I develop on both iOS and Android. I've been using Macs for decades and still buy them as my primary workstations. Anyways, no, Google did not rip of the iPhone or the iPad; no more than Apple ripped off Google, which is pretty obvious for anyone that works with both.
This article would be shocking, but considering that 16 GB of memory -- especially the dual-channel DDR3 used for the i5 and consumer i7's -- is so cheap, less than $100, this article doesn't have any shock value. It's just informative. It's letting us know the 'recommended' memory and giving more nerds an excuse to add more RAM. That is the NERDS that don't already have 24 gigs for their virtual machines.:P
Your comment kind of baffles me. It doesn't seem to add up, as you're complaining about something that is completely optional. So if you really wan't no-script, then you're probably in the same camp that doesn't want Flash --- as JavaScript is required just to embed Flash.
And for reference, Flash 11 takes up 12.83 MB on my Nexus One when I look under manage apps. But going by Astro Manager, it states that the plug-in for 11 is only 4.47 MB in memory. My backed up version of 10.1 is 4.23 MB. So Flash Player 11 is only 200k larger than 10.1 and it's a HUGE improvement all around. So where are you getting another meg here and there, when Flash player for Android has always been about the same size?
But on Manage App reporting a difference size than Astro Manager, I'm wondering if the extra 8 megs it reports is dedicated cache/memory for Flash?
Anyways, I'd like a move to SD card option for Flash also, along with a few other of my Apps like Google Goggles and Books. But I found out that some apps, like PowerAmp -- which I really enjoy -- have problems when moved to the SD card, so Flash might not play nicely when moved to an external card. I have 52 megs free out of 256 on my phone, so I'm not hurting for storage and I can always back up my apps or just delete and download them again if needed. Now if I could only delete FaceBook, I could free up another meg.:\
I wouldn't call netbooks a fad and it's clear you haven't used one recently. Netbooks still sold about 35 million last year, the same as the year prior. Personally, I still see them every where here in Southern CA -- I can't say the same for tablets.
As for power, my friend's new ACER 11.6" netbook using the latest dual core Atom is noticeably faster than my any of my Cortex 9 based tablets when performing similar tasks. Early versions of the Atom were quite weak, but that's changed, just as the ARM procs have really improved.
And your comment about tablets being actually useful, as if netbooks were not, perplexes me. Yes, there are some things that are nice about a tablet, I own 4 of them for development. But when compared to a netbook -- which is basically a small notebook -- tablets still have a LONG way to go.
As for tablets and being useful, I consider my ASUS Transformer to be the most useful and that's only because it has a keyboard attachment with 2 full size USB ports. This basically makes is a "lesser" netbook, but with the consumption and pick-up strengths of a tablet -- the screen is super easy to attach and detach.
Anyways, to all their own, but it seems like you need to go out and experience the latest devices.
Your comment about the 3DS can be said about pretty much every console prior.
A brand new system always requires time for developers to figure it out and more importantly to test the waters, so as to make sure it's worth investing in with original IPs, or pretty much anything that's not just a port.
Very Nice! Same here about Flash. AS3 is my personal favorite language. I also know Java and Objective C, and also scripting languages like JavaScript of course. I studied C and C++ examples to learn code optimization and what a difference it made.:O
I have an iPad(iOS 5 -- I'm a developer.) and an ASUS Transformer to name just two of my tablets. My iPad is really just glorified personal media player -- and at that task it's overpriced. My ASUS on the other hand is closer to my MacBook Pro with the niceties of a tablet. For what I do and what I like, it's hands down better on almost every front
I MY FREAKING OPINION -- just like the article this is linked to:
The iPad is for someone that's heavily invested in iTunes and enjoys an overly simplified UI that holds one's hand and lets that user know exactly what they can and can not do. It's a device that throws individuality out the door in favor of conformity -- every iOS device looks pretty much the same with only a slight variation in the background and it's pretty sad that almost all of them have AngryBirds installed. iOS has become rather generic.
