When the rumors first appeared about an Apple tablet, I speculated on the optimal size-- anywhere from a 3x5 index card (would fit in some pockets), size of a VCR Cassette w & h, 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper (folded in half vertically), 8 1/5 x 11 full page.
At first I was put off by the iPad's display size... until I used one.
Then it became apparent that a lot of thought went into the display size.
It is big enough that the device "gets out of the way" (doesn't get between you and what you are viewing). With the virtual keyboard showing there is enough size to type comfortably, while enough display area to see the data being typed or browsed.
That's the magic of the iPad.
This is no way true on an iPod Touch-size display (or any mobile phone)-- there's no magic!
I have a 17" AluBook that sits idle... I am more productive on the iPad.
I have a 17" iMac on my nightstand... I prefer surfing, reading, watching movies, etc. on the more "personal" iPad. (ever tried to watch a movie with a Mac or Laptop on your stomach).
When I go out and about, I take my iPad and my iPhone.
When I am around the house/yard, same thing-- while watching TV I surf and browse/post the forums, etc.
I just wouldn't do that on a small iPod Touch-size screen/kb.
I do not know if the 7" form-factor will be good enough for these things-- we'll just have to try it and see.
I do not know if a larger (than the iPad) screen or a different aspect ratio is better or worse-- we'll just have to try it and see.
I do my heavy lifting on an iMac 24 with a 23" Cinema display.
But, whenever I can, I use the iPad.
Maybe the best way to say this is: the iPad is the baseline standard that I use to measure other devices, rather than the converse.
.
If you mostly use an iPad you don't have any heavy lifting.
CONCLUSION: The higer the number the "thinner" it is. Why? Because the higher number means it has more surface per unit of thickness. Would you say the iPhone is fat? I wouldn't... The "fatness" of a gadget can be very subjective as numbers don't tell the whole story. Your best bet is to wait until it is out and actually feel it in your hands before saying anything is "fat" or "thin."
Going to back to DaHarder’s original conclusion that the iPad is comparably thicker than the Samsung Tab, your calculations show that the Samsung Tab is comparably thicker than the iPad.
While DaHarder might argue that isn’t what he meant by his us of the word “comparably” —and maybe he didn’t he mean it that way— but it was a pointless inclusion of said qualifier which made his statement more ambiguous that needed to be when stating “The Samsung Tab is thinner than the iPad. Here are the dimensions for both..." would have sufficed.
Yes, I’d say that scaling the iPhone to match the Samsung Tab or iPad’s screen size or footprint would make it a very thick and uncomfortable device. Especially the iPhone 4 was the flat sides.
242.8 mm ÷ 115.2 mm = 2.11.
2.11 x 9.3 = 19.6 mm or 0.77 inches
That is ever so slightly thicker than the MBA, and about 22% thicker than the iPad when comparing the same height.
I don't even think that the ratio of xy:z is applicable to the "fatness".
.
.
.
CONCLUSION: The higer the number the "thinner" it is. Why? Because the higher number means it has more surface per unit of thickness. Would you say the iPhone is fat? I wouldn't... The "fatness" of a gadget can be very subjective as numbers don't tell the whole story. Your best bet is to wait until it is out and actually feel it in your hands before saying anything is "fat" or "thin."
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
My iPhone feels "fatter" in my hand than my iPad, so, yes, I think it's a valid metric, although, perhaps not interpreted linearly.
You didn't answer my question though. The original debate is whether the Samsung Tab is "fat" or not. I asked if the iPhone 4 was "fat", not if it was "fatter" than the iPad. If you so deem to call the Samsung Tab as fat, then in conclusion, according to your definition of gadget "fatness" then the iPhone 4 is fat too (which I wouldn't consider fat).
Going to back to DaHarder?s original conclusion that the iPad is comparably thicker than the Samsung Tab, your calculations show that the Samsung Tab is comparably thicker than the iPad.
While DHarder might argue that isn?t what he meant by his us of the word ?comparably?, and maybe he didn?t he mean it that way, but it was is was pointless inclusion of said qualifier which made his statement more ambiguous that needed to be when stating ?The Samsung Tab is thicker than the iPad. <list of dimensions>" would have sufficed.
Yes, I?d say that scaling the iPhone to match the Samsung Tab or iPad?s screen size or footprint would make it a very thick and uncomfortable device. Especially the iPhone 4 was the flat sides.
