4 ms·

So yeah they are better than one of the worst. This doesn't mean they should not try to do even better. Why can my 2008 Vista laptop be upgraded all the way to

by Kayou 12y ago

So yeah they are better than one of the worst. This doesn't mean they should not try to do even better. Why can my 2008 Vista laptop be upgraded all the way to 8.1 and use software that come out today and my 2008 pocket computer / smartphone cannot do that? Especially that this year, smartphone specs are a little stuck. We should have an OS as independent as possible from the hardware, on any device.

aroch 12y ago
Because smartphones are in the exponential phase of development, much like computers were in the late 90's early 00's. Smartphone silicon has changed dramatically in the last 4 years, laptop silicon has not.
- fleitz 12y ago
  To be fair CPU performance has massively improved since '07, however, it just doesn't matter because everything you wanted to do is fast enough. If you take an modern game and run it on an '07 PC it will be very slow at max settings. Back in 06-07 it you needed a 15x15K drives and a controller with 256 MB of cache RAM to hit 800 MB/sec random read/write. Now you can drop in two $200 SSDs
  - aroch 12y ago
    They are still, in comparison to mobile phone SoCs, incremental increases in power. Especially the Core-i series of the last few years. On top of that they still sell computers with dual-core celeron and pentium processors because they're "good enough" and instruction sets haven't changed much. Smartphone SoCs have seen leaps and bounds both in the physical silicon and in stuff like instruction set support, hw codecs and the like.
potatolicious 12y ago
Because: 1) You pay for Windows, and part of that cost is specifically to ensure backwards compatibility. iOS is free. 2) The performance of smartphones in 2008 vs. smartphones in 2014 is very different than the performance of PCs in 2008 vs. PCs in 2014. In 2008 smartphones and mobile ARM platforms were in their infancy. The latest smartphones (Android, iOS, or otherwise) are easily 100x faster than those old phones. This is why I'm personally skeptical that these guys can get the iOS7-blur effect on an original iPhone1. You'd see incompatibilities galore, too, if PCs advanced by a factor of 100 in 6 years. In fact, we did see that in the mid-late 90s when PC performance was exploding - the upgrade cycle back then was way, way shorter than it is today.
- DominikD 12y ago
  1) iOS is not free, it's included in the price of the device. 2) Vista with DX10 support on Core 2 Duo is very different than Windows 8.1 with DX11 support on i7 with SSD instead of HDD. But it doesn't matter that your argument is flawed. Supporting 4yo hardware is a waste of time from any hardware vendor POV if there were 2 new generations of devices released since. It's not a gaming console with a lifespan of 5-10 years for people to expect support after half a decade.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    It's still free. As is Android. Zero-cost OSes driving general purpose computing devices is starting to become the norm, rather than the exception. The only major holdout nowadays is Microsoft. What about updates? The cost of the device has nothing to do with the 2-4 software updates an average user can expect.
    - newscracker 12y ago
      See my reply above about "subscription accounting" - the cost of the device really pays for updates.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        I think we're in violent agreement here. However, it's unclear (I'd say to the point of not worth discussing) what the cost of the OS is. As far as the end user is concerned, the OS is free as are the updates. They pay the same amount for the phone regardless if it gets 1 update or if it gets 10 (and you don't know how many in advance). Phones at full retail price have sat comfortably at the $600ish price point for quite a while.
        DominikD 12y ago
        Litmus test, IMO, is this: would iOS be free if we were able to run it on a device that's not manufactured by Apple? I'd say no, so it's not free. The argument you're making is in fact manufacturer's POV, not consumer's one. Microsoft have made a similar claim about Windows Media Player and several other pieces of software that it was requested to remove from Windows for different markets (EU, Korea, probably others). Being cynical I reject the idea of getting something for free in cases like these. It's not free, it's included in the asking price.
hornetblack 12y ago
There's a video called "Chain of fools" where a man updates Dos 5.0 -> Windows 7 In this way: Dos 5.0 Installes windows 1.0 -> windows 2.0 -> windows 3.0 -> windows 3.1 -> windows 95 -> windows 98 -> windows 2000 -> windows xp -> windows vista -> windows 7. He skipped ME because he couldn't update ME to 2000. All through this he had Doom installed and it ran successfully on vista without modification.
- salgernon 12y ago
  This really isn't as impressive as it sounds and is more akin to saying "i painted my house differed colors and my refrigerator worked the while time".
  - danudey 12y ago
    'Windows 7 is so backwards compatible that you can still run software from 1993' or alternately 'Windows 7 is so full of old outdated code that you can still run software from 1993.'
JackC 12y ago
> Why can my 2008 Vista laptop be upgraded all the way to 8.1 and use software that come out today and my 2008 pocket computer / smartphone cannot do that? In 2008 the 2nd gen (3G) iPhone launched. It had the same 400mhz 32-bit processor, 128MB of RAM, and 480x320 px screen as the 1st gen iPhone, so it basically represents the very beginning of what is now a six-year explosion in phone performance. iOS had seen a total of one year's public use. The App Store launched alongside the 3G -- outside of the tiny jailbreak community, no one had ever tried to write and sell apps for iOS before. The iPhone 5S, released five years later, is roughly 50 times as fast,[1] meaning performance more than doubled each year from that starting point. Give it another few years and your complaint will make sense. But right now, it would be a tremendous waste of time and potential to limit apps, APIs and OSes to what can run on the first round of iPhone hardware. Especially since, as far as I can tell, that hardware represents somewhere less than 1% of iOS phones in use. [1] http://gabrieltomescu.com/blog/2013/10/25/how-accurate-is-the-iphone-5s-cpu-performance-chart http://gabrieltomescu.com/blog/2013/10/25/how-accurate-is-th...
- slantyyz 12y ago
  >> The iPhone 5S, released five years later, is roughly 50 times as fast,[1] meaning performance more than doubled each year from that starting point. That may be true, but the iPhone 3G when it came out launched and ran the phone app very quickly and reliably. By the time it received its last supported OS update, it could barely even run the phone app. As a "normal user", my expectation would be that the latest and greatest supported OS for my device lets me run the core apps at a decent speed, and to everything else to be slower. That wasn't really the case during the Forstall era of iOS.
  - swang 12y ago
    This is happening now too with my 4s with ios7. It acts the same as my old 3GS during the ios5? updates. I fear that my 4s won't be able to handle ios8. I don't expect Apple to support phones forever, but why does something like texting/inputting into a keyboard get worse and worse as the life of the phone goes? Doesn't seem to make sense.
- 12y ago

