Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPadOS

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 337 posts

Re: iPadOS

#311

Post by Eldt »

coldtea wrote: post #310
georgyo wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing. The top level comment is about improving performance even when many people say it isn't important. Someone says it would be nice to get even lower, and you say it isn't important. Full circle in three comments.

Yeah, wrong. Someone said "I want to know end to end latency", to which I comment that it isn't important to know this to consider this a positive improvement, given that there's a measurable marked reduction in latency. Never said improving performance isn't important. Maybe read the comments carefully top to bottom once more after the morning coffee?

> Someone said "I want to know end to end latency", to which I comment that it isn't important to know this to consider this a positive improvement, given that there's a measurable marked reduction in latency.

It might not be necessary information to know to understand that an improvement was made, but knowing the end to end latency would be interesting to see. The gp expressed an interest in the end to end latency and you responded with a dismissive comment which didn't answer their question.

Re: iPadOS

#312

Post by kd5bjo »

coldtea wrote: post #293
ksec wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am guessing this is pure Input latency? what I want to know is End to End latency, from Input > OS > Display. I wonder if we will ever get sub 5ms in End to End Latency.

Why would it be important to know? Previous situation was already industry best (comparing other tables, Wacom, etc), the new one is several ms better.

The feel of the thing is determined by end-to-end latency, not the latency of any individual part. Without knowing that, we can’t evaluate how much of an improvement this is in relative terms— is the overall latency 50% of what it was or 95%?

Re: iPadOS

#314

Post by oceanplexian »

anbop wrote: post #275
_gjrn wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Latencies bellow 16ms require a refresh rate higher than 60Hz. For 9ms you need at least 90Hz. Don't know many who do that. Specially if you take in consideration the battery hit that the faster update rate requires.

iPad Pro refresh rate is 120hz.

Yeah I was going to say. The iPad Pro display has a 120hz refresh rate and it's highly noticeable, and IMHO far superior to any other mobile device display.

Re: iPadOS

#315

Post by criddell »

NikkiA wrote: post #210
joemi wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A paid calculator app might be better designed than a free one. Or it might not have ads, when a free one does. Or it being paid could mean that it'll be better supported with any necessary bugfixes and updates. Or the fact that it's a paid app could imply that it's better designed or better supported (without necessarily being true). Or perhaps you really care about something particular that the paid calculator app…

> A paid calculator app might be better designed than a free one. A very bold claim - there are many paid-for calc apps that just use plain floating point math and don't attempt to mimic a proper calculator at all. There are also free calc apps that DO put the work in to be a proper useful calculator.

Floating point math is good enough for the vast majority of use cases.

Re: iPadOS

#316

Post by bitL »

MikusR wrote: post #202
bitL wrote: post #84

Will there be a multi-user mode? Perfect for separating work from home or multiple clients... It would make iPad so much more usable as a single device for both work and fun.

That's an education version only mode. Normal users are required to get an iPad for every person that is using it.

That requires a separate server. It's a different concept than what I asked for.

Re: iPadOS

#317

Post by coldtea »

Eldt wrote: post #311
coldtea wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, wrong. Someone said "I want to know end to end latency", to which I comment that it isn't important to know this to consider this a positive improvement, given that there's a measurable marked reduction in latency. Never said improving performance isn't important. Maybe read the comments carefully top to bottom once more after the morning coffee?

> Someone said "I want to know end to end latency", to which I comment that it isn't important to know this to consider this a positive improvement, given that there's a measurable marked reduction in latency. It might not be necessary information to know to understand that an improvement was made, but knowing the end to end latency would be interesting to see. The gp expressed an interest in the end to end latency a…

>The gp expressed an interest in the end to end latency and you responded with a dismissive comment which didn't answer their question.

It wasn't meant to answer their question, it was meant to point on the relevance (or lack thereof) of the answer to the question to appreciate the improvement.

In other words, the gp seemed to dismiss the improvement, because what would be important for them would be to know the "end to end" latency.

Re: iPadOS

#318

Post by coldtea »

kd5bjo wrote: post #312
coldtea wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be important to know? Previous situation was already industry best (comparing other tables, Wacom, etc), the new one is several ms better.

The feel of the thing is determined by end-to-end latency, not the latency of any individual part. Without knowing that, we can’t evaluate how much of an improvement this is in relative terms— is the overall latency 50% of what it was or 95%?

We know that the monitor is 120hz and that the previous generation pencil/OS already took advantage of that to show less latency, so we already know its in the 60hz to 120hz scale...

Re: iPadOS

#319

Post by petersteinberg »

HatchedLake721 wrote: post #186
_bxg1 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weirdly they did announce this for tvOS, but not their increasingly productivity-focused OS...

Release on tvOS, test, perfect, release to iPadOS

I doubt this is the case.

With the tvOS, you need different profiles for different members of the family. Otherwise your five-year-old ends up seeing a lot of mature TV shows in their recommendations. And the adults see various recommendations meant for small children. If you have small children and Netflix or you don’t have multiple user accounts set up you know what I mean.

This is the simple and easy solution for the tvOS because they can’t realistically expect you to purchase multiple Apple TVs for the multiple members of your family.

On the other hand, they very much do hope you’ll purchase multiple iPads.

Re: iPadOS

#320

Post by freehunter »

antfarm wrote: post #258
freehunter wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as people (myself included) wish we could do native development on the iPad, I would quickly settle for just supporting Cloud 9. The only reason I have to bring two laptops and an iPad with me when I travel instead of just one laptop and an iPad is because Cloud 9 doesn't work on an iPad, for absolutely no good reason.

Off-topic: "Opening workspaces (including access to databases and app frameworks) will be disabled on June 30, 2019. Cloud9 will stop working on December 31, 2019." [ https://c9.io/login ]

Yes they were bought by Amazon, so c9.io is shutting down but AWS Cloud9 is the replacement.
Post reply on HN