The iPad is a safe and limited tablet that will rarely evolve beyond what it is now. It's main purpose is to keep the user in Apple's eco-system and it does an excellent job at that task.
Android(Honeycomb) tablets on the other hand, are for those that want the consumption strengths of a tablet, but WAY more functionality like a traditional OS. They're devices for the tinkers, the individuals, power users. People that don't readily conform to one generic set standard and would like to personalize their experience outside of just having different apps available.
They're excellent devices for those that don't need their hand held and can make decisions on their own.
So your BlackBerry phone is better at being a phone than your Droid, go figure. Who knew these things made phone calls, I thought all they did was play apps.
Let me guess, you have an iPhone... Anyways, stop with the FUD. Your parrot-speak is getting old and what you stated really only goes to show your ignorance.
It's a nice step forward in one respect, but when compared to plug-in like Flash, it's still a huge step back.
It would be ideal if all browsers played nicely with each other and they all supported the same features, while upgrading in unison to keep things moving. Maybe that will happen sooner than later, but until then, and even then, it's nice to have the option of plug-ins for obvious reasons.
I get about 35 fps under Safari on my late 2009 MacBook Pro 17" (Core 2 2.8Ghz with a 9600m) with my CPU usage pegged at about 97%. The game window is only 640x480.
Now on the other hand, the Flash port of Doom runs noticeably better and only uses about 25% CPU when running full screen at 1920x1200 on my Mac.
Flash handles this just fine on my MacBook Pro(Core 2 9600m) full screen(1920x1200) using about 25%, where as this JavaScript version crashed Chrome at 100% CPU, then under FireFox sucked up 60% of my CPU for a little 640x480 box that could barely maintain 17fps... And the sound was completely jacked.
Never the less, a cool show and they can say they've done it, but thankfully this isn't our only only option.
Google leads with HTML 5 last I checked and it performs better under mobile Chrome than it is under mobile Safari. The biggest issue with it right now, is that it's slow and limited. The more advance examples of HTML 5 are really slow on my iPad, they're unusable in most cases. My Nexus One on the other hand does a much better with HTML 5 than my iPad, but on the flip-side, Flash doing the same tasks is way faster on my phone -- night and day faster.
So 150k reviews are all wrong, just because this one guy's "opinion" was linked to Slash dot. I'm calling this for what it is, FUD.
Flash is growing at a faster rate than some would like. It's already on about 26 million smart phones, which is impressive considering it wasn't available until later last year.
Anyways, 10.2 update runs nicely on my Nexus One. Well enough that I leave Flash enabled now, where as earlier versions were versions were quirky, but still better than the so-called alternative on mobile devices. I know for a fact it would work well on my iPad, which has a better GPU and similar speced CPU, but I guess that will never happen, but I'd like the option, just like it would be nice if I could also run Java on it.
What a generalized statement derived from ignorance. This was marked insightful?
H.264 does work great under Flash -- it has for over 3 years now -- given the following. The developer isn't clueless and someone that thinks programing is drag and dropping components and timeline scripting. The video has to be encoded/sized properly, so that it supports GPU decoding and that its bit-rate also matches the target audience -- which is actually quite easy using Adobe's media encoder. And no, the same videos that works great on a desktop will not necessarily work the same on a mobile device. This is just as true for Android as it is for iOS, where as mobile devices need a video encoded at a different(lower) bit-rate in order to achieve smooth playback. In iOS's case, videos that aren't encoded properly don't play at all.
There's way more to this, which you'll only understand if you have real experience working with this stuff -- which I do.
Slashdot Mirror
I recall the Sony. I don't have any mod points -- rarely do -- or I'd mod you up.
I just need to comment on one area.
I develop on both iOS and Android. I've been using Macs for decades and still buy them as my primary workstations. Anyways, no, Google did not rip of the iPhone or the iPad; no more than Apple ripped off Google, which is pretty obvious for anyone that works with both.
