or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › IBM plans Lotus for Apple iPad, e-reader eye strain explored
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

IBM plans Lotus for Apple iPad, e-reader eye strain explored - Page 2

post #41 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

Yes, the MS suite is more feature-rich than iWorks. But most of those advanced features are used by maybe 10% of users.
Again, the 80/20 rule. 80% of users utilize 20% of the features in Office, and all of the 20% is in iWorks.
I set my Mac up to open all .xls and .doc documents in iWorks and have had zero problems. Macros? I disable those upon opening anyway. Nothing but virus vectors.

As far as graphing, iWork is frankly superior, and for day-to-day home (and, frankly, work) use, I prefer iWork.
Keynote blows Powerpoint away, IMHO.

YMMV.

For any real spreadsheet use, iWork is grossly inferior to Office, as is OpenOffice. While I feel I know my way around Excel very well, I am not using any macros or functions that shouldn't be supported by other applications. Excel does a better job with complex graphs, large data sets, and data navigation. There are a lot of things Excel does very poorly (scatter graphs with dates don't support "month" increments for major/minor axis divisions for one), but on the whole it does a good job.

If iWork wanted to leapfrog Excel, they would support multi-dimensional tables and innovative keyboard navgation for large data sets.
post #42 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by CU10 View Post

Backlighting is my biggest peeve with LCD displays, I'm looking straight at a light source rather than reflected light (which is how we usually see).

The eye doesn't care, and frankly doesn't know, whether the light it's getting is reflected or if it's directly emitted from what you're looking at.

All it cares about is light intensity and contrast range in the visual field of static images, which is what you're reading.
post #43 of 139
OK, this is a small thing but it's annoying me. Apple's suite of office apps is called iWork singular - not plural as I've seen in all through out this thread. OK?

And to those saying iWork is not a replacement for Office, I completely disagree. I've been using iWork exclusively since it was offered and I don't find I miss much of anything from Office. I haven't had Office on a Mac for three years or so. There is a very compelling argument for home users to rely on iWork exclusively over Office.
post #44 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Good call. Also note that Oracle (led by Steve Jobs' buddy Larry Ellison) is trying to acquire Sun Micro to compete with IBM in this type of business. If Oracle were to integrate iPads into their offerings, that would be another potentially big deal.

I have to assume the Oracle/Sun deal is done. If you go to the VirtualBox website, you will see the Oracle logo.
post #45 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcalpin View Post

I remember when CRTs were dominant and one of the selling points about LCDs was less eyestrain.

Considering I have no problems with eye strain from my various LCDs at all I find it kind of comical that in the past few years, now LCDs are SOOOO BAAAAD for your eyes compared to ePaper. And God forbid if the LCD is glossy, too.

It all depends on the person. CRTs were flickering light. Eye fatigue was an issue, especially at lower refresh rates. I am low vision. First thing I was advised was to increase the refresh rate as high as my monitor would allow.

I may not have eye fatigue as bad from my LCD (glossy) iMac, but I do with the tiny fonts. This is my first departure from CRT. I have used matte finish screens, and I like them more. Probably a bad idea for a touch screen. So there you go.

As another post mentioned, it is of value to be able to adjust color combinations, contrast, etc.

Find it comical if you want. Even the best of eyes get older. Your day is coming.
post #46 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oflife View Post

Try reading for more than 30 minutes on an LCD at close range in low light and you will get a headache. You won't reading a book. If one did, they would not exist.

You mean like most of do for at least 8 hours a day at work, not including any other personal time. I write and read all day, every day, on computers.

Quote:
There is also the issue of resolution. The iPad (sadly) is at 135 or similar DPI, while print on good paper offers 200 to 300.

113ppi on my MBP and I do fine 12 hours a day.

Quote:
All said, the iPad uses a new technology, so only time will tell whether it will also cause eye strain.

1) You mean S-IPS display with LED backlight? Not exactly new.

2) Funny your claim is so absolute with a 30 minute time frame before eyestrain, yet you end your post with a comment about it being *new technology* and an "if". \


Quote:
Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post

OK, this is a small thing but it's annoying me. Apple's suite of office apps is called iWork singular - not plural as I've seen in all through out this thread. OK?

