Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

saudor

macrumors 68000
Jul 18, 2011
1,510
2,111
The thing that they could pull is if they decide the iPad 3 can't handle it for whatever reason, the 2 will die with it. (Remember the blur? IPad mini did support it while the 2/3 did not)
 

Shirasaki

macrumors P6
May 16, 2015
15,753
11,113
I doubt it. The rumours about A5 support have been massive.

Theres no reason for any one A5 device to be dropped. They either all get support or non do.

Mini 1 = iPad 2
Touch 5 = iPhone 4S
iPad 3 = Marginally slower than iPad 2.

The slowest A5 device is probably the 4S, which makes no sense to drop as 1. Its identical to the Touch 5 that is bound to get support and 2. It has been showing up in logs as running iOS 9.

The iPad 2 is probably the fastest A5 device, the same as the Mini 1 as it has a higher clock sped than the 4S/Touch 5, and if the slower 4S/Touch 5 can run iS 9 the iPad 2 should be able to, not to mention that if the iPad Mini 1 can run it (most likely since its still for sale) there is no reason for the iPad 2 to not run it.

The iPad 3 is slightly slower than the iPad 2 (both in observation and benchmarking, as the retina display was too much for the A5X. However, I don't see then dropping this if the year older iPad 2 gets support, so I'd guess the iPad 3 is in as well.

If Apple has gotten a specialised version of iOS 9 working for its older devices, there is seriously no reason to leave any A5 device behind, especially given the iPad 2 has the highest installed base of any iPad to this day.

Never thought I could take hours to try to understand what everybody is saying, and what the opinions they have. ;)

I still have this idea: if apple want to run their businesses, they should never try to drop A5 chip support so suddenly, as long as they still sell it, and more important, more users with not enough money to buy the latest has purchased their maybe first apple device.

Apple is far from ready to enter enterprise market as Microsoft has already done. IOS is for now, definitely not a good OS for productivity. You may blame me for that but if apple take no action to optimise their iOS, they will have fewer enterprise customers.

For example, let's say users are using a productivity app, without crash recovery. If users switch to another app, do something, and switch back, they surely hope previous app is still there. But if it reloads itself, and everything not completed is gone, what would users think?

Not all, even enterprise guys want to upgrade to the latest and greatest, except their device is broken or stolen. I bet lots of companies buy iPad for employees just want them to do lightweight jobs on the go. Heavy lifting should be PC's job, not iOS job.

I don't know what Steve Jobs thought about apple. Maybe he wanted to create apple as a high end brand, only for guys such as movie stars. But now, Apple is so popular (especially in China). Then apple is no longer able to just meet die-hard ideas. Yes, they still need to develop new devices. But they also need to step back, and make some wrap up for old bugs. This is great for human society. And I am sure this is also great for apple.

I have so much to say. I just want to say later.
 

oldmacs

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2010
4,924
7,122
Australia
The thing that they could pull is if they decide the iPad 3 can't handle it for whatever reason, the 2 will die with it. (Remember the blur? IPad mini did support it while the 2/3 did not)

If the iPad 3 was enough for iOS 8, it should be enough for the supposedly performance optimisation update iOS 9.

The iPad 2 doesn't have blur because I believe the iPad 3 could not handle it with the early versions of iOS 7 betas. Wouldn't have looked good if an iPad a year older than the iPad 3 had blur but the iPad 2 didn't.

I'm fairly sure given the the iPad 2 has the biggest usage share of any iPad, that it will get iOS 9.
 

Homme

macrumors 6502a
Jun 17, 2014
914
829
Sydney
If the iPad 3 was enough for iOS 8, it should be enough for the supposedly performance optimisation update iOS 9.

The iPad 2 doesn't have blur because I believe the iPad 3 could not handle it with the early versions of iOS 7 betas. Wouldn't have looked good if an iPad a year older than the iPad 3 had blur but the iPad 2 didn't.

I'm fairly sure given the the iPad 2 has the biggest usage share of any iPad, that it will get iOS 9.

Yep. iPad 2 didn't get blur because iPad 3 didn't get it. Pretty much if the iPad 3 doesn't get the features, then the iPad 2 goes with it. It would be quite bad for Apple if iPad 2 did get blur but not iPad 3.

And to one member who said the 4S is the slowest A5 device, seriously, yeah it has a slower clock speed but a much smaller display, less pixels than any iPad and a significantly smaller screen resolution than any iPad (and the iPod Touch). If anything the slowest A5 device is the iPad 3. It has 4x more pixels than iPad 2, 2x screen resolution, 2x the ppi and a Retina Display too. All this combined and in over half the cases it performed worse than iPad 2. If it performed worse than iPad 2 then it definitely slower than the other A5 cousins.
 

oldmacs

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2010
4,924
7,122
Australia
Yep. iPad 2 didn't get blur because iPad 3 didn't get it. Pretty much if the iPad 3 doesn't get the features, then the iPad 2 goes with it. It would be quite bad for Apple if iPad 2 did get blur but not iPad 3.