242.8 mm ÷ 115.2 mm = 2.11.
2.11 x 9.3 = 19.6 mm or 0.77 inches
That is ever so slightly thicker than the MBA.
Thank you. Spec to spec, yes the Samsung Tab is thinner than the iPad. In real world, one has to hold the device to decide which one is (or feels, whichever language you choose) fatter.
I do my heavy lifting on an iMac 24 with a 23" Cinema display.
But, whenever I can, I use the iPad.
Maybe the best way to say this is: the iPad is the baseline standard that I use to measure other devices, rather than the converse.
.
You just hit the nail. Thats exactly what most of the complaining people don't realize. The iPad has found it's proper place and usability just in the way you described it in your post. To me this happend in an astonishingly quick pace. But of course some real heavy stuff like creating complex databases or many heavy design stuff, you will always rely on computers attached to big screens and OS's that can run the respective software. But apart from that there are so many things, that the iPad can actually do better, or that it's just a lot more comfortable to use, since it is instantly available.
CONCLUSION: The higher the number the "thinner" it is. Why? Because the higher number means it has more surface per unit of thickness. Would you say the iPhone is fat? I wouldn't... The "fatness" of a gadget can be very subjective as numbers don't tell the whole story. Your best bet is to wait until it is out and actually feel it in your hands before saying anything is "fat" or "thin."
Finally somebody had the guts to do all the calcutations.. Thanks, and you are right the iPhone is and feels fatter than the iPad (what doesn't prevent me from loving it). And according to your calculations the galaxy will settle somewhere in between. Now since this tread is about the comparison between two tablets, and not between tablets and phones, we should stick to that, unless you want to bring TV's and home stereo and maybe dish washers in to the equation as well.
If you mostly use an iPad you don't have any heavy lifting.
FCS, XCode, Blender...
I suggest you try regularly manipulating some large video files where, for example an 8 GB AVCHD SD card expands to 57 GB of video files... takes about 1 hour to import and another 2-3 hours to export to h.264. BTW, you can get a 45 minute soccer period on 1 card (if you are careful. We have 2 games every Saturday and several Thursday nights.
Or Motion, to animate very high-resolution stills-- say adding ripples to a stream, waves, fog, snow. rain, layering, 3D camera motion through a scene, leaves falling from trees, and other particle generation effects...
FCP video rotoscoping, green screening, multi-layer compositing, title animation such as subtitling or Karaoke (follow the bouncing ball) where the titles are synchronized to the music, motion tracking, multilayer audio blending. effects,...
I do all of these things...
IMO, all you seem to do is offer negative opinions on almost everything Apple, and add little of value to these forums.
You just hit the nail. Thats exactly what most of the complaining people don't realize. The iPad has found it's proper place and usability just in the way you described it in your post. To me this happend in an astonishingly quick pace. But of course some real heavy stuff like creating complex databases or many heavy design stuff, you will always rely on computers attached to big screens and OS's that can run the respective software. But apart from that there are so many things, that the iPad can actually do better, or that it's just a lot more comfortable to use, since it is instantly available.
There is an app named Star Walk that illustrates your last sentence perfectly.
It shows the skies and all the stars, planets, etc., optionally filtered as how visible (to the human eye).
As you move the iPad across the horizon/sky, the display changes to match, and annotate what you see (the stars, their names, constellation drawings, etc. are superimposed).
You can search for a star and an arrow appears to guide you to the proper position.
You can manipulate time and see how the sky changes...
There is an iPhone version and a similar app for Android phones,
But, for me, the iPad size is ideal-- I have not seen anything that even approaches how this is done on the iPad.
There is an app named Star Walk that illustrates your last sentence perfectly.
It shows the skies and all the stars, planets, etc., optionally filtered as how visible (to the human eye).
As you move the iPad across the horizon/sky, the display changes to match, and annotate what you see (the stars, their names, constellation drawings, etc. are superimposed).
You can search for a star and an arrow appears to guide you to the proper position.
You can manipulate time and see how the sky changes...
There is an iPhone version and a similar app for Android phones,
But, for me, the iPad size is ideal-- I have not seen anything that even approaches how this is done on the iPad.
.
Yea, it's an amazing application! The rendering is very nice done. And absolutely, the size of the iPad gives just enough room, thet you can enjoy the beauty of the starry sky. On my Mac I use Starry Night for my amateur astronomy studies. But so far I have been rather reluctant, to take my MBP on field trips at night. The iPad comes in just very handy.
too tired to wade through the arguments about whether it's thinner, not thinner, who's a troll etc.
Had one these in my hands at a conferece on mobile dev, and it's a very cool device. Just, like the ipad is a cool device. Get set to see lots more of these, er, cool devices coming out. Many though will likely run android.
too tired to wade through the arguments about whether it's thinner, not thinner, who's a troll etc.
Had one these in my hands at a conferece on mobile dev, and it's a very cool device. Just, like the ipad is a cool device. Get set to see lots more of these, er, cool devices coming out. Many though will likely run android.
sleep well and dream of cool devices. The next morning will come and its going to be the beginn of your weekend.
Why does that matter? It is not a pocket device. Being comfortable to hold is the proper criteria, not some spec.
Pretty sure that size is a pretty big indicator of weight, and weight has a TON to do with it's comfort in your hand.
Wait, I think we got off track here. Isn't this about the new iPad competing device? How's we get to handsets? Was that pic of a handset, who posted that?
All comments following are now going to be pointless argumentative dribble because someone started posting info & pics of a galaxy phone instead of the tablet. Geesh.
I suggest you try regularly manipulating some large video files where, for example an 8 GB AVCHD SD card expands to 57 GB of video files... takes about 1 hour to import and another 2-3 hours to export to h.264. BTW, you can get a 45 minute soccer period on 1 card (if you are careful. We have 2 games every Saturday and several Thursday nights.
Or Motion, to animate very high-resolution stills-- say adding ripples to a stream, waves, fog, snow. rain, layering, 3D camera motion through a scene, leaves falling from trees, and other particle generation effects...
FCP video rotoscoping, green screening, multi-layer compositing, title animation such as subtitling or Karaoke (follow the bouncing ball) where the titles are synchronized to the music, motion tracking, multilayer audio blending. effects,...
I do all of these things...
IMO, all you seem to do is offer negative opinions on almost everything Apple, and add little of value to these forums.
.
If you feel I offter only negative opinion on Apple then clearly you don't read many of my posts. I am not a fanboy which I know rubs some of you the wrong way but I am far from an Apple hater.
Also what I do for a living involves designing multi million dollar systems and then setting up and installing a custom OS. Thats what I consider heavy lifting.
Having worked for IBM for the past 20+ years I would say its a safe bet that not only do I own more Apple stock then 99% on this forum but have used more Apple products over the decades.
As far as Apple products when something is good I don't knock it but it when isnt and I use the product I am going to tell state the truth as I see it. Which by the way is call an opinion.
I also don't bash products I don't use which is very common on this forum when it comes to Google and Microsoft or for that matter any company that isn't Apple.
If you feel I offter only negative opinion on Apple then clearly you don't read many of my posts. I am not a fanboy which I know rubs some of you the wrong way but I am far from an Apple hater.
Also what I do for a living involves designing multi million dollar systems and then setting up and installing a custom OS. Thats what I consider heavy lifting.
Having worked for IBM for the past 20+ years I would say its a safe bet that not only do I own more Apple stock then 99% on this forum but have used more Apple products over the decades.
As far as Apple products when something is good I don't knock it but it when isnt and I use the product I am going to tell state the truth as I see it. Which by the way is call an opinion.
I also don't bash products I don't use which is very common on this forum when it comes to Google and Microsoft or for that matter any company that isn't Apple.
I only worked for IBM for 16 1/2 years-- 1964-1980. Most of the stuff I worked in that era was DB/DC -- then CICS and DL/1... no relationals at that time.
I was Consulting level ( 1 of 200, out of 450,000 employees ).
My last project, with the Palo Alto - Raleigh Systems Center, ca. 1978 where
I headed a team to convince and guide the regional and field offices to convert from IBM/360 DOS to MVS.
So, while a little before, your time, I do understand "heavy lifting".
Personally, I don't bash products I've never used... Although I occasionally ridicule stupid designs or specs.
Going to back to DaHarder’s original conclusion that the iPad is comparably thicker than the Samsung Tab, your calculations show that the Samsung Tab is comparably thicker than the iPad.
While DaHarder might argue that isn’t what he meant by his us of the word “comparably” —and maybe he didn’t he mean it that way— but it was a pointless inclusion of said qualifier which made his statement more ambiguous that needed to be when stating “The Samsung Tab is thinner than the iPad. Here are the dimensions for both..." would have sufficed.
Yes, I’d say that scaling the iPhone to match the Samsung Tab or iPad’s screen size or footprint would make it a very thick and uncomfortable device. Especially the iPhone 4 was the flat sides.
242.8 mm ÷ 115.2 mm = 2.11.
2.11 x 9.3 = 19.6 mm or 0.77 inches
That is ever so slightly thicker than the MBA, and about 22% thicker than the iPad when comparing the same height.
Please... Just Stop It Already, given that you seem to lack the ability to even quote the correct words used in my post - GEEZ!
What I posted... Verbatim was, "Have you seen how much 'comparatively 'fatter' the ipad is... 242.8 x 189.7 x 13.4mm at .73kg (Hint the Galaxy Tab is a mere 11.98mm ".
Now since this tread is about the comparison between two tablets, and not between tablets and phones, we should stick to that, unless you want to bring TV's and home stereo and maybe dish washers in to the equation as well.
Right.
iP4: 9.3 mm thick
Tab: 11.98 mm thick
iPad: 13.4 mm thick
Comparing the Tab to the iPhone is not really fair. If you were to do that, the iPhone would have to be considered obese.
Please... Just Stop It Already, given that you seem to lack the ability to even quote the correct words used in my post - GEEZ!
What I posted... Verbatim was, "Have you seen how much 'comparatively 'fatter' the ipad is... 242.8 x 189.7 x 13.4mm at .73kg (Hint the Galaxy Tab is a mere 11.98mm ".
Either get it right, or give up.
He got it right -- compared the relative sizes, you do not seem able to make valid comparisons unless things are equal.
Comments
I Agree.
When the rumors first appeared about an Apple tablet, I speculated on the optimal size-- anywhere from a 3x5 index card (would fit in some pockets), size of a VCR Cassette w & h, 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper (folded in half vertically), 8 1/5 x 11 full page.
At first I was put off by the iPad's display size... until I used one.
Then it became apparent that a lot of thought went into the display size.
It is big enough that the device "gets out of the way" (doesn't get between you and what you are viewing). With the virtual keyboard showing there is enough size to type comfortably, while enough display area to see the data being typed or browsed.
That's the magic of the iPad.
This is no way true on an iPod Touch-size display (or any mobile phone)-- there's no magic!
I have a 17" AluBook that sits idle... I am more productive on the iPad.
I have a 17" iMac on my nightstand... I prefer surfing, reading, watching movies, etc. on the more "personal" iPad. (ever tried to watch a movie with a Mac or Laptop on your stomach).
When I go out and about, I take my iPad and my iPhone.
When I am around the house/yard, same thing-- while watching TV I surf and browse/post the forums, etc.
I just wouldn't do that on a small iPod Touch-size screen/kb.
I do not know if the 7" form-factor will be good enough for these things-- we'll just have to try it and see.
I do not know if a larger (than the iPad) screen or a different aspect ratio is better or worse-- we'll just have to try it and see.
I do my heavy lifting on an iMac 24 with a 23" Cinema display.
But, whenever I can, I use the iPad.
Maybe the best way to say this is: the iPad is the baseline standard that I use to measure other devices, rather than the converse.
.
If you mostly use an iPad you don't have any heavy lifting.
I don't even think that the ratio of xy:z is applicable to the "fatness".
According to your logic, the iPhone 4 should be "fatter" than the iPad.
Dimensions (iPhone 4) (http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html):
Height: 4.5 inches (115.2 mm)
Width: 2.31 inches (58.6 mm)
Depth: 0.37 inch (9.3 mm)
(115.2 * 58.6) / 9.3 = 725.88
Dimensions (iPad) (http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/):
Height: 9.56 inches (242.8 mm)
Width: 7.47 inches (189.7 mm)
Depth: 0.5 inch (13.4 mm)
(242.8 * 189.7) / 13.4 = 3437.25
Dimensions (Samsung Tab) (http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/3522...ung-galaxy-tab):
Height: 190.09mm
Width: 120.45mm
Depth: 11.98mm
(190.09 * 120.45) / 11.98 = 1911.21
CONCLUSION: The higer the number the "thinner" it is. Why? Because the higher number means it has more surface per unit of thickness. Would you say the iPhone is fat? I wouldn't... The "fatness" of a gadget can be very subjective as numbers don't tell the whole story. Your best bet is to wait until it is out and actually feel it in your hands before saying anything is "fat" or "thin."
Going to back to DaHarder’s original conclusion that the iPad is comparably thicker than the Samsung Tab, your calculations show that the Samsung Tab is comparably thicker than the iPad.
While DaHarder might argue that isn’t what he meant by his us of the word “comparably” —and maybe he didn’t he mean it that way— but it was a pointless inclusion of said qualifier which made his statement more ambiguous that needed to be when stating “The Samsung Tab is thinner than the iPad. Here are the dimensions for both..." would have sufficed.
Yes, I’d say that scaling the iPhone to match the Samsung Tab or iPad’s screen size or footprint would make it a very thick and uncomfortable device. Especially the iPhone 4 was the flat sides. That is ever so slightly thicker than the MBA, and about 22% thicker than the iPad when comparing the same height.
I don't even think that the ratio of xy:z is applicable to the "fatness".
.
.
.
CONCLUSION: The higer the number the "thinner" it is. Why? Because the higher number means it has more surface per unit of thickness. Would you say the iPhone is fat? I wouldn't... The "fatness" of a gadget can be very subjective as numbers don't tell the whole story. Your best bet is to wait until it is out and actually feel it in your hands before saying anything is "fat" or "thin."
My iPhone feels "fatter" in my hand than my iPad, so, yes, I think it's a valid metric, although, perhaps not interpreted linearly.
You didn't answer my question though. The original debate is whether the Samsung Tab is "fat" or not. I asked if the iPhone 4 was "fat", not if it was "fatter" than the iPad. If you so deem to call the Samsung Tab as fat, then in conclusion, according to your definition of gadget "fatness" then the iPhone 4 is fat too (which I wouldn't consider fat).
Going to back to DaHarder?s original conclusion that the iPad is comparably thicker than the Samsung Tab, your calculations show that the Samsung Tab is comparably thicker than the iPad.
While DHarder might argue that isn?t what he meant by his us of the word ?comparably?, and maybe he didn?t he mean it that way, but it was is was pointless inclusion of said qualifier which made his statement more ambiguous that needed to be when stating ?The Samsung Tab is thicker than the iPad. <list of dimensions>" would have sufficed.
Yes, I?d say that scaling the iPhone to match the Samsung Tab or iPad?s screen size or footprint would make it a very thick and uncomfortable device. Especially the iPhone 4 was the flat sides. That is ever so slightly thicker than the MBA.
Thank you. Spec to spec, yes the Samsung Tab is thinner than the iPad. In real world, one has to hold the device to decide which one is (or feels, whichever language you choose) fatter.
I do my heavy lifting on an iMac 24 with a 23" Cinema display.
But, whenever I can, I use the iPad.
Maybe the best way to say this is: the iPad is the baseline standard that I use to measure other devices, rather than the converse.
.
You just hit the nail. Thats exactly what most of the complaining people don't realize. The iPad has found it's proper place and usability just in the way you described it in your post. To me this happend in an astonishingly quick pace. But of course some real heavy stuff like creating complex databases or many heavy design stuff, you will always rely on computers attached to big screens and OS's that can run the respective software. But apart from that there are so many things, that the iPad can actually do better, or that it's just a lot more comfortable to use, since it is instantly available.
(190.09 * 120.45) / 11.98 = 1911.21
CONCLUSION: The higher the number the "thinner" it is. Why? Because the higher number means it has more surface per unit of thickness. Would you say the iPhone is fat? I wouldn't... The "fatness" of a gadget can be very subjective as numbers don't tell the whole story. Your best bet is to wait until it is out and actually feel it in your hands before saying anything is "fat" or "thin."
Finally somebody had the guts to do all the calcutations.. Thanks, and you are right the iPhone is and feels fatter than the iPad (what doesn't prevent me from loving it). And according to your calculations the galaxy will settle somewhere in between. Now since this tread is about the comparison between two tablets, and not between tablets and phones, we should stick to that, unless you want to bring TV's and home stereo and maybe dish washers in to the equation as well.
If you mostly use an iPad you don't have any heavy lifting.
FCS, XCode, Blender...
I suggest you try regularly manipulating some large video files where, for example an 8 GB AVCHD SD card expands to 57 GB of video files... takes about 1 hour to import and another 2-3 hours to export to h.264. BTW, you can get a 45 minute soccer period on 1 card (if you are careful. We have 2 games every Saturday and several Thursday nights.
Or Motion, to animate very high-resolution stills-- say adding ripples to a stream, waves, fog, snow. rain, layering, 3D camera motion through a scene, leaves falling from trees, and other particle generation effects...
FCP video rotoscoping, green screening, multi-layer compositing, title animation such as subtitling or Karaoke (follow the bouncing ball) where the titles are synchronized to the music, motion tracking, multilayer audio blending. effects,...
I do all of these things...
IMO, all you seem to do is offer negative opinions on almost everything Apple, and add little of value to these forums.
.
You just hit the nail. Thats exactly what most of the complaining people don't realize. The iPad has found it's proper place and usability just in the way you described it in your post. To me this happend in an astonishingly quick pace. But of course some real heavy stuff like creating complex databases or many heavy design stuff, you will always rely on computers attached to big screens and OS's that can run the respective software. But apart from that there are so many things, that the iPad can actually do better, or that it's just a lot more comfortable to use, since it is instantly available.
There is an app named Star Walk that illustrates your last sentence perfectly.
It shows the skies and all the stars, planets, etc., optionally filtered as how visible (to the human eye).
As you move the iPad across the horizon/sky, the display changes to match, and annotate what you see (the stars, their names, constellation drawings, etc. are superimposed).
You can search for a star and an arrow appears to guide you to the proper position.
You can manipulate time and see how the sky changes...
There is an iPhone version and a similar app for Android phones,
But, for me, the iPad size is ideal-- I have not seen anything that even approaches how this is done on the iPad.
.
There is an app named Star Walk that illustrates your last sentence perfectly.
It shows the skies and all the stars, planets, etc., optionally filtered as how visible (to the human eye).
As you move the iPad across the horizon/sky, the display changes to match, and annotate what you see (the stars, their names, constellation drawings, etc. are superimposed).
You can search for a star and an arrow appears to guide you to the proper position.
You can manipulate time and see how the sky changes...
There is an iPhone version and a similar app for Android phones,
But, for me, the iPad size is ideal-- I have not seen anything that even approaches how this is done on the iPad.
.
Yea, it's an amazing application! The rendering is very nice done. And absolutely, the size of the iPad gives just enough room, thet you can enjoy the beauty of the starry sky. On my Mac I use Starry Night for my amateur astronomy studies. But so far I have been rather reluctant, to take my MBP on field trips at night. The iPad comes in just very handy.
Had one these in my hands at a conferece on mobile dev, and it's a very cool device. Just, like the ipad is a cool device. Get set to see lots more of these, er, cool devices coming out. Many though will likely run android.
too tired to wade through the arguments about whether it's thinner, not thinner, who's a troll etc.
Had one these in my hands at a conferece on mobile dev, and it's a very cool device. Just, like the ipad is a cool device. Get set to see lots more of these, er, cool devices coming out. Many though will likely run android.
sleep well and dream of cool devices. The next morning will come and its going to be the beginn of your weekend.
Getting what software right? It is an Android device. A free OS. You really think Samsung is going to do its own OS? I don't think so.
Samsung Galaxy S' not-so-secret weapon: TouchWiz 3.0
http://www.betanews.com/article/Sams...-30/1279815075
The Tab also uses Touchwiz 3.0
Why does that matter? It is not a pocket device. Being comfortable to hold is the proper criteria, not some spec.
Pretty sure that size is a pretty big indicator of weight, and weight has a TON to do with it's comfort in your hand.
Wait, I think we got off track here. Isn't this about the new iPad competing device? How's we get to handsets? Was that pic of a handset, who posted that?
All comments following are now going to be pointless argumentative dribble because someone started posting info & pics of a galaxy phone instead of the tablet. Geesh.
FCS, XCode, Blender...
I suggest you try regularly manipulating some large video files where, for example an 8 GB AVCHD SD card expands to 57 GB of video files... takes about 1 hour to import and another 2-3 hours to export to h.264. BTW, you can get a 45 minute soccer period on 1 card (if you are careful. We have 2 games every Saturday and several Thursday nights.
Or Motion, to animate very high-resolution stills-- say adding ripples to a stream, waves, fog, snow. rain, layering, 3D camera motion through a scene, leaves falling from trees, and other particle generation effects...
FCP video rotoscoping, green screening, multi-layer compositing, title animation such as subtitling or Karaoke (follow the bouncing ball) where the titles are synchronized to the music, motion tracking, multilayer audio blending. effects,...
I do all of these things...
IMO, all you seem to do is offer negative opinions on almost everything Apple, and add little of value to these forums.
.
If you feel I offter only negative opinion on Apple then clearly you don't read many of my posts. I am not a fanboy which I know rubs some of you the wrong way but I am far from an Apple hater.
Also what I do for a living involves designing multi million dollar systems and then setting up and installing a custom OS. Thats what I consider heavy lifting.
Having worked for IBM for the past 20+ years I would say its a safe bet that not only do I own more Apple stock then 99% on this forum but have used more Apple products over the decades.
As far as Apple products when something is good I don't knock it but it when isnt and I use the product I am going to tell state the truth as I see it. Which by the way is call an opinion.
I also don't bash products I don't use which is very common on this forum when it comes to Google and Microsoft or for that matter any company that isn't Apple.
If you feel I offter only negative opinion on Apple then clearly you don't read many of my posts. I am not a fanboy which I know rubs some of you the wrong way but I am far from an Apple hater.
Also what I do for a living involves designing multi million dollar systems and then setting up and installing a custom OS. Thats what I consider heavy lifting.
Having worked for IBM for the past 20+ years I would say its a safe bet that not only do I own more Apple stock then 99% on this forum but have used more Apple products over the decades.
As far as Apple products when something is good I don't knock it but it when isnt and I use the product I am going to tell state the truth as I see it. Which by the way is call an opinion.
I also don't bash products I don't use which is very common on this forum when it comes to Google and Microsoft or for that matter any company that isn't Apple.
I only worked for IBM for 16 1/2 years-- 1964-1980. Most of the stuff I worked in that era was DB/DC -- then CICS and DL/1... no relationals at that time.
I was Consulting level ( 1 of 200, out of 450,000 employees ).
My last project, with the Palo Alto - Raleigh Systems Center, ca. 1978 where
I headed a team to convince and guide the regional and field offices to convert from IBM/360 DOS to MVS.
So, while a little before, your time, I do understand "heavy lifting".
Personally, I don't bash products I've never used... Although I occasionally ridicule stupid designs or specs.
.
Going to back to DaHarder’s original conclusion that the iPad is comparably thicker than the Samsung Tab, your calculations show that the Samsung Tab is comparably thicker than the iPad.
While DaHarder might argue that isn’t what he meant by his us of the word “comparably” —and maybe he didn’t he mean it that way— but it was a pointless inclusion of said qualifier which made his statement more ambiguous that needed to be when stating “The Samsung Tab is thinner than the iPad. Here are the dimensions for both..." would have sufficed.
Yes, I’d say that scaling the iPhone to match the Samsung Tab or iPad’s screen size or footprint would make it a very thick and uncomfortable device. Especially the iPhone 4 was the flat sides. That is ever so slightly thicker than the MBA, and about 22% thicker than the iPad when comparing the same height.
Please... Just Stop It Already, given that you seem to lack the ability to even quote the correct words used in my post - GEEZ!
What I posted... Verbatim was, "Have you seen how much 'comparatively 'fatter' the ipad is... 242.8 x 189.7 x 13.4mm at .73kg (Hint the Galaxy Tab is a mere 11.98mm ".
Either get it right, or give up.
Now since this tread is about the comparison between two tablets, and not between tablets and phones, we should stick to that, unless you want to bring TV's and home stereo and maybe dish washers in to the equation as well.
Right.
iP4: 9.3 mm thick
Tab: 11.98 mm thick
iPad: 13.4 mm thick
Comparing the Tab to the iPhone is not really fair. If you were to do that, the iPhone would have to be considered obese.
Please... Just Stop It Already, given that you seem to lack the ability to even quote the correct words used in my post - GEEZ!
What I posted... Verbatim was, "Have you seen how much 'comparatively 'fatter' the ipad is... 242.8 x 189.7 x 13.4mm at .73kg (Hint the Galaxy Tab is a mere 11.98mm ".
Either get it right, or give up.
He got it right -- compared the relative sizes, you do not seem able to make valid comparisons unless things are equal.
.
Hence my comment about waiting for WiFi-only models.
Hope you have $1,000 burning a hole in your pocket...
Man, this looks great. I look forward to the WiFi-only models.