I-Pod/I-Phone
MAC
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #47 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oflife View Post

Me thinks this is total propaganda by Apple! (And I'm disgusted.)

Having used an iPod Touch for over a year, now owning an iPhone and played with several eInk devices, I can testify to the fact that the backlight on any LCD equipped device held quite close to the eye causes eye strain, as does the fact the screen is not really '1D' (one dimensional) like paper or eInk displays.

Try reading for more than 30 minutes on an LCD at close range in low light and you will get a headache. You won't reading a book. If one did, they would not exist.

There is also the issue of resolution. The iPad (sadly) is at 135 or similar DPI, while print on good paper offers 200 to 300.

All said, the iPad uses a new technology, so only time will tell whether it will also cause eye strain.

Do you think the strain is related to the LCD, the backlight, the screen size, or the viewing distance?

If I had to hazzard a guess, the eyestrain from reading on your Touch is a result of screen size, short focal distance, and perhaps too high of contrast. If that's the case, the iPad won't exhibit the same strain. The screen is larger, it will be held farther away, and all these backlit screens have adjustable brightness.

I'm leaning toward the theory that "e-ink is easier on the eyes" is entirely marketing propaganda by the manufacturers of products which feature e-ink displays. Granted, it might be true, e-ink might be easier on the eyes. But it could very easily be the opposite, e-ink could be worse on the eyes.

The whole backlighting thing seems like a red-herring. Backlighting in handheld devices is mostly LED. LEDs are easier on the eyes than most fluorescents even. (less flicker) So backlit devices will have less flicker than those being lit by ambient florescent lighting.

So what about the fact that backlighting passes through more layers? Well forelighting also passes through layers. Passively lit screens use ambient lighting that must pass through the display's front, reflect off of something, and pass back out.

What i'd really like to see is empirical data. Until then, its all marketing propaganda to me, and no more reliable than personal experience and anecdotes.
post #48 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post

Lotus? As in 1-2-3? They still exist? I haven't heard of them since the 80's. Who even uses them? Excel is the industry standard anyway.

Read the article next time. They are talking about Lotus Notes. It is a terrible email client/server program used by some companies. I used it for years at an insurance company and it is the worst email program out there. I am surprised Lotus still has customers. I have seen the latest version of Notes and it is the most un-user friendly environment for doing mail, calendar, etc.
post #49 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Do you think the strain is related to the LCD, the backlight, the screen size, or the viewing distance?

If I had to hazzard a guess, the eyestrain from reading on your Touch is a result of screen size, short focal distance, and perhaps too high of contrast. If that's the case, the iPad won't exhibit the same strain. The screen is larger, it will be held farther away, and all these backlit screens have adjustable brightness.

Screen size - hands down is the issue. An iPhone or Touch is easily adjustable to avert glare. Try that with a 27" sheet of gloss called the iMac .
I use the PowerSupport anti-glare sheet on my iPhone and absolutely love it- great for outdoors. I've stated before that PowerSupport will make a fortune with the iPad if it takes off.
I would never put a film over a laptop or desktop cause that would look half- arsed- IMHO.
post #50 of 139
Go here:
http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
and scroll to the bottom of the page. Notice the Accessibility features. Apple is labeling them as features for the "disabled." Chances are, one or more of these features will help anyone who gets eye strain.

I don't want one of these bad boys, but since my middle name is eye fatigue, I would be more than happy to test one out for a couple of weeks.
post #51 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The combination of inability to read and seeming inability to do a web search, as displayed in these two posts, is really pretty shocking.

Yes it is. It is amazing how they don't know how to read, yet they know how to turn on a computer...but their comments prove they can't do much more than that. Since they don't know how to read, I don't think they know how to search the internet either.
post #52 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Read the article next time. They are talking about Lotus Notes.

Awe, let's give him a break. I'm just glad to see he can count to three.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #53 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oflife View Post

... Try reading for more than 30 minutes on an LCD at close range in low light and you will get a headache. You won't reading a book. If one did, they would not exist. ...

This is just the worst argument.

"Headaches" are actually subjectively experienced phenomena, they can be caused by all kinds of physical stimuli, but more importantly they can be caused by nothing physical at all. If a person expects to get a headache from reading a screen for instance, they can get one regardless of any physical stimuli.