Because every byte needs a bite of an icecream sandwich. :)
This article would be shocking, but considering that 16 GB of memory -- especially the dual-channel DDR3 used for the i5 and consumer i7's -- is so cheap, less than $100, this article doesn't have any shock value. It's just informative. It's letting us know the 'recommended' memory and giving more nerds an excuse to add more RAM. That is the NERDS that don't already have 24 gigs for their virtual machines. :P
Your comment kind of baffles me. It doesn't seem to add up, as you're complaining about something that is completely optional. So if you really wan't no-script, then you're probably in the same camp that doesn't want Flash --- as JavaScript is required just to embed Flash.
:\
And for reference, Flash 11 takes up 12.83 MB on my Nexus One when I look under manage apps. But going by Astro Manager, it states that the plug-in for 11 is only 4.47 MB in memory. My backed up version of 10.1 is 4.23 MB. So Flash Player 11 is only 200k larger than 10.1 and it's a HUGE improvement all around. So where are you getting another meg here and there, when Flash player for Android has always been about the same size?
But on Manage App reporting a difference size than Astro Manager, I'm wondering if the extra 8 megs it reports is dedicated cache/memory for Flash?
Anyways, I'd like a move to SD card option for Flash also, along with a few other of my Apps like Google Goggles and Books. But I found out that some apps, like PowerAmp -- which I really enjoy -- have problems when moved to the SD card, so Flash might not play nicely when moved to an external card. I have 52 megs free out of 256 on my phone, so I'm not hurting for storage and I can always back up my apps or just delete and download them again if needed. Now if I could only delete FaceBook, I could free up another meg.
LOL!
I wouldn't call netbooks a fad and it's clear you haven't used one recently. Netbooks still sold about 35 million last year, the same as the year prior. Personally, I still see them every where here in Southern CA -- I can't say the same for tablets.
As for power, my friend's new ACER 11.6" netbook using the latest dual core Atom is noticeably faster than my any of my Cortex 9 based tablets when performing similar tasks. Early versions of the Atom were quite weak, but that's changed, just as the ARM procs have really improved.
And your comment about tablets being actually useful, as if netbooks were not, perplexes me. Yes, there are some things that are nice about a tablet, I own 4 of them for development. But when compared to a netbook -- which is basically a small notebook -- tablets still have a LONG way to go.
As for tablets and being useful, I consider my ASUS Transformer to be the most useful and that's only because it has a keyboard attachment with 2 full size USB ports. This basically makes is a "lesser" netbook, but with the consumption and pick-up strengths of a tablet -- the screen is super easy to attach and detach.
Anyways, to all their own, but it seems like you need to go out and experience the latest devices.
Good point, as it shows just one of many facets of Apple's recent hypocrisy.
Pretty much my feelings!
Well said!
When you post, a kitten dies! Anyways prime-douche boy, instead of killing kittens, you should go back to drooling on your mother's crotch.
Your comment about the 3DS can be said about pretty much every console prior.
A brand new system always requires time for developers to figure it out and more importantly to test the waters, so as to make sure it's worth investing in with original IPs, or pretty much anything that's not just a port.
Very Nice! Same here about Flash. AS3 is my personal favorite language. I also know Java and Objective C, and also scripting languages like JavaScript of course. I studied C and C++ examples to learn code optimization and what a difference it made. :O
I have an iPad(iOS 5 -- I'm a developer.) and an ASUS Transformer to name just two of my tablets. My iPad is really just glorified personal media player -- and at that task it's overpriced. My ASUS on the other hand is closer to my MacBook Pro with the niceties of a tablet. For what I do and what I like, it's hands down better on almost every front
I MY FREAKING OPINION -- just like the article this is linked to:
The iPad is for someone that's heavily invested in iTunes and enjoys an overly simplified UI that holds one's hand and lets that user know exactly what they can and can not do. It's a device that throws individuality out the door in favor of conformity -- every iOS device looks pretty much the same with only a slight variation in the background and it's pretty sad that almost all of them have AngryBirds installed. iOS has become rather generic.
