Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Handhelds IOS Iphone Upgrades Apple

iPhone 3G and iOS4 Lack Chemistry 194

Posted by timothy
from the when-hard-and-soft-aren't-enough dept.
adeelarshad82 writes "Granted that iPhone 3G is about 3 years old but some of us who still have it are tempted to update it to iOS 4 for the folders, threaded e-mail and iBooks even if it means jail-breaking the phone. Unfortunately though, as it turns out, it's really not worth the hassle. Not only does the update slow the phone, in some cases by a fraction of a second and in others much more, but it's a nightmare to downgrade back to iOS 3."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iPhone 3G and iOS4 Lack Chemistry

Comments Filter:
  • Goes without saying that Apple will deliver a sub-par experience on older devices in order to "persuade" users to upgrade to newer devices, thus making Apples more money. Everyone does it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by x*yy*x (2058140)
      I don't own an iPhone ("old" HTC Touch HD), but who really expects to get updates for their phones endlessly? It's always been the case that you buy a phone on the merits it has then. If it gets any major updates at all thats a huge bonus. It's the same with every phone manufacturer and has always been.
      • Re:Kinda figures. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MistrBlank (1183469) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @02:52PM (#35966666)

        tis true... my xv6700 only enjoyed 4 years of updates due to the hacker community, but aside from one carrier update, didn't really add new features, ever.

        iBooks didn't exist when I got my iPhone3 why should I expect it now?

        What I do have a problem with however is that I do own an iPad (1 & 2) that syncs with my iTunes library and i use some Universal and iPhone apps on it that REQUIRE updates to function on iOS4. Those apps aren't guaranteed to run on iOS3. Apple provides no means to maintain multiple versions of the same App, nor does it allow you to roll back to older more functional versions of some apps. If I sync an iPad with an updated App, it copies that version to my iTunes and will force an update to my iPhone the next time it updates, my only option is to remove the app from my iPhone or use a copy that doesn't work. iOS3 is no longer supported and I've BARELY had the phone for more than 2 years at this point. That to me is unacceptable.

        • Lesson... Stop buying apple products...

          Stop rewarding companies with your hard earned $$ when they fail you in the long run..

          Too many people remain loyal to companies that screw them over... I have the patience of a gnat when it comes to a company that has wronged me in some way and don't seem interested in making things right.... More people should have that mindset so companies will realize customers are fragile and you need to treat them with respect rather than property that they can treat how ever they

          • by guspasho (941623)

            You must never sign a service contract, and buy all your phones at full price. Doesn't that get expensive?

            • wow you ARE a well programmed, aren't you. There's no such thing as a free lunch, esp. with telcos (happy cricket customer here). The idea you "save" money by signing a two year contract is laughable, and anyway, the prices they show you in the store are crazy -- you wouldn't pay that in the real world if you're not dense.
              • by guspasho (941623)

                You pay the same price whether your bill is subsidizing a phone or not. So if you're paying full price for your phone then you are losing money, just for the flexibility to switch carriers at the drop of a hat, which is rather pointless since there are few carriers like Cricket that don't require a contract, if any at all.

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        My droid is running 2.3.3. CM7 FTW!

    • by ceeam (39911)

      And what is the "par" then? First android phones (G1 anyone?) were released *after* 3G. Good luck installing 2.3 onto it, lol.

    • by Goaway (82658)

      They already don't allow you to install it. They don't need to spend any effort to intentionally "deliver a sub-par experience".

    • by hellwig (1325869)
      First off, let me say I don't own any Apple products and never will. However, I feel inclined to point out that Apple did NOT deliver a sub-par experience on the older, 3G device. Apple did not release iOS4 for the 2G and 3G models (the summary says you have to jailbreak the device to install iOS4). Therefore, Apple simply released newer software that it knew the older device could not handle, and chose not to release it for that hardware. Nothing says that every release of software must support every d
      • However, I feel inclined to point out that Apple did NOT deliver a sub-par experience on the older, 3G device. Apple did not release iOS4 for the 2G and 3G models (the summary says you have to jailbreak the device to install iOS4). Therefore, Apple simply released newer software that it knew the older device could not handle, and chose not to release it for that hardware

        Hate to break it to you, but Apple most certainly did release IOS4.x for the iPhone 3G, and you did not have to jailbreak it to install it - I take it you do not remember the outcry about IOS4.x not supporting multitasking on older phones, not supporting various home screen animations on older phones and not supporting certain features on older phones? Hell, they even specifically released a new IOS4.x version to try and address speed and stability concerns....