by Kayou 12y ago

aroch 12y ago

Because smartphones are in the exponential phase of development, much like computers were in the late 90's early 00's. Smartphone silicon has changed dramatically in the last 4 years, laptop silicon has not.

fleitz 12y ago
To be fair CPU performance has massively improved since '07, however, it just doesn't matter because everything you wanted to do is fast enough. If you take an modern game and run it on an '07 PC it will be very slow at max settings. Back in 06-07 it you needed a 15x15K drives and a controller with 256 MB of cache RAM to hit 800 MB/sec random read/write. Now you can drop in two $200 SSDs
- aroch 12y ago
  They are still, in comparison to mobile phone SoCs, incremental increases in power. Especially the Core-i series of the last few years. On top of that they still sell computers with dual-core celeron and pentium processors because they're "good enough" and instruction sets haven't changed much. Smartphone SoCs have seen leaps and bounds both in the physical silicon and in stuff like instruction set support, hw codecs and the like.

potatolicious 12y ago

Because: 1) You pay for Windows, and part of that cost is specifically to ensure backwards compatibility. iOS is free. 2) The performance of smartphones in 2008 vs. smartphones in 2014 is very different than the performance of PCs in 2008 vs. PCs in 2014. In 2008 smartphones and mobile ARM platforms were in their infancy. The latest smartphones (Android, iOS, or otherwise) are easily 100x faster than those old phones. This is why I'm personally skeptical that these guys can get the iOS7-blur effect on an original iPhone1. You'd see incompatibilities galore, too, if PCs advanced by a factor of 100 in 6 years. In fact, we did see that in the mid-late 90s when PC performance was exploding - the upgrade cycle back then was way, way shorter than it is today.

