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

iPad doesn't finish rendering websites with lots of images

S

SebZen

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 12, 2009
360
0
First I'm typing this from iPad :)

Anyway it's pretty bad with rendering many images at once. For example here http://acidcow.com/fun/8608-acid-picdump-165-pics.html

It doesn't render the last 25% or so of the images

Same with images on Gizmodo (article with updated app reviews)

Very disappointing but otherwise the device is excellent. Do you think they can fix this or is this lack of RAM?
 
Also typing from the iPad.. Just tried the link you provided on my iPad and I got the same results at you. It's definitely a ram limitation. If you load that link on your computer (as I did in firefox) the memory used to render the entire page was over 200megs. It is still assumed the iPad has 512megs of ram which is why it can't load a page like that.
 
Wow Pad Info app shows 150MB RAM total. That's pathetic!!

Edit: nvm I reset the iPad and now it's showing 222MB
 
SebZen said:
Wow Pad Info app shows 150MB RAM total. That's pathetic!!

Edit: nvm I reset the iPad and now it's showing 222MB
Click to expand...

I think what you're seeing, the 150MB and 222MB, is the amount of FREE MEMORY. There is now way they would put in less ram than the iPhone and iPod touch have.
 
My 3 years old Mac Mini running Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) has exactly 512MB of RAM and loaded the whole page in a little bit more than a minute. It slowed down my computer a little bit but I was already running a few other applications in the background.
 
yyy said:
My 3 years old Mac Mini running Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) has exactly 512MB of RAM and loaded the whole page in a little bit more than a minute. It slowed down my computer a little bit but I was already running a few other applications in the background.
Click to expand...

There's also the fact that your Mac mini have a faster processor and it's ram probably runs at faster speeds.
 
iParis said:
I think what you're seeing, the 150MB and 222MB, is the amount of FREE MEMORY. There is now way they would put in less ram than the iPhone and iPod touch have.
Click to expand...

No it says total RAM. App must be buggy because it keeps changing but after a fresh restart it shows 222 and goes down as I use the iPad so I guess it's 256 total
 
iParis said:
There's also the fact that your Mac mini have a faster processor and it's ram probably runs at faster speeds.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, the faster processor might affect the speed in which the pages loads, not the quantity of rendered images. I have a feeling the iPad's Safari is programmed to stop loading after a number of seconds. Maybe the Opera Mini app would do a better job, if it gets approved.
 
Does it stop loading pics from here for you guys?

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-04-03 at 20.53.01.png
    Screen shot 2010-04-03 at 20.53.01.png
    284.9 KB · Views: 2,541
yyy said:
If I'm not mistaken, the faster processor might affect the speed in which the pages loads, not the quantity of rendered images. I have a feeling the iPad's Safari is programmed to stop loading after a number of seconds. Maybe the Opera Mini app would do a better job, if it gets approved.
Click to expand...

Well then if the images loaded faster, perhaps they would all load before safari.app timed out.
 
Diversion said:
Also typing from the iPad.. Just tried the link you provided on my iPad and I got the same results at you. It's definitely a ram limitation. If you load that link on your computer (as I did in firefox) the memory used to render the entire page was over 200megs. It is still assumed the iPad has 512megs of ram which is why it can't load a page like that.
Click to expand...

It is assumed the iPad has 256MB as no one has reported higher than that.
 
SebZen said:
I'm sure they're aware 256MB is limiting at some things. But 256 in 2010? Really?
Click to expand...

I know, pathetic right? The same as the 3GS. Works brilliant on a 480x320 screen. Weaksauce on a 1024x768. Is 512MB a big ask in 2010, when some Android phones come with the same! And it has a smaller screen.

It's akin placing regular tyres on a formula 1 car. You're going to having to keep coming back to the pit to replace them. ie. Refresh, refresh, refresh instead of having the info loaded in RAM.
 
SebZen said:
I'm sure they're aware 256MB is limiting at some things. But 256 in 2010? Really?
Click to expand...

If you are aware of Apple's business model, this shouldn't surprise you one bit. How else would they be able to name rev B the iPad S?
 
It's not too big a deal. For example Engadget fully loads. It's almost as fast as my MBP at loading normal sites
 
SebZen said:
First I'm typing this from iPad :)

Anyway it's pretty bad with rendering many images at once. For example here http://acidcow.com/fun/8608-acid-picdump-165-pics.html

It doesn't render the last 25% or so of the images

Same with images on Gizmodo (article with updated app reviews)

Very disappointing but otherwise the device is excellent. Do you think they can fix this or is this lack of RAM?
Click to expand...

99% of the websites do not have that many images in one pages. So, I think your subject "iPad bad with images" is bias. It should be "iPad bad with images if you have ridiculously huge numbers of images in one page "
 
john3478 said:
99% of the websites do not have that many images in one pages. So, I think your subject "iPad bad with images" is bias. It should be "iPad bad with images if you have ridiculously huge numbers of images in one page "
Click to expand...

You're right. Changed
 
john3478 said:
99% of the websites do not have that many images in one pages. So, I think your subject "iPad bad with images" is bias. It should be "iPad bad with images if you have ridiculously huge numbers of images in one page "
Click to expand...

"bias"? in other words, don't anyone DARE to complain about anything on their iPad, lest they be labeled as being biased.
 
yyy said:
My 3 years old Mac Mini running Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) has exactly 512MB of RAM and loaded the whole page in a little bit more than a minute. It slowed down my computer a little bit but I was already running a few other applications in the background.
Click to expand...

Virtual Memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back