        So yes, Apple did release newer software that

        • by spongman (182339)

          the kicker is that if you jailbreak your 3G you can enable some of the iOS4 features they said it couldn't handle and it works just fine. well, no worse than it normally does, anyway.

    • by sribe (304414)

      Goes without saying that Apple will deliver a sub-par experience on older devices in order to "persuade" users to upgrade to newer devices, thus making Apples more money. Everyone does it.

      Or maybe it just goes without saying that running the current OS on a device that has 1/4 the RAM of the current device is just plain not feasible. At least the 3GS has 1/2 the RAM of the 4.

      Oh, you expect Apple to make all the new features work without using more memory? Yeah, right, that would just be so easy to do--it's obvious the only reason they don't make it run in a fraction of the RAM is to force you to upgrade. Sure.

      Remember, the iPhones don't have a storage device appropriate for paging, so there

    • this is why i basically *had* to upgrade to an iphone4, the 3g + ios 4 experience was so shit it made it almost unusable compared to when it had ios 3 installed, and the additional feature set isnt really worth it

  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @02:29PM (#35966240) Homepage

    Apple has no qualms about making your computer obsolete so you have to buy new things. The promise of the PC was that you could keep upgrading on and on with inexpensive parts. That's not as true as I would like it to be, but it's not exactly a lie either.

    But with Apple, they care almost nothing about backward compatibility and backward portability. This makes all the G4 and G5 devices out there all but useless... before that, the 68XXX based machines. Now, with multiple iProducts out there, they are also abandoning the people who bought their iProducts less than 5 years ago expecting them to spend more money... or to spin it another way, creating more waste in landfills.

    Microsoft would LOVE to have the power Apple has to render OSes and hardware obsolete. The requirements for Vista were so high that no one wanted to buy whole new computers just to run it. The same is generally true of Win7 though to a lesser extent. But since Apple controls both the software and the hardware, you're pretty much at their mercy. Craigslist is filled with "great deals" for Macs with G4/G5 processors in them sold by people who already find them useless.

    I'm "aware of the problem" but at least now with Intel based Macs, the machines will always be able to run Linux pretty well... hell, even Windows 7 for that matter. I'm guessing Apple is already regretting their decision to go with Intel based architecture.

    • by afidel (530433)
      All cellphone makers are like that, there are plenty of Android devices with plenty powerful hardware that will never see 2.2 let alone 2.3, and if you have an HTC device that wan't announced this quarter you're not getting Sense 3.0.
      • by the_humeister (922869) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @03:01PM (#35966832)

        My HTC Aria is rooted and running Cyanogenmod 7 (Android 2.3.3). Honestly, if you don't root your phone and load custom ROM, I think you're missing out on quite a bit (not to mention the crapware that the carriers load onto the phone.)

        • by Samalie (1016193)

          Offtopic, but in response to your statement:

          Honestly, if you don't root your phone and load custom ROM, I think you're missing out on quite a bit

          So, essentially, at it's root - the Andriod you get when you buy your Android phone is likely shitty, and beat to shit with crapware from multiple parties. So, instead of going to the store and getting a smartphone that works great out of the box, I have to go out, find a custom ROM, root my device, and load said custom ROM on my device?

          And this is a fucking SELLING POINT??

          Look, while I declared iOS long ago, I love Android too & hope it continues its success

          • First off, the Android version loaded on phones isn't beat to shit. It's just that custom ROMs are cleaner. Secondly, is it the fault of Google's that carrier's load things that people don't want on their phones?

