1. Rooster99's Avatar
    A friend said RIM's OS was very efficient, allowing it to run better than the competition on slower CPU's.

    From a function point of view that would justify the slower spec of the 624MHz CPU.

    But from a marketing perspective it would mean they missed a major, major opportunity. If a device functions "adequately" on a 624MHz CPU, then why not put in a 1GHz CPU to match the competition on specs and absolutely smoke them on performance?

    So questions :

    1) Does RIM's OS perform that much better than the competition's on slower CPU's?

    2) If it does, why, and what performance gain would we have seen if RIM had put in a 1GHz CPU? How would that have been expressed? And how would it compare to the competition?

    I know there are issues of optimization for any given CPU so I'm simplifying things, but I'm looking for a general, high level assessment.

    There are tons of really smart, technically inclined people on this board. I'm interested in the comments from a business & marketing point of view.

    Don't know why this question didn't occur to me earlier.

    - R.
    09-13-10 07:49 PM
  2. Rickroller's Avatar
    I think this questions already been beat to death in other threads. Like everyone else, i asked "Why didnt they just put a bigger processor in it?" But obviously there was reasons. Either a) They were too cheap to spend a bunch of money on CPU's they already had in stockpile b) Weren't quite ready to redo an OS on a new chipboard, and have it out in a timeframe they deemed adequate c) Didn't feel they would be able to provide a long enough battery life running a faster processor, and thus didn't want to sacrifice battery for power. d) All of the above (or none of the above).

    Personally i would like to have been a part of RIM to know for sure why they made certain decisions when it came to it, because clearly, if they had thrown a better processor (even if they didn't bother with the screen resolution) it would have satisfied alot of the tech junkies who would have jumped all over it..even if the phone didnt perform any better than it currently does now (with .214). I think alot of people want the latest and greatest in technology, even if the improvements in everyday use are miniscule (or non-existent).
    09-13-10 08:16 PM
  3. mark_rivers19's Avatar
    here we go again...
    i need to copy and paste my answers from the the other forums to keep up with this processor discussions.
    09-13-10 08:18 PM
  4. jeffreii's Avatar
    I like this answer by CX in another thread:

    In comparison to other devices obviously, the 9800's is slow. Especially considering most are at the same price point. All devices have their issues from time to time. The 9800 isn't a super slow device. However, it isn't remotely close to the fastest. Ever load m.crackberry.com on the i4 & 9800?? The I4 is there and done before the 9800's loading bar gets half way. Ever pinch to zoom on the 9800?? Notice the lag while waiting on the device to refocus?? The i4, Samsung S, D X don't have that lag.

    There aren't many areas where you can really notice lots of lag on the 9800, but let's not act as if it's not there. It is. I do not however believe it affects 95% of everyday functions. Only a couple of specific things. The 9800 would definitely benefit from a faster processor. It would actually put it up there on top with a faster processor & higher resolution screen. But there is nothing about the 9800 that makes it not-usable. It functions perfectly fine for everyday tasks. There's just a couple things it could do better at. But as always, that goes for ALL devices...
    09-13-10 08:35 PM
  5. Rooster99's Avatar
    Sorry, I didn't mean this to be a duplicate thread.

    I really am interested in anything technical anyone knows about the Berry OS that would make it perform extra well on slower CPU's. Some extra OS trick that utilized a CPU more efficiently than ANDROID or iOS. I've seen lots of in depth technical analysis of Berry security, and a fair bit on how CPU's work in and of themselves. But I haven't seen anything that says "This is what the Berry OS does that no one else does". You know, how in the PC world there have been occasions where CPU's were capable of multithreading but most OS's at the time didn't leverage that capability, etc.

    That was my point - not a Torch complaint thread, or a general "Why no 1GHz processor" thread. You're right, there are a gazillion of those already. Sorry, CX knows a lot, but that post doesn't address my question.

    - R.
    09-13-10 10:41 PM
  6. siausin's Avatar
    I think if RIM answer these questions they will address a lot of why's in the market. There is an Earnings release coming out from RIM 16 Sep... Hopefully some analysts who have these questions in their mind ask RIM and seek answers. I think if RIM provides good answers and reasons they do themselves a big favor at least in the marketing front..

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-13-10 11:23 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD