Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 78 of 78
  1. Blazntino's Avatar
    Posts
    27 Posts
    Global Posts
    29 Global Posts
    #61  
    As long as the Pre is great and will improve with updates I'm fine.
  2. #62  
    3GS is 11% faster than the Pre

    Can we see video evidence? What if there were backgroud apps running?

    Anyway 11% speed increase by Apple over Pre shows just how darn close the Pre has got to Cupertino finest.

    BTW

    Pre is Infinity faster than Iphone 3GS when it comes to multitasking.
  3. #63  
    Like i said, take your Pre and find a buddy that has the iPhone or iPhone 3G S and run same app like Google Maps and see whats faster thats it. I also dont get why does the Pre have to be better then iPhone, Pre was never meant to be iPhone killer. iPhone has 2 years on Pre, the Pre comes close in some areas and is more superior in other areas. I love my Pre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  4. #64  
    I don't get it, I am getting WAY faster times then the ones posted (via stopwatch).

    Especially if that app has been recently opened.

    But even after the cache clears it is still faster then the pre times they posted.

    So I dono
  5. #65  
    AnandTech: iPhone 3GS Performance: 54% Faster than the 3G, 11% Faster than the Pre

    Engadget's comment was "Not too shabby, but not exactly a thorough drubbing either -- especially when you consider webOS is still 1.0 and there's likely some optimizations to come. "

    Note: Test was with WebOS 1.0.2.
    LG TP 1100 -> Sanyo SCP-5150 -> LG PM-325 -> Nokia 1100 -> Motorola v557 -> Treo 755p -> HTC EVO 4G

    Sprint customer since 2001
  6. #66  
    Just got done reading the same post on Engadget. Makes me more confident with my impending Pre purchase.
  7. #67  
    Also have to consider if on wifi it can be an even playing field. After today with me playing with a 3GS on 3G here with at&t I can say that the PRE smokes the GS in pulling content. Never thought I'd be waiting as badly as for the Iphone to pull content. AT&T needs to upgrade that network pronto. Oh wait this is the DeathStar we are talking about, nevermind.
  8. #68  
    This is a repost:

    <redirect removed after merge - ronbo2000>


    As I have stated before their pre times are off. I measured mine via stopwatch and got significantly lower times. Even lower then that if I had recently opened the app.

    So take it what you will but I believe the pre is faster if not the same speed since 1.0.3. Clock it yourself!
  9. #69  
    There's been an update on the article:

    Update: Thanks to the many readers who have pointed out my incorrect wording of the 3GS' performance improvements. The tables in the article have been updated to reflect the correct percentages. I appreciate the corrections

    So now the relatively insignificant 11% has turned into somewhat noticeable 21%.
    Last edited by EeZeEpEe; 06/21/2009 at 12:41 AM.
    LG TP 1100 -> Sanyo SCP-5150 -> LG PM-325 -> Nokia 1100 -> Motorola v557 -> Treo 755p -> HTC EVO 4G

    Sprint customer since 2001
  10. #70  
    21% is a big difference. Palm will close some of that with optimizations which the browser desperately need among other apps.

    Impressive showing by the GS.
  11. #71  
    Again, I am still not getting the same startup times on pre apps as this article, maybe I need a new stopwatch...

    All in all I don't think 21% warrants a significant amount to sway someone who was on the fence (or at least it shouldn't) I think features and carriers are far more significant. I also think this 21% number isn't valid as I did not read that they did multiple tests of each application, 10+ runs would be required to get a good accurate number.

    Running the applications once is just bad research. There could have been any number of factors effecting ONE test run. Even with the crude testing I did the load times varied by as much as 20% on the same device.

    That being said I also think 1.0.3 helped speed wise as well.

    So in my opinion this article does not seem valid, doing only one run of each application, doing the tests on 1.0.2, the lack of information surrounding the tests (how each tests was done, were they done straight after the machine was booted, ect ect)

    If it was a landslide, like the 3g to the 3gs I wouldn't be so anal about how they got that data, but when its close, and yes 20% is close especially with one run and on the old version, more testing is needed.

    If I did one test run for my Engineering Thesis Project and said "Look! My idea works because this ONE test run said it would, it says that my engine gets 50 mpg" with no information on how I did the test, under what conditions, and only once, I would be the laughing stock of both my peers and my professors.
    Last edited by Integrals; 06/21/2009 at 06:33 AM.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by Integrals View Post
    Again, I am still not getting the same startup times on pre apps as this article, maybe I need a new stopwatch...

    All in all I don't think 21% warrants a significant amount to sway someone who was on the fence (or at least it shouldn't) I think features and carriers are far more significant. I also think this 21% number isn't valid as I did not read that they did multiple tests of each application, 10+ runs would be required to get a good accurate number.