            • by Samalie (1016193)

              Well, considering how Apple browbeat the carriers into NOT installing their own personal custom shitware on every iPhone, the precident was set. Google COULD have swung essentially the same hammer.

              Of course, in the Android world, I think I hate Motorola (I think?) more for their locked down all-but-impossible to root devices more than carrier shitware. And yes, I know they can still be rooted...but they made it a royal clusterfuck to do.

              I realize that the whole concept goes against the whole "open" concep

              • Yes, I know there are areas where Andriod is superior to the iPhone...but the iPhone is still the measuring stick Android is held to, and carrier shitware is an area where Andriod falls horribly short.

                This is only a problem for users in the US. In Europe or Australia we can simply buy phones outright which have no carrier customisations installed.

        • by peragrin (659227)

          So your saying the only way to get android updates is to root, and hack your phone.

          How is that different from jailbreaking the iphone again?

      • by poetmatt (793785)

        it's been quite easy for every android phone that exists other than the G1 to keep up with the tech. Hell, droids are on 2.2.2 and g1's are on CM7.

        The issue is keeping it stock just won't work. Phone MFR's drop old support for new phones, and it is up to the user to get the rest.

    • A ridiculous argument. Compare the current resale values of other personal computers with a similar MSRP from the same era with a G5 and you'll see that the Mac has far and away more residual value. And it's not only financial. Despite the fact that PCs dominate the desktops of my social circle, I don't know anybody using a PII or PIII-based machine for anything significant, yet I know of a fair amount of living, breathing, productive PowerPC-era Macs.

      • Your argument is also ridiculous. You don't buy computers based on resale value.. If you value resale value so much, I have an RS/6000 machine I'd like to sell you. Now, about productive PowerPC-era Macs, they're less powerful and suck u pmore electricity. That's why you don't see P2/P3 machines anymore for the same reason. Also they're much cheaper to replace and hence why they're mostly gone.

      • by gad_zuki! (70830)

        Err, that's because when you spend $1400-$2500 on a computer you can't do upgrades like the people who spend $750 on a computer. So they've put themselves on a 3-4 year depreciation while I've put myself on a 1.5-2 year depreciation. In the long run we spend about the same, but I have the latest and greatest and none of the hassles of owning a vintage machine and they get the "mac experience" for their money. That's their mistake to make.

      • by mjwx (966435)

        Compare the current resale values of other personal computers with a similar MSRP from the same era with a G5 and you'll see that the Mac has far and away more residual value.

        Which is why offices are full of them.

        No, wait...

        They aren't.

        Resale value is pointless when operational life is short. Tthe resale value of a device which is unique and out of production for 5 years with no modern successor is not comparable to a device that was commonplace which has a successor with the same architecture.

    • by greed (112493)

      With the exception of the Performa [56][23]00 series, all Macs with an MMU can run Linux pretty well. (So that's 68020 with a 68851, 68030 or later, and all PowerPCs.)

      I used a 68k version of Debian on an old Quadra as a serial terminal for a bit. In text mode, it was plenty fast enough.

    • by beelsebob (529313)

      This makes all the G4 and G5 devices out there all but useless...

      Bull, I know many people who still use G4s and G5s... Sure, they're not the fastest machines on the planet, but they're also between 5 and 10 years old! You're talking about machines as old as 1Ghz Pentium 3s here, and you don't see many of them about any more, do you?

      • You know why I replaced my P3? Because it cost less than $200. Honestly, I haven't spent more than $1500 on computer equipment total for the last 10 years.

    • by powerlord (28156)

      I think it has more to do with how mature hardware is in a given space, than any desire to arbitrarily Obsolete machines.

      I can't speak toward the 68XXX machines, but I was an apple user during the transition to Intel architecture. Intel started rolling out during Tiger's (OS 10.4) deployment period.

      Apple released Leopard (10.5) with support for both Intel and PPC.