Millions of people around the world also believe that wearing a copper bracelet alleviates their arthritis symptoms. They "feel it work" in a very real way and actually gain better physical health because of that belief. They have greater range of movement and feel a great deal less pain. That doesn't mean however that anything is actually happening with the copper bracelet or that it's physically doing anything at all.

Many more people believe in the existence of ghosts, spirits and other religious phenomena. They directly "feel" their presence, they are cured of various diseases by same etc. But that doesn't make goblins, saints or angels any more real either.

I find this thread kind of amazing. Paraphrased it goes like this:

science: "There is no basis for believing that eyestrain is caused by LCD screens."

response: "That's so interesting, but of course I know it's not true because I've experienced this myself."

science: "But that's the point, you may *think* you have, but I've proven it isn't true."

response: "That's so interesting, but of course I know it's not true because I've experienced this myself."

science: "but that's just what you *experience,* the reality is quite different. I'm telling you your perception is off."

response: "That's so interesting, but of course I know it's not true because I've experienced this myself."

science: argghhhh!!!!

welcome to the modern day flat earth society.
post #54 of 139
lol, Gazoobee. Quite true.

But let's also acknowledge that eyestrain is a very real phenomenon. True, some of it is psychosomatic. But there are also the people that truly do get eyestrain from using a computer.

What we haven't quite nailed down yet is the the complete list of significant contributing factors. We know text size and contrast make a difference. Ocular muscles can become fatigued if they are used for hours on end to distort the eyeball into achieving a different focal distance between lens and retina. Backlighting? Not so clear yet.
post #55 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

lol, Gazoobee. Quite true.

But let's also acknowledge that eyestrain is a very real phenomenon. True, some of it is psychosomatic. But there are also the people that truly do get eyestrain from using a computer.

What we haven't quite nailed down yet is the the complete list of significant contributing factors. We know text size and contrast make a difference. Ocular muscles can become fatigued if they are used for hours on end to distort the eyeball into achieving a different focal distance between lens and retina. Backlighting? Not so clear yet.

How about reading in general? I'd love to see audio-books be marketed as the books that don't cause eye strain.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #56 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

...let's also acknowledge that eyestrain is a very real phenomenon. True, some of it is psychosomatic. But there are also the people that truly do get eyestrain from using a computer.

What we haven't quite nailed down yet is the the complete list of significant contributing factors. We know text size and contrast make a difference. Ocular muscles can become fatigued if they are used for hours on end to distort the eyeball into achieving a different focal distance between lens and retina. Backlighting? Not so clear yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

How about reading in general? I'd love to see audio-books be marketed as the books that don't cause eye strain.

Good points.

Myopia is another thing, so many literate folks become nearsighted. I wonder if the illiterate ever start needing eyeglasses? STFW, I encountered this study.
post #57 of 139
I have an e-book reader with an e-ink display. I also spend a lot of time using LCDs.

I don't get eye strain, head aches or any other problems from LCDs. However, I still prefer reading from e-ink display. I find it much closer to the experience of reading from paper. It also doesn't have the problems of reflections often found on LCDs especially when it is sunny.
post #58 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

welcome to the modern day flat earth society.

I love that you said that.

I get so mad at people who only see things one way, and that's the only way. I'm willing to be wrong, but I at least like to try new things, different ways. How would anybody know if nobody ever tried. Flat world syndrome.
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
post #59 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

lol, Gazoobee. Quite true.

But let's also acknowledge that eyestrain is a very real phenomenon. True, some of it is psychosomatic. But there are also the people that truly do get eyestrain from using a computer.

What we haven't quite nailed down yet is the the complete list of significant contributing factors. We know text size and contrast make a difference. Ocular muscles can become fatigued if they are used for hours on end to distort the eyeball into achieving a different focal distance between lens and retina. Backlighting? Not so clear yet.


Glossy screens cause eyestrain for quite a number of people because the reflection on the screen is slightly out of focus than the computer image. So their eyes are constantly making adjustments between the two, this involves eye muscles, which tire and cause the eye strain and later headaches.

