If the iPhone 5/iPad lacks 4g and/or dual core...

[mrspeedmaster]

iOS isn't Snow Leopard and thread calls aren't the same as executive load balancing, to cite one example.

Were your links correct?

my links are correct. more to clarify:

GCD (Grand Central Dispatch) was introduced in Snow Leopard and iOS at the same time. It is basically parallelism computing.

Loading…

It was built with mobile multi-core processing in mind.

Grand Central Dispatch (GCD) comprises new language features, runtime libraries, and system enhancements that provide systemic, comprehensive improvements to the support for concurrent code execution on multicore hardware in iOS and Mac OS X.

Parellism is key and multi-core processing. Just google "Parellism multi-core" and you will find hundreds of articles from AMD, Intel and why it is necessary in multicore environments.

Multicore puts screws to parallel-programming models
Parallel computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.drdobbs.com/high-perform...2;jsessionid=22LI4XQUJVFURQE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN
Parallel Programming - Intel® Software Network

I suggest you read the full wiki on it:

Grand Central Dispatch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grand Central Dispatch (GCD) is a technology developed by Apple Inc. to optimize application support for systems with multi-core processors and other symmetric multiprocessing systems.[2] It is an implementation of task parallelism based on the thread pool pattern. It was first released with Mac OS X 10.6, and is also available with iOS 4.

In summary, Apple already has the infrastructure in place for iOS.

Apple open-sourced the tech and it is being used in BSD and will be possibly included in the Apache HTTP trunk.
(Apache support for Grand Central Dispatch (GCD) > Comments)

 

[rickyaustin]

Everyone is talking about Apple's Marketing Machine.

Look at their iPhone / iPad ads. It's simply a product demo. Nothing else.

They have the top product in each category, and simply have to show it to sell it. They don't need to license a name from George Lucus to sell their phone.

Apple doesn't sell things because of great marketing, they sell things because they make things worth buying.

 

[IOWA]

Everyone is talking about Apple's Marketing Machine.

Look at their iPhone / iPad ads. It's simply a product demo. Nothing else.

They have the top product in each category, and simply have to show it to sell it. They don't need to license a name from George Lucus to sell their phone.

Apple doesn't sell things because of great marketing, they sell things because they make things worth buying.

Looks like Apple's marketing strategy worked on you.

And FYI, Android is GLOBAL, and there's only one carrier that uses the DROID scheme, in the WHOLE WORLD.

 

[Drhyde]

Everyone is talking about Apple's Marketing Machine.

Look at their iPhone / iPad ads. It's simply a product demo. Nothing else.

They have the top product in each category, and simply have to show it to sell it. They don't need to license a name from George Lucus to sell their phone.

Apple doesn't sell things because of great marketing, they sell things because they make things worth buying.

Not to be offensive, but I can't think of any Apple products that I would be interested in buying over a cheaper, more capable competitor. I view Apple products as watered down versions of real electronics for people who can't or don't want to truly learn how to use them. Great for your grandma, absolutely boring for me.

 

[Baldilocks]

Not to be offensive, but I can't think of any Apple products that I would be interested in buying over a cheaper, more capable competitor. I view Apple products as watered down versions of real electronics for people who can't or don't want to truly learn how to use them. Great for your grandma, absolutely boring for me.

Unfortunately a lot of people, incorrectly, think that way.

 

[EarlyMon]

^In your opinion. (mod voice)

Let's get back to topic, rather than discuss who thinks what, okey dokey? Or - at least not start down the path of criticizing each other.

We all cannon fodder to the big manufacturers, they'd rather we squabble than examine what they truly do wrong in order to maintain the appearance that they do everything right.

In the end, we're the consumers and as soon as we forget that it's us against the makers, we're lost.

Holds true for every brand I can name.

In my opinion.

edit and ps or those that caught it in time - nothing funnier than a spammer posting a follow-on to a mod post.

 

[baillou2]

^In your opinion. (mod voice)

Let's get back to topic, rather than discuss who thinks what, okey dokey? Or - at least not start down the path of criticizing each other.

We all cannon fodder to the big manufacturers, they'd rather we squabble than examine what they truly do wrong in order to maintain the appearance that they do everything right.

In the end, we're the consumers and as soon as we forget that it's us against the makers, we're lost.

Holds true for every brand I can name.

In my opinion.

edit and ps or those that caught it in time - nothing funnier than a spammer posting a follow-on to a mod post.

I agree. I just read this whole thread - my head hurts - and what I'd like to see is more reasonable critique of the manufacturers of the products we DO want, not the ones we don't.

Now my head will explode in brainy bits....

 

[jroc]

Do you realize us tech nerds are in a pretty small minority? Your average consumer has no clue what dual core processors and 4G are let alone what they actually do. You also dont need insanely fast processors to run mobile devices if the OS is light and efficient, like iOS. Thats exactly why the tablets with the specs twice that of the iPad sit there collecting dust (or never even get into production) and the iPad is nearing 14 million sales in nine months. The general public does NOT care about specs! Make it simple and easy to use, make it attractive, make it a household name with brilliant marketing and repeat. Apple does all of these things better than any other company, thats why it works.