      One of the major features of 10.6 (from what I remember) is Grand Central Dispatch, allowing programs to run on multi-core machines, without havi

    • by mr1911 (1942298)
      So is your argument that Apple (or any other manufacturer for that matter) should not build new features into their products if the old features were not compatible? Have you thought that through? Would you like your car to not have an automatic transmission, air conditioning, power steering, power windows, or anything beyond AM radio because those features were not compatible with the way things were before?

      With your logic there shouldn't even have been an iPhone 3G because it had features that the ori
    • by lpp (115405)

      Your logic is flawed. You are incorrectly assuming that because something better becomes available what you are currently using becomes obsolete.

      For someone purchasing a new iPhone, yes, it would not make sense to purchase anything other than the most recent revision. But existing owners of models of iPhone prior to iPhone 4 can go on using their iPhone 3GS, 3G, original iPhone, just as they always have. The iPhone, like all current (and past) smart phones, was not sold on the premise that hardware upgrades

    • The 3GS is available today for $50 with a new contract, so it's not like Apple is asking a lot with the upgrade. The 3G does more today than it did when the last one was sold. Apple shouldn't support users who have long since stopped providing a financial benefit to apple if it would mean hobbling new devices purchased by paying customers today. It isn't worth it for them to try to keep "customers" who aren't even willing to pay $50 for the new features.

    • Apple has no qualms about making your computer obsolete so you have to buy new things. The promise of the PC was that you could keep upgrading on and on with inexpensive parts. That's not as true as I would like it to be, but it's not exactly a lie either.

      Not a lie but somewhat misleading. Apple's computers are basically laptops, and hence no less upgradable than comparable PCs. Keep in mind that the iMac and mini are basically laptops embedded behind a monitor or without a monitor. All-in-one PCs designs like the iMac have similar limited upgrade options. Similar story for the ultra compact PCs comparable to the mini. Also keep in mind that Apple does offer computers in traditional tower configurations and their size, airflow, etc is such that you can fiddl

    • What's wrong with running Linux on the G4/G5's? I've been buying up the PPC macs and using them for Linux workstations and servers. They are most excellent hardware wise, and are quite quiet too! They are also cheap for what you get. Installing Linux on them was actually pretty easy (I Run a mixture of Debian an Gentoo on them) and have yet to feel constrained by the different architecture.
    • Good luck finding any mobile phone where you can update it for more than one or two versions. Some hardware providers / service providers won't let you upgrade at all unless you jail break the thing. Again even if you do jail break it you'll be lucky to get more than a couple versions out of it.

      Phones are not PCs. They're limited hardware that are meant to give you the most power for the longest time during that given period. HTC, Apple, etc don't really want you using your phone longer than your contrac
    • by rolfwind (528248)

      How, pray tell, would one go upgrading any phone or notebook, if not by buying a new one?

      (Notebook has limited ram slots and upgrades seem to be limited to whether to fork over the cash for an SSD or not.)

    • Your name is rather appropos because there are some key facts that you're getting wrong.

      But with Apple, they care almost nothing about backward compatibility and backward portability. This makes all the G4 and G5 devices out there all but useless... before that,

      That last OS that the G5 supported was Leopard (10.5) released October 26, 2007 and last updated August 5, 2009. The Power Mac G5 was discontinued August 7, 2006. The iMac G5 was discontinued March 20, 2006. The Mac mini G4 was discontinued Feb 2006. Most if not all G4/G5 were supported by Leopard after they were discontinued. From wikipedia:

      Leopard can run on older hardware as long as they have a G4 upgrade installed running at the 867 MHz or faster, have at least 9 GB free of hard drive space, 512 MB RAM and have a DVD drive. Leopard however will not run on the 900 MHz iBook G3 models even though they exceed the minimum 867 MHz requirement.

      Microsoft would LOVE to have the power Apple has to render OSes and hardware obsolete.

