Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 269
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by frankos72 View Post
    So, I was of the impression that the iPhone uses its GPU for all the cool smooth transitions etc... I'm also confident that if webOS offloaded all the GUI animations (card animations, etc) to the GPU it will also become smooth. Even on the same hardware we have now.

    Of course a higher powered processor will help too.
    I'd like to hear an answer from the more technically astute folks, but my understanding is that this is indeed part of the apparent difference in overall smoothness between, e.g., the iPhone's UI and that of webOS. In the same way that Web browsers haven't been GPU accelerated, webOS's UI isn't accelerated (because it's essentially a browser), and thus depends entirely on the CPU. Hence, we get apparent lagginess particularly when the system is busy doing other things (e.g., downloading email).

    This will change, however, when things like GPU-accelerated CSS transforms and transitions are utilized, then later WebGL for 3D effects. I'd imagine the impact will be similar to when Windows 3.1 went from using dumb frame buffers to graphical accelerators (which were just designed to accelerate 2D for some time). This is all new WebKit stuff, however, and hasn't quite been ready for prime time. I think Palm's already said that they're pushing to implement CSS transforms, probably in webOS 2.0 in the fall.

    If this isn't a correct description of the situation, I'd love to hear where I'm wrong.
    Treo 600 > Treo 650 > HTC Mogul (*****!) > HTC Touch Pro (***** squared!) > PRE! > Epic
  2. #162  
    Quote Originally Posted by milominderbinder View Post
    The iPhone 4 could have been the iTwinkie and they would have sold just as many. Everyone else has one and you need one.

    For the BlackBerry Torch, every old guy will have to have one. It's not their money. They just need to look cool around the other old guys.

    For the rest of the world, specs matter.

    - Craig
    Milo,

    You dinged the edges of what I was was thinking about posting, so I've decided to take the plunge.

    Sorry to disagree with so many, but I don't think that Apple's "slick advertising" is the answer. That was (is) the answer for Apple, but that doesn't mean squat for anyone else. Here's what I mean:

    Palm originally had the smartphone market just about to themselves with the original Treos. BlackBerry was out there, but Palm really owned the market (such as it was at the time).

    BlackBerry came along and started carving out a niche because of their well-done integration with messenging services, and how the enterprise jumped all over that.

    The iPhone came along, and immediately appealed to all the iPod owners (and iPod envyers). Even I (who never owned an iPod) was intrigued by the idea of an iPod and a phone combined. Then Apple nailed it when they stumbled across the idea of the apps store.

    Now Android is gaining on the leaders, and looks like it'll pass. I believe it's succeeding because the open source nature of the OS allows it to quickly be modified to suit rapidly changing hardware.

    What all of these various success stories have in common is ... well nothing. That's the commonality, each one succeeded for an entirely different reason.

    I don't think any newcomer is going to succeed by copying. I think it's a recipie for failure. I think it's almost as hard (but not quite) to predict what it's going to take to be the "next big thing".

    All that said, I still believe there is a place for various devices. Not being #1 doesn't mean BlackBerry, iPhone, or even Palm, is going away - it just means that they're not #1.
  3. #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Milo,

    You dinged the edges of what I was was thinking about posting, so I've decided to take the plunge.

    Sorry to disagree with so many, but I don't think that Apple's "slick advertising" is the answer. That was (is) the answer for Apple, but that doesn't mean squat for anyone else. Here's what I mean:

    Palm originally had the smartphone market just about to themselves with the original Treos. BlackBerry was out there, but Palm really owned the market (such as it was at the time).

    BlackBerry came along and started carving out a niche because of their well-done integration with messenging services, and how the enterprise jumped all over that.

    The iPhone came along, and immediately appealed to all the iPod owners (and iPod envyers). Even I (who never owned an iPod) was intrigued by the idea of an iPod and a phone combined. Then Apple nailed it when they stumbled across the idea of the apps store.

    Now Android is gaining on the leaders, and looks like it'll pass. I believe it's succeeding because the open source nature of the OS allows it to quickly be modified to suit rapidly changing hardware.

