They released the OG iPad with 256 MB and it definitely does not work well. It's a pretty bad user experience. And you quoted Raistlin, who didn't mention a specific amount.
It worked beautifully until 5.0.1
They released the OG iPad with 256 MB and it definitely does not work well. It's a pretty bad user experience. And you quoted Raistlin, who didn't mention a specific amount.
It worked beautifully until 5.0.1
well if you want a ipad 3 I would sell the ipad 2 ASAP. you should have no problem getting at least 75% of your money back selling it now.
they have amazing resale value but you will lose about $100 as soon as the ipad 3 is announced.
After the ipad 2 announcement the price of a second hand 16gig ipad 1 went from 400/450 to 300/350.
I never really got the whole Retina thing until I got a iPhone 4s. I use it all the time so I'm used to the display-then when I look at my iPad 1, the difference is inmediately jarring.
No, it didn't. I'm on 4.3.2 and it's still awful. The browser crashes when I browse complex sites with many pictures (www.theverge.com is an example), apps don't resume after some time (I have like 3 apps at the same time open, at max) and they crash randomly.
I wouldn't say they hold resell value THAT well. When you have a product that is this popular, the second hand market gets flooded. It's hard to compete when everyone is desperate to sell.
That is not my experience with my OG iPad. I get an occasional web page crash but it's nothing even remotely bad like you describe. And i do have a point of reference, as my phone is a 4S.
I'm posting from that iPad now and have the Verge open in another tab. You're not confusing page-outs with "crashes" are you?
I thinking could do with a bit more ram but it's hardly unusable or anything. my chief complaint is keyboard lag.
I wouldn't say they hold resell value THAT well. When you have a product that is this popular, the second hand market gets flooded. It's hard to compete when everyone is desperate to sell.
You could say that a year ago perhaps but Android has made great strides since then.Honeycomb is extremely poor, yes, but with tablets it really comes down 95% to software.
With phones, people tend to mostly use the phone for its built-in capabilities (browser, media player, and telephony) and then to fall back on a set of apps that provide some fairly basic productivity or timewaster utility and some relatively simple games. Android (and apparently W7P, although I haven't ever used it in person to know for sure) has made huge strides here; the base OS capabilities (if not UX) are near-equal now and equivalents for all the important phone-oriented apps exist. Just as a phone OS, there's plenty of reason to buy an Android device and the sales back that up.
Tablets are where all the app shortcomings of the Android ecosystem show up. It's come close to iOS on the $.99 timewaster games but it's almost completely missing the larger-scale, high-effort $3-10 games (and handheld/console/PC ports.) It doesn't have the per-provider rich content apps (magazines and the like.) It doesn't have the lightweight productivity apps (sound/video/image editors, that sort of thing.) It doesn't have the level of presentation-focused content aggregator tools or other tablet-specific presentation apps. It doesn't (unless something's changed recently) have a good alternative for video chat if you want to avoid Skype. And so on. The commonality with all this stuff is: the market's moved from supporting only iOS for phone apps to supporting iOS first and Android a not-tremendously-distant second, but it hasn't moved to developing Android tablet apps at all.
It's possible that ICS and better tablet hardware will change this (and I'd certainly like for it to happen) but there's a much bigger chicken-and-egg problem for Android tablets than there was for Android phones, and that may be too difficult to overcome.
Everything isn't going to run "as smoothly" in a system that pushes four times the pixels if the RAM stays exactly the same.
I'm on iPad 1, iOS 5.0.1, just loaded up theverge for the first time right now, it loaded up fine.
I had a period of time where I was getting crash-to-homescreens randomly while browsing with safari, but after clearing cache and history and everything, then doing a full shutdown and cold reboot, I don't get them anymore.
Still, I skipped gen2 and will be getting gen3 day one.
I'm on iPad 1, iOS 5.0.1, just loaded up theverge for the first time right now, it loaded up fine.
I had a period of time where I was getting crash-to-homescreens randomly while browsing with safari, but after clearing cache and history and everything, then doing a full shutdown and cold reboot, I don't get them anymore.
Still, I skipped gen2 and will be getting gen3 day one.
Will the A15 also provide a huge leap in graphics?Any CPU upgrade isn't going to be a big deal either way. A quad core A9 isn't going to make all that much difference, you're going to want to wait for the A15 based ipad 4 if you want to see a real increase in performance outside of games.
I find it hard to fathom a new SoC design that adds 2 cores the CPU would involve no improvement on the GPU end.But what about gaming performance?
Sure. Having to flip a coin to see if switching a tab will cause a page reload is 'working beautifully'It worked beautifully until 5.0.1
As a Transformer owner ... regardless of the supposed strides they've made ... I still find Android tablet to be a mess in every day use.You could say that a year ago perhaps but Android has made great strides since then.