      In most cases G4 hardware that started on Panther (10.3) were eligible fo

      • It appears I was wrong about Leopard being last updated August 2009. It was last updated May 2010 [apple.com].
      • by mjwx (966435)

        In most cases G4 hardware that started on Panther (10.3) were eligible for two major OS upgrades. By comparison, how many PCs that started out with XP in 2003 were able to be upgraded to Windows 7 in 2009? Heck how many of them were really Vista compatible and not "Vista Ready". Very few.

        My last three gaming PC's have been "Vista Ready" so thats almost 7 years of machines and my 2004 gaming rig was not top of the line (AMD 64 3800, 2GB RAM, Geforce 6600) so not that uncommon.

        In fact, my housemate's GF

        • by yuhong (1378501)

          And the graphics card is only required if you want Aero. At least in theory Vista and later will work on most computers from 2000 or so that have enough RAM and HD space, partly because it can use XP/2000 drivers.

          • by mjwx (966435)

            And the graphics card is only required if you want Aero. At least in theory Vista and later will work on most computers from 2000 or so that have enough RAM and HD space, partly because it can use XP/2000 drivers.

            Lets be honest with ourselves, Vista was a pile of crap (slow, buggy) which is why the GGP chose it instead of Win 7. Win 7 is vastly improved.

            A 2003 Vintage PC at least has IMHO a 50/50 chance of running Win 7, at the very least Win 7 will install (cant say if it would run though).

    • by Doctor O (549663)

      This makes all the G4 and G5 devices out there all but useless...

      You mean those G4's that came out in 1999 and those G5's from 2003, making them 12 and 8 years old? Which happen to run just fine with OSX 10.5?

      I'd really love to see your 12 and 8 years old PC hardware in use, and performing as well as my G4 with OSX 10.5. I gave it to my niece two years ago who to this day is really satisfied with it, using it for her everyday computing needs. It doesn't feel slower than her brother's Vista notebook, to fuel the flamewars. ;-)

      There are lots of reasons to fret about what A

    • by sribe (304414)

      Craigslist is filled with "great deals" for Macs with G4/G5 processors in them sold by people who already find them useless.

      Those machines are perfectly usable; there's very little yet that won't run on them. (Snow Leopard, MS Office 2011.)

      They're also coming up on, at minimum, 5 years old in a few months.

  • for the folders

    I am not an iPhone user. What does he mean by this? Are folders something new?

    • by Tarlus (1000874)

      In newer versions of iOS, you can group app icons into nameable "folders" in order to save space or hide rarely-used items.

    • by WitnessForTheOffense (1669778) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @02:37PM (#35966344)
      Yeah. Steve Jobs invented them. They're going to revolutionize how you organize files on your device. Nobody has ever done this before. Give Steve your money so he can complete that cyborg body he's working on so he can rule Appletopia's authoritarian walled garden forever!
  • by Eugenia Loli (250395) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @02:36PM (#35966336) Homepage Journal

    Apple needs to be a bit more carefully about older versions of the OS and models. Case in point:

    1. This: http://www.osnews.com/story/24428/The_Next_Brick_to_Decorate_Your_Wall_iOS_3_x_Devices [osnews.com]
    After months this article got posted, the App Store STILL DOES NOT work properly. You still can't update an app from within the device by hitting "update". The button does nothing! You need iOS 4.x or above before you can update via iOS (so we now have to use iTunes, which I don't want to use since that iPod has no music in it, I just use it as a PDA).

    2. Apple REMOVED AirTunes support from iOS 4 when the second generation of AppleTV came out. What they did exactly was to stop supporting the original AppleTV (that was still sold at the time), from within iOS. So I can't use the 1st Gen AppleTV to send audio too from my iOS device anymore. This used to work just fine up to a few months ago. After the iOS 4.2 update, the support was removed.

    • After months this article got posted, the App Store STILL DOES NOT work properly. You still can't update an app from within the device by hitting "update". The button does nothing!

      lolwut? My 3.1.3 Iphone 2g updates apps through the appstore just fine. That could be the only difference between running 3.1.3 and 3.1.2.

      • No, you're using the wrong update button. Not the one for ALL apps, but in each app's page. So when you try to update apps one by one, this doesn't work anymore.