    What all of these various success stories have in common is ... well nothing. That's the commonality, each one succeeded for an entirely different reason.

    I don't think any newcomer is going to succeed by copying. I think it's a recipie for failure. I think it's almost as hard (but not quite) to predict what it's going to take to be the "next big thing".

    All that said, I still believe there is a place for various devices. Not being #1 doesn't mean BlackBerry, iPhone, or even Palm, is going away - it just means that they're not #1.
    I agree I think apple has got as big as it's going to get and android is getting there. RIM is on it's last leg and palm may have a new beginning. We'll see how W7 does. But I think there is enought room for all the major platforms to co exist to some extent, as not everyone likes apple, android, bb, palm, or wm.
  4. #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Milo,

    You dinged the edges of what I was was thinking about posting, so I've decided to take the plunge.

    Sorry to disagree with so many, but I don't think that Apple's "slick advertising" is the answer. That was (is) the answer for Apple, but that doesn't mean squat for anyone else. Here's what I mean:

    Palm originally had the smartphone market just about to themselves with the original Treos. BlackBerry was out there, but Palm really owned the market (such as it was at the time).

    BlackBerry came along and started carving out a niche because of their well-done integration with messenging services, and how the enterprise jumped all over that.

    The iPhone came along, and immediately appealed to all the iPod owners (and iPod envyers). Even I (who never owned an iPod) was intrigued by the idea of an iPod and a phone combined. Then Apple nailed it when they stumbled across the idea of the apps store.

    Now Android is gaining on the leaders, and looks like it'll pass. I believe it's succeeding because the open source nature of the OS allows it to quickly be modified to suit rapidly changing hardware.

    What all of these various success stories have in common is ... well nothing. That's the commonality, each one succeeded for an entirely different reason.

    I don't think any newcomer is going to succeed by copying. I think it's a recipie for failure. I think it's almost as hard (but not quite) to predict what it's going to take to be the "next big thing".

    All that said, I still believe there is a place for various devices. Not being #1 doesn't mean BlackBerry, iPhone, or even Palm, is going away - it just means that they're not #1.
    Generally agree with the basic premise of your post, but you can't try to discount the impact of marketing. For all of Android's open-sourceness and proliferation across HTC's endless lineup of smartphones, it really never quite became a serious threat to Apple until Verizon launched the Droid and threw their heavy TV marketing campaign behind it. That in itself was a stroke of genius -- licensing the "Droid" name from Lucas Films, slapping it on the product directly, creating a simple, effective copy "Droid Does" and playing it over and over and over again until it translated to a massive sales success. THAT was what put Android over the top, not open source.

    I agree that every entrant in the smartphone segment will have to find its own killer feature that gives it success, but even the holy grail of smartphones is doomed to die without an effective marketing campaign to compete with the force that is Apple. That's the reality, and the Pre is a prime example of why it is true.
  5. #165  
    Quote Originally Posted by LCGuy

    Well said, however, I think you might be missing the point that many posters are trying to make here on PC, which is that because WebOS is such a multitasking marvel, it is NOT as smooth as the iPhone on similar hardware - the Pre versus the iPhone 3Gs had the same processor, the Pre had a HIGHER screen density and a finer display (same screen resoltion - 480 x 320, but a 3.1" diagnal versus the iPhone's 3.5" diagnal), and still, it was slower and less smooth. The Pre+ is better as it has more RAM, but, it really doesnt shine until you put Govna and Uberkernal on it at 800mhz, which is kind of cheating, to compare against a..
    Pixel density has nothing to do with performance, it's just an attribute of the display. 480x320 is 480x320 no matter if it's 3 inches or 5 feet. That's like saying a computer will run smoother when connected to a smaller monitor. At the same resolution it doesn't matter.

