Apple iPad to arrive in U.S. on April 3, preorders begin March 12 - Page 5

April 3rd is my birthday! I'm gonna surprise myself. hehe Can't wait!

anyway, I feel the iPad has a good chance mostly due to it's great starting price. To me, I think it'll be great, much more portable than a laptop for around the house to use on the couch, at the kitchen table, ah-hem in the bathroom -reading magazine sites, newspapers, or reading code. I also believe it'll make it's way into the school markets, and scientific and medical fields.

I think I want an iPad as soo as it is available here in the Netherlands (which it will be pretty soon after the US launch). But there is one thing stopping me. I am uncertain about security/privacy. How well protected is the iPad against use by others? If I read my mail on it, can anybody who has access to the device read my mail ((etc) without having to enter a password?

Thanks,

Um, the center of gravity on an iPad relative to your palm is totally different from that of an iPhone. Yeah, you can hold it that way there but push on the screen with any bit of force and watch $500 fly quickly into the ground.

"At that price, I am going to buy one just to fool around with and it is more of a want than a need."

Nobody needs an iPad. You didn't need an iPad this time last year and you don't now. Advertising isn't about needs, it's about wants.

Having said that, I'll be popping out to buy one just as soon as I can but just remember why you're doing it. :-)

I'm getting used to the bezel from a practicality point of view, as you point out. You need to be able to grip it. Most of the science-fiction movies and Internet tablet mockups never really took into account "grip area" you need for holding it and manipulating it. In any case I won't see an iPad 'till maybe end of April or even May, in my country...

It wouldn't surprise me that they wouldn't.

I have found Rogers quite accommodating. Great service, speed and support.

Interesting, just got back from the U.S. and got this:


More info on Rogers Travel with Your Phone page: http://www.rogers.com/web/content/ad...0110-_-roaming

They could have put a big honkin' handle on one corner I've seen it done that way in some movies but then it wouldn't be able to be turned in any direction you like.

It needs to be 16:9 to be HD. At that aspect ratio, the pad will not display 720p.

It's funny how 'HD" slides so often.

I have a feeling that you don't actually mean 16:9, but a ratio that has at least 1280px on the horizontal line and 720px on the vertical. Meaning, I think you'd say a 16:10 ratio is also HD so long as it can fit a 1280x720 video onscreen without scaling down.

If we're going to start focusing on the display width perhaps we should start referring to the other value since having 720p or more pixels means nothing.

As nearly as I can tell, there's no actual, official standard for HD. It's a rat's nest of different ratios and resolutions.

I suspect I represent less than 1% of the population (statistic pulled out of thin air), but I don't have a mobile phone and no plans to get one.

So, for me the 3GiPad is excellent providing the usefulness of on-the-go internet and I just keep my iPod touch in my jacket pocket. Brilliant.

It really isn't. There are two sizes: 720p HD (1280x720) and 1080i/p HD (1920x1080). That's it, and they're both the same 16x9 ratio. Ideally, it would be more complicated than that, because compression type and bitrate makes more a difference than pixel resolution and content providers aren't held to anything beyond those two resolutions noted above when advertising their "HD" content.

So you don't count the 27" iMac as HD?

That's three at least. I don't think anyone is held to anything, judging by what I see on the TV.

Yes, about the only thing a 16x9 ratio is useful for is watching movies. For any type of actual computing, reading eBooks, and pretty much anything else I can think of it's a horrible aspect ratio, and it would have been utterly stupid for Apple to have made the iPad with a 16x9 aspect ration. The only reason this works on the iMac is that the screen is so large that it's like having two smaller monitors hooked up but without the division between them.

Libertarianism is the most convoluted, logically inconsistent political philosophy known to man. Following its basic premises to their logical conclusion leads to anarchy and a dissolution of all social contract, and a life for most that is as Hobbes pointed out, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

To avoid these obvious and unpleasant consequences, libertarians begin making arbitrary exceptions and distinctions regarding when the state should and should not exert it's influence. A common one is defense against threats, external and criminal, but, oddly, their view of criminal always seems to favor the wealthy and threats of, for example, companies threatening the general populace with pollution or unsafe products are off limits for many libertarians. The whole libertarian "intellectual" edifice is nothing but an sophisticated sham aimed at protecting the rights of the powerful and wealthy against the "rabble".

No truly rational person can sincerely declare himself a libertarian, since the entire basis of libertarianism is entirely irrational. The teabaggers, many of whom are simply racists hiding behind the tea party so they can oppose Obama without being called out for their real reasons, and many who are simply so unintelligent that they think they can have a stable, functioning society without a sufficient tax base or a sufficiently empowered government, are "libertarians" devoid of all intellectual pretense, and devoid of all common sense.

But, are there not plenty of things to worry about in the US in regard to government power? There certainly are, but most of these things, like the trampling of constitutional rights by the patriot act and the pro-wealth/anti-individual leanings of the current supreme court are the legacy of the right wing over the last 30 years in this country. Socialism, is definitely not what we need to be worried about.

