71–80 of 85 posts
Cool, does that mean we can scale down the processor performance by half and still have a phone that is competitive, but has twice the battery life? OK, I know speed and power consumption are not linear. I'd really love if one phone would skip a year of increasing CPU speed and thinness, but would keep the advances in battery tech.
It's just a matter of time before we see ARM's in Macbooks. I wonder if we'll see Rosetta make an appearance for binary backward-compatibility again.
Rosetta worked, because the Intel chips were much faster than the PowerPcs back then. I doubt that the ARMs would have a sufficient large lead in performance. And there are plenty of reasons to run x86 code on Macs, be it older programs which might not be ported to ARM, or all the Windows and Linux stuff running in VMs. As much as I would like an ARM based laptop, it would be much less practical than an x86 one.
We don't need to guess here. Look at the failure of Surface RT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The PS4 and XBox One also have four times as much RAM as the iPhone 7. In fact I was kind of shocked when they announced it would only have 2GB, considering you can get a Nexus or OnePlus with 6GB this year.
Why in the world you would need 6GB in a phone today? And the nexus can have all the ram in the world but will always be painfully slow. I am really surprised that I didn't throw my Nexus 5 against the wall out of frustration in the end. The real surprise was when my friend bought the nexus 6x or whatever is called and it was even slower than the nexus 5. Just to sum up, RAM is the most useless thing if all the rest…
I used my old HTC Desire HD for 5 years, it became ram strapped lately with its 768mb
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After Apple left the server space when they shuttered the Xserve, I don't think they are really interested into getting involved into that space. I think they view themselves as a consumer goods company that makes good products and uses technological innovation to serve those goals, rather then create that innovation and figure out how to productise it later.
They don't need to sell them to enterprise. They can be their own customer. They have some of the bigger datacenters after all. ARM for data storage pools seems like a good fit.
And Intel Xeon isn't just about the CPU, it is the enterprise grade QA and testing, Network Controller, SATA controller etc. And the Xeon-D is a very Decent offering.
Then there is scale, even though Apple's Cloud is huge, it is still no where near Amazon AWS scale, not Google and Microsoft Azure either. And even if you add all these three Cloud Giant Combined, I will bet their annual buying CPU core doesn't even come close to Apple's annual iPhone sales.
So to finalize, there just isn't any financial incentive of switching.
Cool, does that mean we can scale down the processor performance by half and still have a phone that is competitive, but has twice the battery life? OK, I know speed and power consumption are not linear. I'd really love if one phone would skip a year of increasing CPU speed and thinness, but would keep the advances in battery tech.
And the Connection is only 2nd energy drain, the first being Display. I am not even sure if MicroLED could improve much at all. But any energy saving in Display Tech would be huge.
I imagine in near future, we will use smartphones as our personal computer in every situation. In the office, one can then interact with a Bluetooth keyboard, mouse/touch pad and use a big monitor. Probably, one of the next iOS will come with a macOS UI as well (under the hood the iOS is based on macOS anyway) - so if you connect it to a huge monitor, you have the desktop UI of macOS, and otherwise the iOS UI. The sa…
The TDP limits of smartphones (no more than ~10W) make them unuseable for heavier workstation loads, and there will always be demand for a lot of local computational power.
So, if you're on your phone and need to crunch a massive data-set, this gets offloaded to the big-datacruncher-in-the-cloud, and the result sent back to your device.
The day that apple flips switch in opt and ships OS X in Arms means Intel could be in trouble. They did it before with PowerPC->Intel.
All this, is assuming the Mac dont just fade out, where we will simply dock our Personal Computer ( Our iPhone ) and OSX UI running.
I imagine in near future, we will use smartphones as our personal computer in every situation. In the office, one can then interact with a Bluetooth keyboard, mouse/touch pad and use a big monitor. Probably, one of the next iOS will come with a macOS UI as well (under the hood the iOS is based on macOS anyway) - so if you connect it to a huge monitor, you have the desktop UI of macOS, and otherwise the iOS UI. The sa…
How far are we from that? 2 - 3 years? Where will iPad fit into it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The TDP limits of smartphones (no more than ~10W) make them unuseable for heavier workstation loads, and there will always be demand for a lot of local computational power.
I feel (hope :-)) that in the future, network bandwidth will be large enough that large, high-power general computation services can be used to offload intense processing tasks from personal devices to work around things like this. So, if you're on your phone and need to crunch a massive data-set, this gets offloaded to the big-datacruncher-in-the-cloud, and the result sent back to your device.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rosetta worked, because the Intel chips were much faster than the PowerPcs back then. I doubt that the ARMs would have a sufficient large lead in performance. And there are plenty of reasons to run x86 code on Macs, be it older programs which might not be ported to ARM, or all the Windows and Linux stuff running in VMs. As much as I would like an ARM based laptop, it would be much less practical than an x86 one.
> As much as I would like an ARM based laptop, it would be much less practical than an x86 one. We don't need to guess here. Look at the failure of Surface RT.