If thats the case, future iPhones and iPads dont need dual core or HDMI or other things.

If the specs really dont matter, why is Apple looking to use dual core too for both the iPhone 5 and iPad 2? They can just keep on with what they're using now. Hey, like you said they made millions so far using the tech they're using now.

They are trying to stay relevant or capture the tech, spec crowd too.

And for folks that mention Apple does things seemlessly:

http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=109

Just read thru the first few pages. The iPhone is like any smartphone. Mac OS is like any desktop OS. They might do some things better than others.....but NO product is prefect.

 

[mrspeedmaster]

If thats the case, future iPhones and iPads dont need dual core or HDMI or other things.

If the specs really dont matter, why is Apple looking to use dual core too for both the iPhone 5 and iPad 2? They can just keep on with what they're using now. Hey, like you said they made millions so far using the tech they're using now..

Apple's implementation of multi-core will actually save battery. That is the difference. Battery life and consumption is a big deal.


I've looked into Grand Central Dispatch and the way they do parallel task execution would mean the cpus would run cooler.

Right now, the current status quo of doing multi-cpu is to "sequentially" load up the task. When the 1st cpu gets to a certain threshold, it offlines it to the secondary cpus which is not a very efficient way of doing it.
When you execute tasks in a sequential manner, you clock up the CPU; revving it up; making it run hotter. Apple (and what the industry is hoping for) is to have developers parallel their tasks; spreading the threads in parallel across CPUs. In order to do this, you need the OS and APIs that developers can take advantage of. GDC is built into iOS 4. It exist today. It works in Snow Leopard. You can download various source code to test this out.

If you care to read of the links I posted on this thread, every CPU manufacture wants the industry to go in this direction - Intel, AMD, and Nividia.

As of today, the iPhone iOS is better equip to handle multi-core mobile computing. If you need any further evidence; look at the Tegra 2 implementation by Toshiba, Viewsonic, and the Adam Notion Ink. The Toshiba and Viewsonic tablets are running very un-optimized.

I've googled parallelism, multi-core APIs Android, etc... and I haven't seen anything in Android's direction on this. I've looked at the Tegra 2 developer forums and the Tegra 2 is not optimized for Android. There are no API hooks for multi-threading of Tegra 2 CPUs right now. There is better API support for Windows Mobile.

 

[EarlyMon]

Right now, the current status quo of doing multi-cpu is to "sequentially" load up the task. When the 1st cpu gets to a certain threshold, it offlines it to the secondary cpus which is not a very efficient way of doing it.

Well - there's how the chip makers think it should go and how it's going for Linux. I think you'll take some interest in the very short PDF detailing multicore support with load balancing to support higher power efficiency and proper load balancing.

Developing for GPUs, Cell, and Multi-core CPUs Using a Unified Programming Model | Linux Magazine

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/smp-faq/prive/mentre/smp-faq/smp-faq-3.html

http://software.intel.com/sites/oss/pdfs/mclinux.pdf

Linux kernel port targets multi-core DSP SoCs - News - Linux for Devices

Linux, like OS X, has been providing good multi-core support for a short while now.
Which methods will migrate from Linux to Android may remain to be seen.

I've got some long rant where I explained the 3 three easiest architectures to implement for Android, and that wasn't fully developed, just off the top of my head. If it makes sense, I'll track them down and post a link.

I'd be surprised if initial multicore support for Android is great - not terribly surprised, just surprised, and quite surprised if better practices aren't incorporated into Android very quickly.

The core of good parallelism comes from the kernel and the disciplines presented to developers through the available compilers. Digging below the surface and into the published and available works in those areas show what software technologies will tend to be available as we move forward in silicon.

 

[mrspeedmaster]

Linux, like OS X, has been providing good multi-core support for a short while now.
Which methods will migrate from Linux to Android may remain to be seen.

Yes , the Linux Kernel on Android has the ability to support SMP. However, from one of the Android Platform developers, writing on a thread, the NDK/JNI and Dalvik run-times do not support multi-core processing.

There are no current API hooks in the NDK.
This may change with version 2.5 or 3.1 but as of now, there is no native way of doing it.

Correct me if I am wrong but I see this as a big selling point for the next iPhone release if current developers have already tapped into this. I can see this as a big deal with apps like a web-browser.

 

[EarlyMon]

As someone who wrote half of an SMP OS on bare metal and cross-connected busses to make separateCPUs play together, let's just agree that an SMP approach is only a good first step and not what we'd want in the long run. SMP is as dated as my gray hair. It does present interesting opportunities tho.

Depending on the approach any dev may take, they can box themselves in, or be ready for the future. I don't know that there's one rule on that.

Only time can tell if both product approaches end up doing this well and also on a timely basis for their respective users. I hope they do.

PS, maybe a touch of that is covered in my links.