You could say that the 27" iMac is capable of displaying full 1080p content since the screen resolution actually exceeds 1920x1080 considerably but that doesn't make 2560 x 1440 (the 27" iMac's screen resolution) an HD format.

You don't see how your definition of 'HD' is simply your definition and not an industry definition? How what you claim to be canon is simply what is the typical definition among HDTVs? Or how HD typically only refers to the vertical pixel count, not the ratio? You can make up new definitions that suit your needs but that does make them right.

Are you suggesting that the entire broadcast industry have based their specifications around my definition of HD?

720p and 1080p/i are broadcast standards. HD video/film is always produced and delivered in one of those two sizes. If the original content does not fit the 16:9 aspect, letterboxing or pillar-boxing is used so that it may still conform to those two — the only two — HD resolutions.

You seem to be suggesting that, not me, with your rigid unwavering definition. You're also indirectly implying that if no "broadcast" that can be made to the display that it can't possible be HD. First you moved the 720p definition of 720 horizontal scan lines to actually refer to 1280 of vertical scan lines, that the ratio had to 16:9 9not less or more), and now you're saying that what broadcasters push is key. These are all factors to the image, but they not all included in the 720p definition.

I can find plenty of data that says 1024×768 is HD. I can also find info marketing plasmas with 1024x768 in both 16:9 using non-square pixels and 4:3 ratios as HD. As I stated previously, your definition is very limited and only correct within very strict confines. You've even stated that 27" iMac isn't High Definition, despite being considerably higher than your definition.

I think we should be using the definitions as they were intended without trying to complicate things. It won't be too long before 720p will be the low-end of TVs. It's unfortunate that the marketing term gets trumped up when it's so empty. Colloquially, you're right and that is what I'd expect from a non-technical discussion about '720p' but this isn't a non-technical forum about TVs.

I don't even know what you're blabbering on about. 720p is 1280x720, period.


No, you can't. What you're looking at is cheap low-end televisions that stretch 1024x768 pixels to 16:9 and call it a 720p television. This doesn't mean that 1024x768 is HD; it means that cheap low-end "720p" televisions are deceiving, and cheap.



No, what I said was that the iMac could certainly display 1080p HD content, but you wouldn't advertise it as an HD screen because 2560x1440 is not one of the only two official HD resolutions. It's greater than HD. To call it an "HD" display would actually be underselling it's capabilities.



720p is already reserved for low-end HDTVs, and has been for years. And again, 1280x720 is the only resolution that "720p" content can be. TV manufacturers being cheap and sneaky by stretching 1024x768 pixels into a 16:9 ratio and selling it under the guise of 720p doesn't change that.

Of course not, which is why you've failed to understand the problem of simply calling something 'HD' and thinking it has a specific, unwavering definition that is solely based on "broadcasters".

No, I don't understand what you're saying because you're not making any sense. I think you're trying to argue semantics with me now taking the "if something is larger than 1080p then it too is 'high' in definition" approach while I'm pointing out that High Definition®© as it pertains to film and video is only one of two possible resolutions. Like calling every MP3 player an "iPod", using High Definition as a broad general term referring to images and screens with a dense pixel resolution is incorrect.

Again, you're focusing on content from television broadcasters as the only definition and usage for HD. It's been used for computer monitors and cameras for a long time and it's not a strict 16:9 ratio encompassing 1920x1080 or 1280x720. There are cameras, monitors and TVs(read: have tuners) that are 16:10 that are HD. And as I previously stated there are even plasma HDTVs that are 16x9 that are 1024x768 with non-square pixels and even 4:3 ratios with square pixels.

Back on topic, video compression techniques make the marketing term "HD" completely pointless. check out a 1080p video from YouTube and a 1080p Blu-ray movie on the same monitor and you'll see what I mean.

PS: I don't recall the "High Definition" being Registered & Unregistered Trademarks or Copyrighted.

edit: The first few pargraphs of this wikipage explain it nicely...

•

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

The revolution is about to begin and you people are arguing over the definition of high definition. Ridiculous! The only thing that matters is this: Do your movies and pictures look good when you are looking at them on the display. That's it! The rest is just mental masturbation for geeks.

Let the revolution begin!

Agreed. Resolution Smesolution. Everyone runs around claiming 1080p as God, but the fact is that there is much more to the equation than that. Besides, most movies aren't shot or presented in pure 16x9 anyways. 16x9 = 1.78:1. Panavision is 2.2:1 and Cinemascope's Anamorphic Widescreen is 2.35:1. That's why you still get letterboxing on a 16:9 "HD" television.

Honestly, the quality of the image depends much more on the quality of the transfer and the encoding than on the number of lines of resolution on your screen. I've watched many 720p movies on my 50" 1080p plasma that blow the pants off of a poorly transferred or encoded 1080p film.

For a decent discussion of aspect ratios, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A real question: Do preorders start at midnight, or in the morning?