    Like others have posted, Palm will be hardware accelerating certain aspects of webOS in version 2.0. That along with the beefier hardware should make webOS as smooth as butter. Running the OMAP3 at 1 ghz gives you a little taste of that.
    Palm Vx -> Treo 600 -> Treo 700p -> Centro -> Pre (Launch Phone 06/06/09) -> AT&T Pre Plus with Sprint EVDO swap -> Samsung Epic 4G w/ Froyo
  6. #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    All that said, I still believe there is a place for various devices. Not being #1 doesn't mean BlackBerry, iPhone, or even Palm, is going away - it just means that they're not #1.
    This got me thinking about how HP will define success relative to the Palm acquisition. That is, when they're asked in a few years whether their $1.2 billion investment (let's say, $2 billion before Palm starts generating meaningful revenue) was worth it and whether acquiring Palm was the right strategic move, what do HP execs want to be able to say?

    Here's what I think: they'll want to be able to say that they were successful enough in the smartphone business that they were able to achieve their vision of a family of connected devices all providing a common experience. That is, they'll be able to offer smartphones, tablets, netbooks, multifunction devices, and probably other products that we've not yet talked much about. Those could include standalone media players to compete with the iPod and perhaps even notebooks and all-in-one destops with an alternative, instant-on mode using webOS.

    Now, I haven't figured out what this means in terms of sheer numbers and market share in the smartphone space. Because HP's product line is so deep and wide, they don't necessary need to dominate in every market in order to be successful. Not everyone who buys an HP notebook is going to want a tablet. Note everyone who buys an HP tablet is going to want a smartphone. And etc. But, everyone who does want, say, a notebook, tablet, smartphone, and multifunction device from the same manufacturer and with a common experience across all of them, will pretty much have to go to HP to get it.

    So, they could perhaps maintain a respectable showing in any given market and still accomplish larger corporate goals such as profitable growth. I think this could mean 3rd place or even 4th place, as long as they get there with high-end, cutting-edge products that demand profitable prices (which is lower than one might expect given HP's supply chain strengths).

    Just some food for thought.
    Treo 600 > Treo 650 > HTC Mogul (*****!) > HTC Touch Pro (***** squared!) > PRE! > Epic
  7. #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by NickDG View Post
    Pixel density has nothing to do with performance, it's just an attribute of the display. 480x320 is 480x320 no matter if it's 3 inches or 5 feet. That's like saying a computer will run smoother when connected to a smaller monitor. At the same resolution it doesn't matter.

    Like others have posted, Palm will be hardware accelerating certain aspects of webOS in version 2.0. That along with the beefier hardware should make webOS as smooth as butter. Running the OMAP3 at 1 ghz gives you a little taste of that.
    Nick;

    Thanks for the reply.

    Higher Pixel density REQUIRES performance, and with larger screens that are focused on giving hi quality/fine/smooth images, the pixel density will be much higher, hence a much more significant load on the CPU or GPU that will e controlling it - I probaly should have made that clearer.

    I agree totally about the GPU, and Rahul Sood even implied that in his interview here on PC the other night... so, a new device with an OMAP4 dual processor AND a GPU, would be able to drive that hi resolution, large screen, and the WebOS multitasking scheme, without any hits to overall perfromance and "smoothness".

    It will be interesting to see how Flash runs in one card of many on the new device, given this.
    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  8. #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post
    More powerful hardware with the same or better battery life is always good. But getting a solid component with a reasonably long life like the OMAP4 in place is also good. For example, I have a Core i7 920 with 12GB of RAM for my main system at home and the same for my ESXi server sitting next to it. I do not foresee the need to upgrade anything other than the main system's video card over the next couple of years, maybe longer. I *might* upgrade the memory to 24GB on the ESXi box, but even that is a question mark.
    Martin;

    Agreed, and agreed!!!!

    My current hardware cycle is 2 - 3 years before swapping out the motherboard, CPU, power supply (just keeps increasing, darn it), and video card. hard drives are about 4-6 years, and with the new crop of the terabyte HD's, Im due fairly soon.

    Software functionality and complexity drives the hardware requirements - always has, and always will.