You can review all these links at this site to form your own opinion.

http://macmatte.wordpress.com/anti-glossy-articles/

I for one will not buy highly reflective screen without some sort of solution, Apple could use a form of glass that has anti-reflective properties built in, which would give a excellent viewing experience, even better than the present screens. But the LCD's themselves are glossy, lacking the matte film applied at the factory. So I don't know how anti-reflective glass would work with that.

It will be interesting to see how a third party matte film applied to the iPad would work.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #60 of 139
Sorry, I don't know what 'trolling' is. I am commenting on a story that has dubious motives. Thanks.
post #61 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oflife View Post

Sorry, I don't know what 'trolling' is. I am commenting on a story that has dubious motives. Thanks.


Your comment is fine, this site is overwhelmed by trolls of various types and post counts who will argue with you the fact that the sun doesn't rise just to get their kicks.




Quote:
Troll (Internet), an internet term for a person who willfully, through obscene, offensive or hateful actions (a.k.a. "trolling"), attempts to disrupt a community or garner reactions, attention and controversy.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #62 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Just as I've always maintained (and been criticised for saying here a few times), there is really no evidence that "eye strain" is caused by reading from a screen as opposed to paper, or that ePaper is any easier on the eyes than an LCD. It's basically a popular misconception.

I've been saying the same thing for quite a while, but Kindle owners or supporters don't want to believe it. I've been calling for a scientific study on this. I've even written letters to the two scientific organizations I belong to about sponsoring work in this area.
post #63 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Even for hardcore Mac users iWorks can't even come close to cutting into Office for Mac.

For uses where the extreme feature set of Office isn't needed, iWork is just dandy.

But, Office has over 95% of the Office software market. There are businesses who need various features iWork doesn't support, for them, having a lighter form of Office on this could be a deal maker.

Both suites are great at what they do, but are aimed at different audiences. I see no reason why having MORE software available isn't better than having less. Apple knows that too.
post #64 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I've been saying the same thing for quite a while, but Kindle owners or supporters don't want to believe it. I've been calling for a scientific study on this. I've even written letters to the two scientific organizations I belong to about sponsoring work in this area.

I'm just glad this is finally coming to a head.


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Both suites are great at what they do, but are aimed at different audiences. I see no reason why having MORE software available isn't better than having less. Apple knows that too.

Office is such a profitable suite for MS that I have no doubt that the rumour they are considering building Office for iPad is true.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #65 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by CU10 View Post

Backlighting is my biggest peeve with LCD displays, I'm looking straight at a light source rather than reflected light (which is how we usually see).

It doesn't matter what you're "looking into". Your eyes and brain don't care where the light comes from. A photon is the same whether it's reflected, or transmitted. It's also not entirely true that everything we see is from reflected light. The sky itself is illuminated by transmitted light, and that's what you're seeing. It's not how the light gets to your eyes, but the amount of light, the contrast, the color, etc. Just look at a bright snowfall right after coming out of a dim building, or a bright summer sky, see how the light hurts your eyes. This reflected light is better thing is a myth, that's all. It's promoted by the maker of the technology, E-ink, and the manufacturers who use its technology. And I'm willing to bet that they didn't choose it because they thought it was easier on the eyes, though they say that publicly, but because of the longer battery life.
post #66 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post

Agreed. If the iPad such an unremarkable device then why spend significant resources to develop a whole new UI for Office. If the iPad takes off even half as well as the iPhone you'll have millions of folks using iWorks and some of them may even like it better than what they use back in the office. People may start to learn that there are better alternatives to Microsoft products.

So far, its just interest on the part of the MBU at MS.
post #67 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oflife View Post

Me thinks this is total propaganda by Apple! (And I'm disgusted.)

Having used an iPod Touch for over a year, now owning an iPhone and played with several eInk devices, I can testify to the fact that the backlight on any LCD equipped device held quite close to the eye causes eye strain, as does the fact the screen is not really '1D' (one dimensional) like paper or eInk displays.

Try reading for more than 30 minutes on an LCD at close range in low light and you will get a headache. You won't reading a book. If one did, they would not exist.

There is also the issue of resolution. The iPad (sadly) is at 135 or similar DPI, while print on good paper offers 200 to 300.

All said, the iPad uses a new technology, so only time will tell whether it will also cause eye strain.

This has nothing to do with Apple. As you can see from a bunch of posts here, reading on an LCD is no problem at all. I keep telling people that they have to turn the brightness on their monitors down! Also turn the contrast down.

What's interesting is that while monitor manufacturers advertise their machines as having high brightness, when calibrating our monitors with a calibration device, the brightness is set much lower, and the excessive blue is removed. The monitor is not just much more accurate for photos, graphics and publishing, but for reading as well.

Book and magazine resolution has little to do with resolution from a screen, because the characters are generated so differently.
post #68 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Do you think the strain is related to the LCD, the backlight, the screen size, or the viewing distance?

If I had to hazzard a guess, the eyestrain from reading on your Touch is a result of screen size, short focal distance, and perhaps too high of contrast. If that's the case, the iPad won't exhibit the same strain. The screen is larger, it will be held farther away, and all these backlit screens have adjustable brightness.

I'm leaning toward the theory that "e-ink is easier on the eyes" is entirely marketing propaganda by the manufacturers of products which feature e-ink displays. Granted, it might be true, e-ink might be easier on the eyes. But it could very easily be the opposite, e-ink could be worse on the eyes.

The whole backlighting thing seems like a red-herring. Backlighting in handheld devices is mostly LED. LEDs are easier on the eyes than most fluorescents even. (less flicker) So backlit devices will have less flicker than those being lit by ambient florescent lighting.

So what about the fact that backlighting passes through more layers? Well forelighting also passes through layers. Passively lit screens use ambient lighting that must pass through the display's front, reflect off of something, and pass back out.

What i'd really like to see is empirical data. Until then, its all marketing propaganda to me, and no more reliable than personal experience and anecdotes.

We agree completely on this one.
post #69 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

This is just the worst argument.

"Headaches" are actually subjectively experienced phenomena, they can be caused by all kinds of physical stimuli, but more importantly they can be caused by nothing physical at all. If a person expects to get a headache from reading a screen for instance, they can get one regardless of any physical stimuli.

Millions of people around the world also believe that wearing a copper bracelet alleviates their arthritis symptoms. They "feel it work" in a very real way and actually gain better physical health because of that belief. They have greater range of movement and feel a great deal less pain. That doesn't mean however that anything is actually happening with the copper bracelet or that it's physically doing anything at all.

Many more people believe in the existence of ghosts, spirits and other religious phenomena. They directly "feel" their presence, they are cured of various diseases by same etc. But that doesn't make goblins, saints or angels any more real either.

I find this thread kind of amazing. Paraphrased it goes like this:

science: "There is no basis for believing that eyestrain is caused by LCD screens."

response: "That's so interesting, but of course I know it's not true because I've experienced this myself."

science: "But that's the point, you may *think* you have, but I've proven it isn't true."

response: "That's so interesting, but of course I know it's not true because I've experienced this myself."

science: "but that's just what you *experience,* the reality is quite different. I'm telling you your perception is off."

response: "That's so interesting, but of course I know it's not true because I've experienced this myself."

science: argghhhh!!!!

welcome to the modern day flat earth society.

It's called the placebo effect. About one in three people will believe what they think is correct even if it can be shown that it's not.

Since there's been so much propaganda coming from E-ink and its partners over the past few years, there are those people who have come to believe it.

Tell them what they want to hear, that the Kindle and others have less eyestrain, something they want, and miraculously, they have less. Not everyone is fooled, but enough are, especially as they've invested in it.
post #70 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

lol, Gazoobee. Quite true.

But let's also acknowledge that eyestrain is a very real phenomenon. True, some of it is psychosomatic. But there are also the people that truly do get eyestrain from using a computer.

What we haven't quite nailed down yet is the the complete list of significant contributing factors. We know text size and contrast make a difference. Ocular muscles can become fatigued if they are used for hours on end to distort the eyeball into achieving a different focal distance between lens and retina. Backlighting? Not so clear yet.

It's the backlighting they're concerned about. It's a problem if it's set too high, as it often is. Putting the monitor up too high also causes fatigue, neck pain, and eyestrain.
post #71 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

I have an e-book reader with an e-ink display. I also spend a lot of time using LCDs.

I don't get eye strain, head aches or any other problems from LCDs. However, I still prefer reading from e-ink display. I find it much closer to the experience of reading from paper. It also doesn't have the problems of reflections often found on LCDs especially when it is sunny.

That's different. It's perfectly feasible to prefer the look of it.
post #72 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Glossy screens cause eyestrain for quite a number of people because the reflection on the screen is slightly out of focus than the computer image. So their eyes are constantly making adjustments between the two, this involves eye muscles, which tire and cause the eye strain and later headaches.

You can review all these links at this site to form your own opinion....

True.

As the study itself noted, eyestrain is a real thing, but it's caused by real stimuli like the old flickering CRT screens with the low refresh rate, and the focus switching caused by the glossy screens as you point out above. It's just that eyestrain is not a quality of LCD screens per se. The study notes that you can get it from reading a crappily designed book for too long also.

I was mostly making fun of people who think that just because you see something "with your own eyes" or experience something directly yourself, that this somehow makes it obviously real or true.

The reality is that human beings are animals. Very high order animals, but animals just the same and our perceptions are not objective facts but coloured by our brains and our expectations. Intelligent normal people see and experience things all the time that just aren't real or true at all.

I've personally heard ghosts in my basement for instance and I once saw a giant bird the size of a small truck flying through the air. Even though I'm sure I heard and saw these things, I'm not stupid enough to believe that ghosts actually exist or that giant birds fly over my house.

Misperceptions abound. It's a totally normal part of the human experience.
post #73 of 139
I know for a fact that at least 3 of the big four accounting firms still uses Lotus Notes. My firm's IT people always said that the iPhone wasnt "secure enough" for them to tether it to their network. From what I really understand is that Lotus Notes just wasn't supporting the iPhone. Maybe now E&Y will let us use the iPhone now instead of those crappy Blackberrys.
post #74 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oflife View Post

Me thinks this is total propaganda by Apple! (And I'm disgusted.)

Try reading for more than 30 minutes on an LCD at close range in low light and you will get a headache. You won't reading a book. If one did, they would not exist.

Try reading for more than 30 minutes on paper at close range in low light and you will get a headache. Low (room) light is bad for reading on *any* medium. I laugh at the movies when they show the 'kool kid' hackers in their dark caves with all the monitors. No wonder they wear specs!
post #75 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oflife View Post

Me thinks this is total propaganda by Apple! (And I'm disgusted.)

Try reading for more than 30 minutes on an LCD at close range in low light and you will get a headache. You won't reading a book. If one did, they would not exist.

Try reading a book "at close range in low light" .... you will still, in all likelihood, get a headache. Anytime we create a situation where we have to concentrate extra hard, particularly in an inter-active situation you will find we blink less, probably because we think we can't afford to "miss the action". This causes less eyeball lubrication, and therefore more eye irritation.
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #76 of 139
There's another reason why LCDs may cause more eyestrain than e-ink that the article briefly mentions but glosses over.

From the article: “The new LCDs don’t affect your eyes,” Mr. Taussig said. “Today’s screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.”

It's not clear, however, that by simply raising the refresh rate above what's perceptible to the eyes, no eye strain would be caused by the constant refreshing. This may vary from person to person, as there are reports of people perceiving flickering and color-switching effects at refresh rates above what people normally perceive.

It's important to note that e-ink displays are completely stable when not turning pages, etc. The image on the screen does not change at all when displaying a static image. LCDs however do refresh even when displaying a static image. Although LCDs don't flicker like CRTs do, because they have a backlight that's constantly lit, they are still not completely stable when displaying a static image, due to slight variations in the voltage at each pixel causing small changes in the pixel being displayed with each refresh.
post #77 of 139
I do believe those effects are not zero, but they are completely negligible, and will not cause any perceivable eye strain beyond what you would get from the "flickering" of incandescent, fluorescent or LED light sources. Are you saying that the light bulb in your reading area doesn't flicker as much as an LCD display? Maybe not as much now with low power fluorescent bulbs, but damn, those incandescent light bulbs were awful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solarein View Post

There's another reason why LCDs may cause more eyestrain than e-ink that the article briefly mentions but glosses over.

From the article: The new LCDs dont affect your eyes, Mr. Taussig said. Todays screens update every eight milliseconds, whereas the human eye is moving at a speed between 10 and 30 milliseconds.

It's not clear, however, that by simply raising the refresh rate above what's perceptible to the eyes, no eye strain would be caused by the constant refreshing. This may vary from person to person, as there are reports of people perceiving flickering and color-switching effects at refresh rates above what people normally perceive.

It's important to note that e-ink displays are completely stable when not turning pages, etc. The image on the screen does not change at all when displaying a static image. LCDs however do refresh even when displaying a static image. Although LCDs don't flicker like CRTs do, because they have a backlight that's constantly lit, they are still not completely stable when displaying a static image, due to slight variations in the voltage at each pixel causing small changes in the pixel being displayed with each refresh.
post #78 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Glossy screens cause eyestrain for quite a number of people because the reflection on the screen is slightly out of focus than the computer image. So their eyes are constantly making adjustments between the two, this involves eye muscles, which tire and cause the eye strain and later headaches.
.......
It will be interesting to see how a third party matte film applied to the iPad would work.

Yeah, if there was a sturdy enough matte film to easily apply onto your iPad or MacBook Pro, that didn't scratch easily, and reduced the mirror effect, it might become a great hit.

However each time I'm annoyed by this I start thinking that the primary reason Apple does this is probably to offer more environmentally friendly machines. At least that is how they want to appear. And after all, if I can be friendlier with the environment by using a glass display over a plastic, then heck, why not?
post #79 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcalpin View Post

I remember when CRTs were dominant and one of the selling points about LCDs was less eyestrain.

Considering I have no problems with eye strain from my various LCDs at all I find it kind of comical that in the past few years, now LCDs are SOOOO BAAAAD for your eyes compared to ePaper. And God forbid if the LCD is glossy, too.

Glossy screens aro really bad. At least for my eyes and (some other persons). I have eye strain and headache after 2 hours of working on the screen of HP Pavilion dv7. My eyes are tired then 2 more days, and it is difficult to have everything in sharp focus.
While on the normal non-glossy panel I can work for 12-14 hours per day without any problems (only get normally tired).

I do not wear eye glasses. My sight is still very good. But I doubt it would take long to worsen it if I work on this sh&ty glossy monitor from HP. Maybe other glossy monitors would have had other effect, but I have my opinion about them based on this experience and those 20-30 monitors/notebooks which I looked on in various shops.

This differs from person to person as well. But to claim that it is a myth or not true in general is wrong. Don't judge only based on your 'non-failure' experience with glossy. It is like smoking in the same room with other person - for some one it is acceptable, for others it is an insult to their person/health. Please, do not insult me saying that it is ok, while I have health problems with it (smoking and glossy). :/

P.S. And it was God sent, when we replaced CRTs with LCDs. It become so much better. I do not have problems with non-glossy LCDs.
Additionally, glossy is bad for any graphical professional. Ask any of them (if they say that it is ok, they are either paid for having (Apple), or try to convince themselves not to regret the purchase, or are not very good at what they are doing).
From all glossy, Apple's makes the best glossy. But it is still worse than non-glossy overall.
post #80 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I do believe those effects are not zero, but they are completely negligible, and will not cause any perceivable eye strain beyond what you would get from the "flickering" of incandescent, fluorescent or LED light sources. Are you saying that the light bulb in your reading area doesn't flicker as much as an LCD display? Maybe not as much now with low power fluorescent bulbs, but damn, those incandescent light bulbs were awful.

I bet that normal bulb (Incandescent light bulb/Tungsten/Wolfram filament) is better for eyes than day light lamps (Fluorescent lamp/gas-discharge lamp).

So, explain me how incandescent light bulbs were they awful?
Fluorescent lamps has only advantage that they require less energy, however, many of them have really poisonous parts (all fluorescent lamps contain a small amount of elemental mercury (Hg) - mercury vapour is a highly toxic substance, with an "extreme" rating as a poison. It is a neurotoxin that can cause kidney and brain damage).

P.S. Amounts of Mercury in each fluorescent lamp:
The amount is tiny about 5 milligrams, or barely enough to cover the tip of a pen but that is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels, extrapolated from Stanford University research on mercury. Even the latest lamps promoted as low-mercury can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe levels.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › IBM plans Lotus for Apple iPad, e-reader eye strain explored