DominikD 12y ago
1) iOS is not free, it's included in the price of the device. 2) Vista with DX10 support on Core 2 Duo is very different than Windows 8.1 with DX11 support on i7 with SSD instead of HDD. But it doesn't matter that your argument is flawed. Supporting 4yo hardware is a waste of time from any hardware vendor POV if there were 2 new generations of devices released since. It's not a gaming console with a lifespan of 5-10 years for people to expect support after half a decade.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  It's still free. As is Android. Zero-cost OSes driving general purpose computing devices is starting to become the norm, rather than the exception. The only major holdout nowadays is Microsoft. What about updates? The cost of the device has nothing to do with the 2-4 software updates an average user can expect.
  - newscracker 12y ago
    See my reply above about "subscription accounting" - the cost of the device really pays for updates.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      I think we're in violent agreement here. However, it's unclear (I'd say to the point of not worth discussing) what the cost of the OS is. As far as the end user is concerned, the OS is free as are the updates. They pay the same amount for the phone regardless if it gets 1 update or if it gets 10 (and you don't know how many in advance). Phones at full retail price have sat comfortably at the $600ish price point for quite a while.
      - DominikD 12y ago
        Litmus test, IMO, is this: would iOS be free if we were able to run it on a device that's not manufactured by Apple? I'd say no, so it's not free. The argument you're making is in fact manufacturer's POV, not consumer's one. Microsoft have made a similar claim about Windows Media Player and several other pieces of software that it was requested to remove from Windows for different markets (EU, Korea, probably others). Being cynical I reject the idea of getting something for free in cases like these. It's not free, it's included in the asking price.

hornetblack 12y ago

There's a video called "Chain of fools" where a man updates Dos 5.0 -> Windows 7 In this way: Dos 5.0 Installes windows 1.0 -> windows 2.0 -> windows 3.0 -> windows 3.1 -> windows 95 -> windows 98 -> windows 2000 -> windows xp -> windows vista -> windows 7. He skipped ME because he couldn't update ME to 2000. All through this he had Doom installed and it ran successfully on vista without modification.

salgernon 12y ago
This really isn't as impressive as it sounds and is more akin to saying "i painted my house differed colors and my refrigerator worked the while time".
- danudey 12y ago
  'Windows 7 is so backwards compatible that you can still run software from 1993' or alternately 'Windows 7 is so full of old outdated code that you can still run software from 1993.'

JackC 12y ago

> Why can my 2008 Vista laptop be upgraded all the way to 8.1 and use software that come out today and my 2008 pocket computer / smartphone cannot do that? In 2008 the 2nd gen (3G) iPhone launched. It had the same 400mhz 32-bit processor, 128MB of RAM, and 480x320 px screen as the 1st gen iPhone, so it basically represents the very beginning of what is now a six-year explosion in phone performance. iOS had seen a total of one year's public use. The App Store launched alongside the 3G -- outside of the tiny jailbreak community, no one had ever tried to write and sell apps for iOS before. The iPhone 5S, released five years later, is roughly 50 times as fast,[1] meaning performance more than doubled each year from that starting point. Give it another few years and your complaint will make sense. But right now, it would be a tremendous waste of time and potential to limit apps, APIs and OSes to what can run on the first round of iPhone hardware. Especially since, as far as I can tell, that hardware represents somewhere less than 1% of iOS phones in use. [1] http://gabrieltomescu.com/blog/2013/10/25/how-accurate-is-the-iphone-5s-cpu-performance-chart http://gabrieltomescu.com/blog/2013/10/25/how-accurate-is-th...

slantyyz 12y ago
>> The iPhone 5S, released five years later, is roughly 50 times as fast,[1] meaning performance more than doubled each year from that starting point. That may be true, but the iPhone 3G when it came out launched and ran the phone app very quickly and reliably. By the time it received its last supported OS update, it could barely even run the phone app. As a "normal user", my expectation would be that the latest and greatest supported OS for my device lets me run the core apps at a decent speed, and to everything else to be slower. That wasn't really the case during the Forstall era of iOS.
- swang 12y ago
  This is happening now too with my 4s with ios7. It acts the same as my old 3GS during the ios5? updates. I fear that my 4s won't be able to handle ios8. I don't expect Apple to support phones forever, but why does something like texting/inputting into a keyboard get worse and worse as the life of the phone goes? Doesn't seem to make sense.
12y ago