    Remember the Windows 95 conundrum, going from 16 bit to 32 bit OS software, and the press doubting that the 16 bit gamers and enterpise customers would spend the money to upgrade thier hardware to get the new OS?

    The smartphone device is still in its infancy, still finding its way into the lives of its users, and how they use it hasn't been fully defined yet... once that matures, the software will in general be more focused and the hardware will become highly specialized, and grow in capacity, accordingly, but right now, hardware has to still find that "sweet spot" that it can perform well with pretty much any demand, but still be affordable to build, and then sell tot the consumer.

    Ive posted this several tims before.. there are approximately 3billion + cell phone users in the world, and, last I checked, only 300 - 350 million own smartphones..

    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  9. #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by LCGuy View Post
    Higher Pixel density REQUIRES performance, and with larger screens that are focused on giving hi quality/fine/smooth images, the pixel density will be much higher, hence a much more significant load on the CPU or GPU that will e controlling it - I probaly should have made that clearer.
    No, Nick was right. Pixel density has nothing to do with system performance. Pixel count affects performance. So does anti-aliasing (image smoothing).
  10. #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by LCGuy View Post
    Nick;

    Thanks for the reply.

    Higher Pixel density REQUIRES performance, and with larger screens that are focused on giving hi quality/fine/smooth images, the pixel density will be much higher, hence a much more significant load on the CPU or GPU that will e controlling it - I probaly should have made that clearer.
    Hi LCGuy,

    The system is still pushing the same amount of pixels to the screen, so there is no difference in performance. The only difference is the pixels are closer together on the Pre vs the iPhone 3GS.
    Palm Vx -> Treo 600 -> Treo 700p -> Centro -> Pre (Launch Phone 06/06/09) -> AT&T Pre Plus with Sprint EVDO swap -> Samsung Epic 4G w/ Froyo
  11. #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by NickDG View Post
    Hi LCGuy,

    The system is still pushing the same amount of pixels to the screen, so there is no difference in performance. The only difference is the pixels are closer together on the Pre vs the iPhone 3GS.
    Nick;

    My point was that with the higher pixel density comes the same size screen, so, the CPU/GPU is pushing MORE pixels!!

    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  12. #172  
    Quote Originally Posted by LCGuy View Post
    Nick;

    My point was that with the higher pixel density comes the same size screen, so, the CPU/GPU is pushing MORE pixels!!

    But how can it be "more" pixels at the same resolution? 480 pixels by 320 pixels is the same amount of pixels regardless of screen size, isn't it?
  13. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by LCGuy View Post
    Nick;

    My point was that with the higher pixel density comes the same size screen, so, the CPU/GPU is pushing MORE pixels!!

    Yes a higher pixel density with the same size screen would be a higher resolution, so it would require more horsepower.

    But 2 screens running the same resolution, with one having a higher pixel density, will have identical performance.

    Make sense?
    Palm Vx -> Treo 600 -> Treo 700p -> Centro -> Pre (Launch Phone 06/06/09) -> AT&T Pre Plus with Sprint EVDO swap -> Samsung Epic 4G w/ Froyo
  14. #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    But how can it be "more" pixels at the same resolution? 480 pixels by 320 pixels is the same amount of pixels regardless of screen size, isn't it?
    Mikah;

    Screen density = numer of pixels /inch. Thats scalable, with screen size.
    Screen resolution = physical size (in pixels) of the screen. That doesn't change, but, the same resolution on a smaller screen size yields a higher screen density.

    For instance, the Pre originally had a 3.1' diangal screen, with a resolution of 320 x 480. Thats a screen density of about 320 x 480/3.1" = 49,549 pixels/linear inch

    while,

    The original iPhone had the same resolution (320 x 480) but a larger screen (3.5"), and therefor had a lower screen density (less fine image): 320 x 480/3.5" = 43,885 pixiels per linear inch.

    We are hearing larger screen sizes today with larger screen resolution, but, NONE match the fine quality of the iPhone 4s' 960 x 640 at 3.5", which is an unpresedented 175,000 pixels /linear inch.

