researchers who were developing various smatphone apps. That's no big deal, what I thought was fascinating was the target hardware they were developing it for. Their "smartphone" hardware cost over $5 million dollars and wasn't quite pocketable, it took up an entire room (it was a big Cray supercomputer, a T3E I think). They were a blue-sky research group that were designing apps that exploited that sort of computing power on the basis that at some point in the future that sort of processing power would be available in a phone. I thought it was a fascinating piece of forward-looking research. I wonder if anyone is doing the same today.

    Back to Apple, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some advanced research group in Apple are running something like a 16GB 16 core "iPad" with a 2560 x 1920 display somewhere in a lab in Cupertino. It won't fit in anything like an iPad case of course, it's probably in 1U racks, has forced air cooling to keep it cool, the display a regular Apple 30" display, and it doesn't have a hope of running off batteries for longer than a couple of minutes, but someone somewhere will be taking a peak into the more long term future of the product line even today.

    - Julian
     
  23. tkermit macrumors 68040

    tkermit

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    #24
    I'm not a moaner and I don't have 4.2 installed on my iPad, but maybe you could see whether anything has changed about this issue that, for lack of a better explanation, I attribute to a lack of RAM:

    On picture blogs like The Sartorialist, or The Big Picture, the iPad does not show all of the pictures that the webpage contains
     
  24. Zcott macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Belfast, Ireland
    #25
    Big Picture stopped showing pictures after no.28 for me.
     

Share This Page