    • What are you on? You've NEVER been able to send airTunes from another iOS Device to the AppleTV ver1 unless you hacked one or both devices.

  • Startling insights...a year after iOS 4 was released. Is there really anyone who has a 3G and is considering upgrading to 4 that isn't aware of this already? In other late-breaking stories, Barack Obama won the 2008 election! HOPE PREVAILS!

  • I recall when iOS4 came out, there were people still in contract with 3G iPhones. I'm not sure if there still are at this point, bit it's kindof a lousy thing to do, to take a phone that was slow to begin with and make it even slower.

    • by BagOBones (574735)

      Ad more features on the same hardware and it gets slower.. This goes for almost any OS. The only issue here is that on embedded devices you can't always go back once you move forward.

    • I have a 3G still on contract.

      I stopped upgrading the OS way way back to avoid loss of tethering support.

  • The iPhone 3G has an off-the-shelf 400 MHz CPU with 128MB RAM. The current model, iPhone 4, has a custom-designed 1 GHz CPU and 256 MB RAM. Is anyone really surprised that an OS designed to make the most of the latter is beyond the abilities of the former?
    • by niw3 (1029008)
      What we expect is that Apple may turn off some features on older models and let the early adopters enjoy mostly SECURITY UPDATES. It shouldn't be that difficult. My 2 year old phone is without security updates for months. On the other hand, even really old Macs can 'run' OS X Leopard. Great job Apple!
    • by DeadboltX (751907)
      They should have prevented iPhone 3G from being able to update to 4.x since it essentially cripples the performance of the phone for a few miniscule features. If it was easy to downgrade to 3.x then it wouldn't be an issue at all because users would have a choice. Apple could have even put a few toggle switches in 4.x that disable the performance crippling features in order to get back some of that original awe when the phone was new.

      My iPhone 3G's performance was beaten over the head with sledgehammer b
    • by mjwx (966435)

      The iPhone 3G has an off-the-shelf 400 MHz CPU with 128MB RAM. The current model, iPhone 4, has a custom-designed 1 GHz CPU and 256 MB RAM. Is anyone really surprised that an OS designed to make the most of the latter is beyond the abilities of the former?

      No, not surprised at all...

      But Apple fanboys made a very big deal out of the fact old Iphones get updates where other phones do not and were very vocal about it. Now this is coming back to bite them in the arse.

      A measure of schadenfreude is permitted here.

  • Seriously, I've been running iOS 4.x on my 3G iPhone since it was released. 4.0 kinda sucked... but 4.2.1 seems pretty stable and much faster than the other 4.x variants. Version 4.0 was released June 21, 2010... that's almost a full year ago. If you haven't upgraded to 4.x yet, you've either decided long ago you're not going to, or you're living under a rock.

  • I have iOS 4 installed on my gen 2 iPod Touch and it runs just fine.

  • Simple, install iDroid and forget iOS :)

    http://www.idroidproject.org/ [idroidproject.org]

  • Whenever I update my Android phone to a newer version it only seems to get faster, slicker and more features. There's also a plethora of aftermarket ROMs which in some cases beat out stock carrier stuff on performance, stability and features.

    Every update to my old iPhone had gotten slower, and features were introduced that Android already had.

    Of course we know Apple does this deliberately, there's no incentive for them when they have billions to make, and they will quietly introduce features they see do
  • More and more new apps are iOS4.x only. Old compatible apps are being upgraded and some are now iOS4.x only. And iTunes upgrades apps without checking compatibility first (it overwrites old compatible ones with new incompatible ones without a warning !).
    People with iPhone1, at iOS313, are doomed.

    • Yes. This definitely sucks. I've been bitten by it.
      I kept my previous cell phone for 8 years. I like not wasting functioning tech objects.
      It's going to become harder to do that it seems.

  • Slashdot has an icon for Apple, iPhone, and iOS, and yet this gets tagged with handhelds?

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (2) Thank you for your generous donation, Mr. Wirth.

Working...