    If the next Pre wants to have a 4" screen and a 960 x 640 resolution, it will only have a 153,000 pixel/linear inch density.. only 2nd best to the iPhone 4.

    To match the iPhone4's screen density/quality, a 4" screen would have to have a screen resolution of 1085 x 724 (thats 13% MORE pixels, and a larger load for the CPU/GPU to drive).

    Lets not even go to providing a HIGHER screen density than the iPhone4..

    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  15. #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by NickDG View Post
    Yes a higher pixel density with the same size screen would be a higher resolution, so it would require more horsepower.

    But 2 screens running the same resolution, with one having a higher pixel density, will have identical performance.

    Make sense?
    Nick...

    Absolutely.. but, not the situation any more, as screen sizes are larger now, and will increase along with those higher screen densities, in future devices, creating many more pixels to push, hence my point aout the requirement for better hardware (cpu/gpu)!

    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  16. #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by LCGuy View Post
    Nick...

    Absolutely.. but, not the situation any more, as screen sizes are larger now, and will increase along with those higher screen densities, in future devices, creating many more pixels to push, hence my point aout the requirement for better hardware (cpu/gpu)!

    Man you are all over the place.

    You posted earlier that a higher screen density affects performance. It doesn't. Resolution is what matters (number of pixels) when it comes to performance.

    You were wrong. I was just correcting you so people get the correct information when reading this thread.
    Palm Vx -> Treo 600 -> Treo 700p -> Centro -> Pre (Launch Phone 06/06/09) -> AT&T Pre Plus with Sprint EVDO swap -> Samsung Epic 4G w/ Froyo
  17. #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by NickDG View Post
    Man you are all over the place.

    You posted earlier that a higher screen density affects performance. It doesn't. Resolution is what matters (number of pixels) when it comes to performance.

    You were wrong. I was just correcting you so people get the correct information when reading this thread.
    Nick;

    No, Im being very consistent - perhaps you are being a bit too literal, or maybe Im not being clear enough, or, perhaps its a bit of both.

    Re-read my original post, and you'll understand - there is no misinformation, if you take the whole post in its context, and not line by line sound bytes.. .

    Here, I will say it clearly, now:

    Higher screen resolutions will affect performance, if the screen sizes stay the same size or increase and CPU's do NOT increase in power/functionality - performance of the device WILL suffer if these do not improve proportionate to one another.

    Newer smartphones are requiring larger screens, and better image quality than is standard now. Look at my previous post above for the iPhone/Pre comparisons.. and it will only become moreso, with newer devices - the iPhone 4 has a superior display, but a relatively small screen size, so, anyone who wants to match that display quality and increase screen size WILL have to increase CPU/GPU power, proportionately.

    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  18. #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by LCGuy View Post
    Higher Pixel density REQUIRES performance, and with larger screens that are focused on giving hi quality/fine/smooth images, the pixel density will be much higher, hence a much more significant load on the CPU or GPU that will e controlling it - I probaly should have made that clearer.
    This is wrong.

    I think you are trying to say higher pixel density on the same sized screen will require more horsepower, which it does but only because of the higher resolution, not because of the pixel density.

    Pixel density has nothing to do with performance. Zero, nada, nothing.
    Palm Vx -> Treo 600 -> Treo 700p -> Centro -> Pre (Launch Phone 06/06/09) -> AT&T Pre Plus with Sprint EVDO swap -> Samsung Epic 4G w/ Froyo
  19. CraziJake's Avatar
    Posts
    35 Posts
    Global Posts
    51 Global Posts
    #179  
    take this to an off topic forum. This isn't part of the rumor for a 2nd week september release of a new phone. It shut down the rest of the discussion about a new phone.
  20. #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by crazijake View Post
    take this to an off topic forum. This isn't part of the rumor for a 2nd week september release of a new phone. It shut down the rest of the discussion about a new phone.
    Agreed. Let's get back to the discussion of rumors. I want a new phone.

Posting Permissions