.
.
.
Will the A15 also provide a huge leap in graphics?
That is not my experience with my OG iPad. I get an occasional web page crash but it's nothing even remotely bad like you describe. And i do have a point of reference, as my phone is a 4S.
I'm posting from that iPad now and have the Verge open in another tab. You're not confusing page-outs with "crashes" are you?
I thinking could do with a bit more ram but it's hardly unusable or anything. my chief complaint is keyboard lag.
![]()
It cracks me up how some of you get so personally offended because Apple made up a memorable marketing term to explain a technological advancement that may be too abstract or confusing to some people that don't understand computer screen resolutions. Of all the things to get upset about, you pick this?
Looks, Im all for upgrades, but if your selling point is "more pixels!" .....well, thats not a selling point. Its about as great a marketing campaign as "coors light is cold"
You don't have an iPhone 4, do you?nonsense
Thats a hilarious picture.
Revisionist history at its worse.
How were people able to play NES text-based games with a resolution of 256x240. With that logic, it would be unreadable!
Looks, Im all for upgrades, but if your selling point is "more pixels!" .....well, thats not a selling point. Its about as great a marketing campaign as "coors light is cold"
Thats nice. Now give us substance plz.
Lol, are you serious?? What resolution is your home monitor, 640 x 480?Looks, Im all for upgrades, but if your selling point is "more pixels!" .....well, thats not a selling point. Its about as great a marketing campaign as "coors light is cold"
Looks, Im all for upgrades, but if your selling point is "more pixels!" .....well, thats not a selling point. Its about as great a marketing campaign as "coors light is cold"
In a world where people are selling HD TVs, HD movies, HD contact lenses and HD screen protectors for smart phones, "more pixels" actually resonates pretty well as a marketing message moreso than "faster". "More pixels" has been driving the camera space forever - even when it can be shown that there were lower MP cameras that were outperforming their higher MP cousins.
Average consumers need relatively easy to consume marketing messages when it comes to getting new technology products.
Thats a hilarious picture.
Revisionist history at its worse.
How were people able to play NES text-based games with a resolution of 256x240. With that logic, it would be unreadable!
Looks, Im all for upgrades, but if your selling point is "more pixels!" .....well, thats not a selling point. Its about as great a marketing campaign as "coors light is cold"
Thats nice. Now give us substance plz.
We also live in a world where I bet you most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. In fact the same people thought they were watching HD even though it was SD just because it was an HDTV. Easy to consume messages is one thing, but overstated the difference is quite common here.
Thats a hilarious picture.
Revisionist history at its worse.
How were people able to play NES text-based games with a resolution of 256x240. With that logic, it would be unreadable!
Looks, Im all for upgrades, but if your selling point is "more pixels!" .....well, thats not a selling point. Its about as great a marketing campaign as "coors light is cold"
Thats nice. Now give us substance plz.
I owned a 3GS for a little over a year and then bought an iPhone 4. I didn't think the difference would be that apparent but it turned out to be a HUGE difference in person. Especially when reading articles or even forum discussions. On my iPad 2 it's not as big of an issue but an improvement would still be nice. It sounds to me like you haven't actually compared the older iPhone screen to the newer "retina" screen.
Let's not try to pretend that your 3GS looked like that pic either or anywhere near close to it.
More like this:
![]()
Except those pics for that one icon is pretty much the size of my iPhone's entire screen. Nobody denies there are more pixels, but super zooming and scaling it way up to show it is not how we view it in real life.
Depends on how often you use it up close to your face. I personally never REALLY see the difference - not enough that it would make me spend money to upgrade, but for people who read a lot of text on their phones it is likely very noticeable.
Depends on how often you use it up close to your face. I personally never REALLY see the difference - not enough that it would make me spend money to upgrade, but for people who read a lot of text on their phones it is likely very noticeable.
If this is the case, I really hope they up the 3G cap on file size. It's hard enough to get regular iPad applications under 20MB with the larger resolution artwork.
text on ipad2 is pretty bad looking after exposure to high ppi screens.
To make the icon as big as you just showed it, I'd have to put the screen on my eye. Again, I'm not saying there isn't a difference, but I think some people way overstate how big that difference is, especially when someone posts that original pic where we all know the 3GS never looked like that.
We also live in a world where I bet you most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. In fact the same people thought they were watching HD even though it was SD just because it was an HDTV. Easy to consume messages is one thing, but overstated the difference is quite common here.
What are the chances of the MacBook Air gaining a display closer to the Retina Display?
How about the Macbook Pro 13" getting a better screen? That shits ancient these days.