And to one member who said the 4S is the slowest A5 device, seriously, yeah it has a slower clock speed but a much smaller display, less pixels than any iPad and a significantly smaller screen resolution than any iPad (and the iPod Touch). If anything the slowest A5 device is the iPad 3. It has 4x more pixels than iPad 2, 2x screen resolution, 2x the ppi and a Retina Display too. All this combined and in over half the cases it performed worse than iPad 2. If it performed worse than iPad 2 then it definitely slower than the other A5 cousins.

Good point - I forget about the lower pixels. (That was me who said the 4S was the slowest). :p

Leaving both the iPad 3 and iPad 2 out of iOS 8 would make around 35 percent of the iPads in use non upgradable to the latest version of iOS.

The point of the huge number of optimisation/A5 rumours has been that all A5 devices would get iOS 9, I don't think we'll see them split up.
 
Last edited:

Merkie

macrumors 68020
Oct 23, 2008
2,119
734
The thing that they could pull is if they decide the iPad 3 can't handle it for whatever reason, the 2 will die with it. (Remember the blur? IPad mini did support it while the 2/3 did not)

This is a real possibility. Stupid iPad 3. Screws up everything for the (still quite capable) 2.
 

saudor

macrumors 68000
Jul 18, 2011
1,510
2,111
Yep the 3 should have never been released and the 4 was what it was supposed to be. What's also funny is, the A5 in the ipod 5 seems to run smoother than the one in the 4S. Ive seen other reports suggesting the same too

For the longest time i thought the ipod was clocked at 1GHz but apparently not. i wonder if the iOS on the ipod is just better optimized or something
 

oldmacs

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2010
4,924
7,122
Australia
This is a real possibility. Stupid iPad 3. Screws up everything for the (still quite capable) 2.

The way I see it is that - Even if iOS 9 has minor A5 optimisation, its bound to be better than iOS 8 on the iPad 3. If iOS 8 on the iPad 3 passed Apple's acceptability test, then iOS 9 should.
 

Paddle1

macrumors 601
May 1, 2013
4,854
3,208
Yep the 3 should have never been released and the 4 was what it was supposed to be. What's also funny is, the A5 in the ipod 5 seems to run smoother than the one in the 4S. Ive seen other reports suggesting the same too

For the longest time i thought the ipod was clocked at 1GHz but apparently not. i wonder if the iOS on the ipod is just better optimized or something

I think it's just more optimized for the iPod, maybe the hardware performance is set lower on the 4S to save battery.
 

Merkie

macrumors 68020
Oct 23, 2008
2,119
734
The way I see it is that - Even if iOS 9 has minor A5 optimisation, its bound to be better than iOS 8 on the iPad 3. If iOS 8 on the iPad 3 passed Apple's acceptability test, then iOS 9 should.

Sure, also plausible. But the iPad 3 is just the odd duckling. And I have it. :(
 

stevemiller

macrumors 68020
Oct 27, 2008
2,005
1,553
i have an ipad 3, it ran ios6 like a charm but everything since has been a stuttery laggy mess.

i primarily use the ipad for only 3 things: youtube/netflix (which it actually still does mostly fine), light web browsing (like this forum), and messaging. basically mobile os features that have been around from the get go.

honestly i just want to be able to scroll and type without horrific ui lag. they can leave every fancy new feature to newer devices, id just love to have that basic functionality back. the question is whether a5 performance is actually going to "improve" over ios7/8 or just not regress as badly as newer os's have historically.
 

XTheLancerX

macrumors 68000
Aug 20, 2014
1,911
782
NY, USA
i have an ipad 3, it ran ios6 like a charm but everything since has been a stuttery laggy mess.

i primarily use the ipad for only 3 things: youtube/netflix (which it actually still does mostly fine), light web browsing (like this forum), and messaging. basically mobile os features that have been around from the get go.

honestly i just want to be able to scroll and type without horrific ui lag. they can leave every fancy new feature to newer devices, id just love to have that basic functionality back. the question is whether a5 performance is actually going to "improve" over ios7/8 or just not regress as badly as newer os's have historically.

I feel exactly like this and I own a mini 2. However, it never really ran anything like a charm, like how your iPad 3 ran iOS 6. (I remember using my friend's iPad on iOS 6 and it truly ran like a dream) Dumb things have ALWAYS stuttered, even since iOS 7 and through the greatly admired 7.1. Things like turning an open keyboard, turning in the App Store, control center over lock screen, control center over a keyboard, control center over an open folder, etc always dropped frames. I use my iPad for pretty basic things like you do, Netflix, YouTube, lots of Safari, Messaging, phone calls, games. Yeah, it executes those given tasks exceedingly well, but navigating between those (UI) is sloppy at best. It stutters a lot because of the translucency (most likely lack of optimization, I think this thing can handle a little Gaussian blur), and it doesn't feel like a $400 "mini" tablet, a lot for that market. It is especially surprising because it matches it's larger and more expensive counterpart in specs: the iPad Air!! I want everything to feel smooth and stable, like how A5/A6 devices were on iOS 6. It felt impossible to make even A5 devices drop frames with iOS 6. I think the only time I remember seeing stutter was when closing a very intensive app, but that was understandable, and that scenario was also pretty few and far between. I recall that very vaguely as well, so that very well may have not been the case.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.