The iPad is a safe and limited tablet that will rarely evolve beyond what it is now. It's main purpose is to keep the user in Apple's eco-system and it does an excellent job at that task.
Android(Honeycomb) tablets on the other hand, are for those that want the consumption strengths of a tablet, but WAY more functionality like a traditional OS. They're devices for the tinkers, the individuals, power users. People that don't readily conform to one generic set standard and would like to personalize their experience outside of just having different apps available.
They're excellent devices for those that don't need their hand held and can make decisions on their own.
This is exactly what it is, just FUD. I think what this guys stated about analysts -- which are a big part of this FUD -- makes sense; http://crackberry.com/rim-shareholder-blasts-analysts-beating-down-rim-while-typing-out-their-notes-blackberry
So your BlackBerry phone is better at being a phone than your Droid, go figure. Who knew these things made phone calls, I thought all they did was play apps.
The only thing that's clear, is that you should probably be sedated before you endanger yourself and others and that you've eaten a shit sandwich.
Your experience in no way reflects mine, but it was entertaining reading your rant.
Let me guess, you have an iPhone... Anyways, stop with the FUD. Your parrot-speak is getting old and what you stated really only goes to show your ignorance.
It's a nice step forward in one respect, but when compared to plug-in like Flash, it's still a huge step back.
It would be ideal if all browsers played nicely with each other and they all supported the same features, while upgrading in unison to keep things moving. Maybe that will happen sooner than later, but until then, and even then, it's nice to have the option of plug-ins for obvious reasons.
I get about 35 fps under Safari on my late 2009 MacBook Pro 17" (Core 2 2.8Ghz with a 9600m) with my CPU usage pegged at about 97%. The game window is only 640x480.
Now on the other hand, the Flash port of Doom runs noticeably better and only uses about 25% CPU when running full screen at 1920x1200 on my Mac.
Flash handles this just fine on my MacBook Pro(Core 2 9600m) full screen(1920x1200) using about 25%, where as this JavaScript version crashed Chrome at 100% CPU, then under FireFox sucked up 60% of my CPU for a little 640x480 box that could barely maintain 17fps... And the sound was completely jacked.
Never the less, a cool show and they can say they've done it, but thankfully this isn't our only only option.
Google leads with HTML 5 last I checked and it performs better under mobile Chrome than it is under mobile Safari. The biggest issue with it right now, is that it's slow and limited. The more advance examples of HTML 5 are really slow on my iPad, they're unusable in most cases. My Nexus One on the other hand does a much better with HTML 5 than my iPad, but on the flip-side, Flash doing the same tasks is way faster on my phone -- night and day faster.
So 150k reviews are all wrong, just because this one guy's "opinion" was linked to Slash dot. I'm calling this for what it is, FUD.
Flash is growing at a faster rate than some would like. It's already on about 26 million smart phones, which is impressive considering it wasn't available until later last year.
Anyways, 10.2 update runs nicely on my Nexus One. Well enough that I leave Flash enabled now, where as earlier versions were versions were quirky, but still better than the so-called alternative on mobile devices. I know for a fact it would work well on my iPad, which has a better GPU and similar speced CPU, but I guess that will never happen, but I'd like the option, just like it would be nice if I could also run Java on it.
Let's see some proof to back up your claims about HTML 5.
What a generalized statement derived from ignorance. This was marked insightful?
H.264 does work great under Flash -- it has for over 3 years now -- given the following. The developer isn't clueless and someone that thinks programing is drag and dropping components and timeline scripting. The video has to be encoded/sized properly, so that it supports GPU decoding and that its bit-rate also matches the target audience -- which is actually quite easy using Adobe's media encoder. And no, the same videos that works great on a desktop will not necessarily work the same on a mobile device. This is just as true for Android as it is for iOS, where as mobile devices need a video encoded at a different(lower) bit-rate in order to achieve smooth playback. In iOS's case, videos that aren't encoded properly don't play at all.
There's way more to this, which you'll only understand if you have real experience working with this stuff -- which I do.