I feel differently. Added battery time is great, particularly for peace of mind, but for users who charge each night it's probably already rare that they run it completely down with normal use. Weight and thickness, however, affect everybody. The feel of the device in the hand is paramount, it's evident in every interaction and can dictate usage patterns. iPad 2 was heavier than I would have liked, often requiring a prop for long form reading, so the weight regression in the new iPad is disappointing. With the only real changes for this year having been made in service to it, that screen had better be revelatory.
Next-Gen iPhone & iPhone Nano Speculation
- Thread starter Arun
- Start date
I feel differently. Added battery time is great, particularly for peace of mind, but for users who charge each night it's probably already rare that they run it completely down with normal use. Weight and thickness, however, affect everybody. The feel of the device in the hand is paramount, it's evident in every interaction and can dictate usage patterns. iPad 2 was heavier than I would have liked, often requiring a prop for long form reading, so the weight regression in the new iPad is disappointing. With the only real changes for this year having been made in service to it, that screen had better be revelatory.
For past 3 years I've been using phones with full HW qwerty keyboards that have weighed somewhere around 200g or so. I've got big hands, I've got big pockets. I'd LOVE to have a cellphone that weighs 300g+, is around 5 mm thicker and lasts 4x+ times longer.
Yes, my GF probably wouldn't like one such and she can always pick something else from the shelf but there is nothing for me.
Main reason I want the battery to last longer is to be able to actually use the device for extended periods of time. E.g for that 16h/210km bike ride I had last summer I had to use external battery pack to use the GPS + web radio from the phone. Without the pack the phone would have lasted around 3-4h at best.
Yes, my GF probably wouldn't like one such and she can always pick something else from the shelf but there is nothing for me.
Main reason I want the battery to last longer is to be able to actually use the device for extended periods of time. E.g for that 16h/210km bike ride I had last summer I had to use external battery pack to use the GPS + web radio from the phone. Without the pack the phone would have lasted around 3-4h at best.
I know that Samsung released a slightly larger battery for the SGSII, but this was just an improvement of around 20% over the standard battery.
A similar larger battery option taking battery size from 2000mAh to 3000mAh would be very useful. I think, to an extent, the "thinner is better" meme has gone a bit too far. If the Razr Maxx can fit a 3300mAh battery in a form factor which is just 9mm thick, it is really worth going for a device which is 7mm thick? With the large screen sizes of 4.5"+ appearing on the newest high-end phones, I think some of these may be getting too thin to hold comfortably.
A similar larger battery option taking battery size from 2000mAh to 3000mAh would be very useful. I think, to an extent, the "thinner is better" meme has gone a bit too far. If the Razr Maxx can fit a 3300mAh battery in a form factor which is just 9mm thick, it is really worth going for a device which is 7mm thick? With the large screen sizes of 4.5"+ appearing on the newest high-end phones, I think some of these may be getting too thin to hold comfortably.
+1...I like the size of the iPhone 4 the way it is and the battery is sufficient for daily use. I've got an extended battery pack attachment for those rare times when I won't be able to charge the phone.
ltcommander.data
Regular
I believe the term is resolutionary.
With the new iPad getting thicker and heavier, it does seem to make more product differentiation room for the rumoured 7.85" iPad. Of course, that's kind of countered by the product lineup already expanding with the $399 iPad 2.
ltcommander.data
Regular
http://www.macworld.com/article/1165849/review_the_third_generation_ipad.html
Review embargo has lifted. Macworld used a nice generational span in their benchmarks although there's only 3 charts. It really makes clear how far we've come in GPU performance from just 2 years ago. It also reaffirms that CPU performance hasn't changed.
Review embargo has lifted. Macworld used a nice generational span in their benchmarks although there's only 3 charts. It really makes clear how far we've come in GPU performance from just 2 years ago. It also reaffirms that CPU performance hasn't changed.
ltcommander.data
Regular
Presuming they standardized on iOS 5.1 and WiFi, it could also be improvements made to the WiFi? Different chip or antenna layout?
Could be quite far-fetched but perhaps they changed something about the on-board flash to make it faster for storing things? Of course if they use different browser versions then that would be far more likely cause.
That should have increased results in other benchmarks as well
You mean Geekbench 2 scores? I am not sure any of the tests in it would be sensitive to the size of L2 cache, but I might be wrong in the absence of any characterisation of these benchmarks...
french toast
Veteran
Theres no way they would up the L2 cache to a mammoth 4mb with just a duel core A9@ 1ghz!? thats crazy talk.
If they were going to go to those lengths then i would think they would have started with some better bandwidth+clockspeed....
If they were going to go to those lengths then i would think they would have started with some better bandwidth+clockspeed....
The iPad 2's graphics performance was likely just massive overkill for general web browsing at its lower resolution, so this is probably just one of those tests, in contrast to Egypt Offscreen, which actually scaled higher in performance despite the improved resolution.
GLBenhmark's low level tests fairly clearly indicate that Apple gained 2x the graphics performance when doubling the cores, but the way in which real world tests were limited on the iPad 2 will determine how well they scale to the higher res.
GLBenhmark's low level tests fairly clearly indicate that Apple gained 2x the graphics performance when doubling the cores, but the way in which real world tests were limited on the iPad 2 will determine how well they scale to the higher res.
The article mentions though that existing apps sometimes fail to scroll smoothly, and that the developers may need to do some optimising or other to fix that. That's a bit worrying.
Also f this, I hate this so much:
I don't see myself watching a lot of videos on the iPad. Maybe on trips but not at home.
Who's going to buy HD videos from iTunes for $20 when you can get the Blu-Ray for that price or less?
If I were to watch videos at home, I'd get the HDMI dongle or an AppleTV to AirPlay it to the big screen, so the mono speaker doesn't bother.
Who's going to buy HD videos from iTunes for $20 when you can get the Blu-Ray for that price or less?
If I were to watch videos at home, I'd get the HDMI dongle or an AppleTV to AirPlay it to the big screen, so the mono speaker doesn't bother.
Actually the theory is that you will be able to buy a BluRay and then get the iCloud version for free? Something like that.
And sure ideally I'd watch on my TV with my surround, but the whole point of an iPad is that it is handy, mobile, etc. And that you don't always have to have headphones on, whether it is for games, watching a youtube movie together, a home movie, or whatever. And in particular, not always alone, which makes headphones a no-no.
I wouldn't mind a much larger iPad either by the way. My laptopscreen as a tablet, could definitely live with that.