    Running the applications once is just bad research. There could have been any number of factors effecting ONE test run. Even with the crude testing I did the load times varied by as much as 20% on the same device.

    That being said I also think 1.0.3 helped speed wise as well.

    So in my opinion this article does not seem valid, doing only one run of each application, doing the tests on 1.0.2, the lack of information surrounding the tests (how each tests was done, were they done straight after the machine was booted, ect ect)

    If it was a landslide, like the 3g to the 3gs I wouldn't be so anal about how they got that data, but when its close, and yes 20% is close especially with one run and on the old version, more testing is needed.

    If I did one test run for my Engineering Thesis Project and said "Look! My idea works because this ONE test run said it would, it says that my engine gets 50 mpg" with no information on how I did the test, under what conditions, and only once, I would be the laughing stock of both my peers and my professors.
    I don't know. The 21% advantage on Wi-FI web browsing seems pretty valid to me. They tested 9 different websites. It's not supposed to be the most scientific study or a thesis. It's just a little proof that that 3G S is definitely fast. The same tests show that the Pre is fast too. With those number on the chart the Pre is 83% faster than the 3G.
    Last edited by EeZeEpEe; 06/21/2009 at 10:11 AM.
    LG TP 1100 -> Sanyo SCP-5150 -> LG PM-325 -> Nokia 1100 -> Motorola v557 -> Treo 755p -> HTC EVO 4G

    Sprint customer since 2001
  13.    #73  
    Personally, I am glad to see 3gs that much faster otherwise it would speak volumes (negatively) about the quality of iPhone OS after so many years of refinement.

    This is all good. Gives palm something to shoot for!
  14.    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by Shizelbs View Post
    Just got done reading the same post on Engadget. Makes me more confident with my impending Pre purchase.
    I don't follow, a slower device makes you more confident? er ok.
  15. #75  
    I'm not trying to defense my Pre, cause I already made up my mind on the 1st day getting it. DISCLAIM.

    However, please do not forget that there are other things may run in the background on the Pre unlike iPhone. On my first couple days with my Pre, I was confused at its sluggist speed, but it was due to the backup in the background and pulling my phone contacts, and syncing with my google. So, to be faired, if you just turned on the Pre of the first couple days, please expect your backup, etc.. that it is doing in the background.

    You may wanna to ensure no application/processes running in the background which ultimately reduce the perfomance/speed test.
    "Who really needs to multitask on their phone." - PRE-rock
  16. #76  
    I haven't read through the whole thread, but isn't it stated some where that the Pre's processor is underclocked around 500 Mhz or so to conserve battery life? If that is the case, it would seem to me an important factor in all these speed comparison tests...
    _________________
    aka Gfunkmagic

    Current device: Palm Pre
    Device graveyard: Palm Vx, Cassiopeia E100, LG Phenom HPC, Palm M515, Treo 300, Treo 600, Treo 650, Treo 700p, Axim X50v, Treo 800w



    Please don't PM me about my avatar. For more info go here.

    Restore your Pre to factory settings using webos doctor and follow these instructions
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by EeZeEpEe View Post
    I don't know. The 21% advantage on Wi-FI web browsing seems pretty valid to me. They tested 9 different websites. It's not supposed to be the most scientific study or a thesis. It's just a little proof that that 3G S is definitely fast. The same tests show that the Pre is fast too. With those number on the chart the Pre is 83% faster than the 3G.
    As far as websites are concerned that has been debunked in a previous thread (the sites were optimized for the iphone) This speed test seems like it is comparing processing power so it should load the standard site to be fair.

    I realize it is not a thesis, but you need to realize that publishing something like this without doing the testing correctly and accurately just leads people astray, with the wrong information.

    Because of this I just wanted people to be leery of this study for reasons I stated before
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by Integrals View Post
    As far as websites are concerned that has been debunked in a previous thread (the sites were optimized for the iphone) This speed test seems like it is comparing processing power so it should load the standard site to be fair.

    I realize it is not a thesis, but you need to realize that publishing something like this without doing the testing correctly and accurately just leads people astray, with the wrong information.

    Because of this I just wanted people to be leery of this study for reasons I stated before
    Ahh. Very interesting. Here's the thread that Integrals is talking about:
    http://forums.precentral.net/palm-pr...ess-rules.html

    However, there's still an advantage over the Pre browser. Less checkered loading when scrolling really fast.
    Last edited by EeZeEpEe; 06/21/2009 at 11:09 PM.
    LG TP 1100 -> Sanyo SCP-5150 -> LG PM-325 -> Nokia 1100 -> Motorola v557 -> Treo 755p -> HTC EVO 4G

    Sprint customer since 2001
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions