Does an IPAD have similar computing power than a PC to power those synths?

[UltraJv]

I have Android Nexus 7, I love it. Fruity loops is great so is Caustic. I didn't get ipad as I hate iTunes locked in way of working. Google are working on latency with L but it is what it is. I can use it as a control surface but I don't see the point, my controller is far better. YMMV.

[dumbledog]

Kindof crazy how it went down, really. There were rumors of an Apple tablet for years after the iPhone took off. Google had all the time in the world to head them off at the pass but when the iPad came out in 2010 they literally had nothing in place to counter it. If I'm not mistaken Android didn't have anything approaching support for tablet sizes until Honeycomb was released almost a full year later, and for that year Apple had the market to itself outside of the Galaxy Tab and crappy $100 resistive tablets sold at Walgreen's running Froyo. I imagine the hardware from competitors has caught up by now but welp, got a couple grand invested in apps so it's what I got.

And you can't beat a tablet in portrait for video pinball, yee haw.

[chk071]

Caught up? I would say both Google and Samsung sell 10 times as many tablets as Apple does. Not to mention that they are better spec'd on the hardware side.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Caught up? I would say both Google and Samsung sell 10 times as many tablets as Apple does. Not to mention that they are better spec'd on the hardware side.

as i mentioned earlier, be wary of on-paper spec's

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/10/ ... oogle-play

[chk071]

Tbh, i'd rather read that in an independent test, not from "appleinsider.com". Of course, allegedly higher specs are not always an indication for higher performance, but Apple wasn't on par at all with its mobile devices spec in the past. Nor with its desktop computers or notebooks. It is only of late that they try to catch up, because they realized it is sales-promotional.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Tbh, i'd rather read that in an independent test, not from "appleinsider.com". Of course, allegedly higher specs are not always an indication for higher performance, but Apple wasn't on par at all with its mobile devices spec in the past. Nor with its desktop computers or notebooks. It is only of late that they try to catch up, because they realized it is sales-promotional.

http://www.quora.com/Why-does-iOS-run-f ... l-hardware

http://gizmodo.com/iphone-a7-chip-bench ... 1350717023

unless you are one of those non-apple users who only believes people use apple because of brainwashing or bling (or both), then you got to wonder, at some point, why people keep choosing such 'under-spec'd' phones. is that apple logo really worth 6 iterations of slow, buggy and laggy (compared to the competition), or is the real-world experience/performance dependent on so much more than on-paper specs ??

[UltraJv]

As for Android performance, do those tests run with ART on? I doubt it. ART is a performance enhancement available since KitKat 4.4. I don't see the point in spending twice the money I paid. Apple are OK but they arnt a no brainer. Anyone want a bendy iPhone 6?

[chk071]

@ el-bo: But those articles indicate now that iOS is better optimized than Android, thus will run better on the same hardware. I was just saying that Android devices always have been better spec'd than iOS devices. By just stating that, it is irrelevant whether the system itself runs better on the same hardware or not. And therefor it is difficult to make comparisons between the systems anyway. For example, the whole graphic thing could be much more optimized on iOS. How useful would be a comparison in form of a benchmark then? I'm also sure that some stuff will run better on iOS devices, while other stuff will run better on Android devices. Not relevant for stating that Android devices usually have better hardware too.

And to your last point: Of course there are loads of people who buy Apple out of prestige reasons, rather than because they're so lightning quick. But of course not everyone does. As i wrote, their displays are usually pretty good. But their specs are usually lower than those of high end devices running Windows, Android, whatever.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

As for Android performance, do those tests run with ART on? I doubt it. ART is a performance enhancement available since KitKat 4.4. I don't see the point in spending twice the money I paid. Apple are OK but they arnt a no brained. Anyone want a bendy iPhone 6?

i have no issue with owning android (already did at one point), for everything but music work. i will likely end up with an android phone or, more likely, a windows phone

i only tried to explain that on-paper spec's are not close to the whole story. if it is your contention that ART actually gives android the performance that the spec's indicate, then perhaps you could look for the evidence yourself.

[UltraJv]

It does run faster, I have it enabled on this kit kat nexus 7 I'm using to reply. As for music work, that argument is null and void. Anyone can make music on spoons, washboard or stylaphone. It's the usual story, its not the tools, its the musician.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

@ el-bo: But those articles indicate now that iOS is better optimized than Android, thus will run better on the same hardware. I was just saying that Android devices always have been better spec'd than iOS devices. By just stating that, it is irrelevant whether the system itself runs better on the same hardware or not. And therefor it is difficult to make comparisons between the systems anyway. For example, the whole graphic thing could be much more optimized on iOS. How useful would be a comparison in form of a benchmark then? I'm also sure that some stuff will run better on iOS devices, while other stuff will run better on Android devices. Not relevant for stating that Android devices usually have better hardware too.

And to your last point: Of course there are loads of people who buy Apple out of prestige reasons, rather than because they're so lightning quick. But of course not everyone does. As i wrote, their displays are usually pretty good. But their specs are usually lower than those of high end devices running Windows, Android, whatever.

you aren't really making sense to me, anymore. ios is very efficient with lower-spec'd hardware, and android doesn't seem able to know what to do with the power it has

yes, people will pay extra for the 'prestige', but they wouldn't do if the phone was a piece of shit there's no prestige in having a phone that doesn't work properly.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

It does run faster, I have it enabled on this kit kat nexus 7 I'm using to reply. As for music work, that argument is null and void. Anyone can make music on spoons, washboard or stylaphone. It's the usual story, its not the tools, its the musician.

except, your n=1 experience doesn't answer your initial query about how ART would have affected the comparison benchmarks

the music argument is not null and void. if the tools inhibit the musician by, ooh let's say, introducing delays that f**k with the timing of a musical performance, then the musician can't necessarily be blamed. up to this point, android hasn't been a viable proposition for music apps. let's see what occurs down the line

[chk071]

you aren't really making sense to me, anymore. ios is very efficient with lower-spec'd hardware, and android doesn't seem able to know what to do with the power it has

yes, people will pay extra for the 'prestige', but they wouldn't do if the phone was a piece of shit there's no prestige in having a phone that doesn't work properly.

Hm, i must admit i don't get your point either. When did i say the phone was a piece of shit? Why would there be any prestige about it if it was a piece of shit? But you know, a shiny, glancy surface can sometimes hide an aged interior. All that i am saying is that Apple devices are, although priced high end, not up to par with comparable (price) high end devices. Like it or not, it's like that. I don't know if you read it, but there are people who screwed apart the new iPhone, and guessed that the single components cost a total of 150 € in manufacturing. Of course, you have to add distribution costs and anything else to it, which is necessary to sell and develop the device, but you can figure, if you add those to it, what the profit margin is. And that that profit margin is a bit larger than on Samsung's Android phones. It is no secret that Apple is the company with the biggest amount of (in lack of the correct english term) "free" money, which is not spent on investing, or similar.

[Wormhelmet]

Still on the anti-iPad spiel I see....

And I'm backing fmr 100% on that

Looking at that new iProphet vid from Arturia, it's all about trying to look cool on the subway

Since you've stated you don't own mobile devices in the iProphet thread, I can only think you're trolling here.

Those grapes are sour anyway!

[UltraJv]

It does run faster, I have it enabled on this kit kat nexus 7 I'm using to reply. As for music work, that argument is null and void. Anyone can make music on spoons, washboard or stylaphone. It's the usual story, its not the tools, its the musician.

except, your n=1 experience doesn't answer your initial query about how ART would have affected the comparison benchmarks

the music argument is not null and void. if the tools inhibit the musician by, ooh let's say, introducing delays that f**k with the timing of a musical performance, then the musician can't necessarily be blamed. up to this point, android hasn't been a viable proposition for music apps. let's see what occurs down the line

I can make music on Android, if you can't then that's your problem. If you want limitations, iOS will never have plugins no matter how much power the CPU so can never have a full blown daw as per PC/Mac. You need the audiobus kludge. Android has lower latency in L. It can have plugs too