I like Apple kit, have done for 10 years or so. First pc I owned was a Mac and I've never really looked back.
But, I'm not a complete raver. I need to replace my iPhone 4 that I bought 2nd hand off FleaBay for a good price. I'm on sim only, have been for years. Phones to me are a cost, but they get dropped, stolen, left in taxi's so I'm always pretty frugal when I buy.
Been looking around for a 4s on a deal, then I read about the Moto G.
That's my next phone, yeah the storage is small but I think mobile computing is all about the cloud and you get a free 50 gig google drive deal. It's a no brainer.
had it for 2 weeks now £109 phones4u free white shell.got to be the bargin device of the year surely? outstanding phone
I would go so far as to say this is easily the mobile bargain of the decade so far! Quality phone from a quality company. And cheap as chips. Even die hard Apple stans dip out when asked to explain why the 5C is apparently worth £350 more than the equivalent Moto G.
Simple answer is Motorola are now owned by Google and they don't put SD cards in their Nexus range, either. It's all about the cloud. But you pays yer money and takes yer choice, I guess. The fact that you can now get a smartphone that can comfortably be classed as mid range specs-wise for £89 is pretty miraculous even without an SD slot.
PS Plus this phone apparently supports USB OTG so you can use flash drives if you are desperate for more storage. Not as neat a solution but I repeat this phone is £89! Which sort of means for the vast majority of prospective smartphone owners £89 is all they need spend now. £89. It's a game changing phone imo and must be putting the willies up not only apple but also Samsung, HTC, Sony, Nokia etc.
Thanks for thsi information re. USB OTG. I checked it out and there are demos of USB OTG working on Youtube. Cables are approx £2.50 from Amazon. Not as perfect as an SD card, but quite usable and can handle hard disks as well as flash drives (allegedly - not tried it yet).
That's my next phone, yeah the storage is small but I think mobile computing is all about the cloud and you get a free 50 gig google drive deal. It's a no brainer.
Thats all very well, but having gone this way with my Nexus 4, it's still not quite the same as having good local storage; case in point, I've got my Music on Google Play Music and if that signal goes, its bye bye music ;-)
Next time, I'll likely be wanting something with good storage space, even if it means at least 32Gb onboard.
Thats all very well, but having gone this way with my Nexus 4, it's still not quite the same as having good local storage; case in point, I've got my Music on Google Play Music and if that signal goes, its bye bye music ;-)
Next time, I'll likely be wanting something with good storage space, even if it means at least 32Gb onboard.
Very true, I considered that myself. Then I thought, realistically, how much music will I listen to? By that I mean that at any one time I'm probably rotating through 10 'albums of the moment'. They'll rock in at under a Gb leaving loads of room for my all time favourites and the handful of apps I use. I don't see it as a massive problem.
And the 32 bit "Cortex-A12 is a decent performance uplift from Cortex-A53 in performance"
Like we always knew, any speed benefit from 64 bit is mainly down to die shrinkage and other factors. Which apply to 32 bit too.
So you only need really 64 bit for more than 1TB of RAM.
And the 32 bit "Cortex-A12 is a decent performance uplift from Cortex-A53 in performance"
Like we always knew, any speed benefit from 64 bit is mainly down to die shrinkage and other factors. Which apply to 32 bit too.
So you only need really 64 bit for more than 1TB of RAM.
You seem a little desperate to read so much into a one line quite:)
Good to see he acknowledged the smartphone market is going 64 bit.
You seem a little desperate to read so much into a one line quite:)..Good to see he acknowledged the smartphone market is going 64 bit.
It is near common knowledge. Anything else is marketing.
But hey, if we go 62 bit then I will acknowledge that marketing wins. I do recall that 64 bit gave AMD a short marketing win.
I'd say that Peter Greenhalgh at ARM was certainly keen to make people aware that there was only a very minor speed difference, if any, between 32 and 64.
Marketing so often wins ahead of fact, even when it is a near pointless move.
As far as the end user is concerned, I always thought it was pretty simple; 32-bit and 64-bit is mainly about memory, 32-bit can address up to 4Gb of RAM, 64-bit can address more than 4Gb of RAM. There will be other differences, but as far as the consumer is concerned, that is basically it in a nutshell.
If a "64-bit" CPU is faster than a 32-bit one, then chances are it has little to do with the fact it's actually 64-bit, and more to do with the fact it's just a faster processor, full stop, as noted.
It is near common knowledge. Anything else is marketing.
But hey, if we go 62 bit then I will acknowledge that marketing wins. I do recall that 64 bit gave AMD a short marketing win.
I'd say that Peter Greenhalgh at ARM was certainly keen to make people aware that there was only a very minor speed difference, if any, between 32 and 64.
Marketing so often wins ahead of fact, even when it is a near pointless move.
Near
Peter Greenhaigh obviously wasn't that keen, he gave a throwaway one liner in a q&a session, which wasn't even live so he had plenty of opportunity to major on it if he felt necessary.
I wonder where the boundary between innovation, progress and marketing lies.
It's not just about memory, it's also about processing more information at once. A 64bit cpu can in theory process double the data per cpu cycle.
I am not familiar with the first arm 64bit cpu's so can't be sure that it has full 64 bit registers.
IMHO people are incorrectly focusing on total addressable memory and should be looking at bits processed per cycle, while it is likely that 64 bit is no faster right now this will change and when the software becomes fully 64bit we should see performance boosts.
Comments
But, I'm not a complete raver. I need to replace my iPhone 4 that I bought 2nd hand off FleaBay for a good price. I'm on sim only, have been for years. Phones to me are a cost, but they get dropped, stolen, left in taxi's so I'm always pretty frugal when I buy.
Been looking around for a 4s on a deal, then I read about the Moto G.
That's my next phone, yeah the storage is small but I think mobile computing is all about the cloud and you get a free 50 gig google drive deal. It's a no brainer.
I would go so far as to say this is easily the mobile bargain of the decade so far! Quality phone from a quality company. And cheap as chips. Even die hard Apple stans dip out when asked to explain why the 5C is apparently worth £350 more than the equivalent Moto G.
Have you been to https://prizes.phones4u.co.uk/ and claimed your prize.
I got £5 code to use in the Play Store and another back cover in the post.
Thanks for thsi information re. USB OTG. I checked it out and there are demos of USB OTG working on Youtube. Cables are approx £2.50 from Amazon. Not as perfect as an SD card, but quite usable and can handle hard disks as well as flash drives (allegedly - not tried it yet).
Thats all very well, but having gone this way with my Nexus 4, it's still not quite the same as having good local storage; case in point, I've got my Music on Google Play Music and if that signal goes, its bye bye music ;-)
Next time, I'll likely be wanting something with good storage space, even if it means at least 32Gb onboard.
Very true, I considered that myself. Then I thought, realistically, how much music will I listen to? By that I mean that at any one time I'm probably rotating through 10 'albums of the moment'. They'll rock in at under a Gb leaving loads of room for my all time favourites and the handful of apps I use. I don't see it as a massive problem.
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/7574?cPage=14&all=False&sort=0&page=1&slug=ask-the-experts-arms-cortex-a53-lead-architect-peter-greenhalgh#comments
And the 32 bit "Cortex-A12 is a decent performance uplift from Cortex-A53 in performance"
Like we always knew, any speed benefit from 64 bit is mainly down to die shrinkage and other factors. Which apply to 32 bit too.
So you only need really 64 bit for more than 1TB of RAM.
You seem a little desperate to read so much into a one line quite:)
Good to see he acknowledged the smartphone market is going 64 bit.
It is near common knowledge. Anything else is marketing.
But hey, if we go 62 bit then I will acknowledge that marketing wins. I do recall that 64 bit gave AMD a short marketing win.
Marketing so often wins ahead of fact, even when it is a near pointless move.
If a "64-bit" CPU is faster than a 32-bit one, then chances are it has little to do with the fact it's actually 64-bit, and more to do with the fact it's just a faster processor, full stop, as noted.
Near
Peter Greenhaigh obviously wasn't that keen, he gave a throwaway one liner in a q&a session, which wasn't even live so he had plenty of opportunity to major on it if he felt necessary.
I wonder where the boundary between innovation, progress and marketing lies.
I am not familiar with the first arm 64bit cpu's so can't be sure that it has full 64 bit registers.
IMHO people are incorrectly focusing on total addressable memory and should be looking at bits processed per cycle, while it is likely that 64 bit is no faster right now this will change and when the software becomes fully 64bit we should see performance boosts.