Samsung Galaxy Tab to take on Apple's iPad via all 4 US carriers - Page 5

Originally Posted by paxman

Have you seen how fat this thing is http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//20..._1_610x457.jpg

Originally Posted by extremeskater

Which is no different then the iPad being a larger version of the iPod Touch. In fact is the new iPod Touch comes with a cam and Facetime then it will offer more in the way of features.

Originally Posted by DaHarder

Personally, I find the Galaxy the perfect size/weight for this kind of device as it's much easier to hold with one hand, and considerably lighter than my iPad.

I'll be comparing both extensively the minute I purchase my GalaxyTab upon its release.

Originally Posted by NasserAE

It's just a large Samsung Android phone!

Originally Posted by extremeskater

Which is no different then the iPad being a larger version of the iPod Touch. In fact is the new iPod Touch comes with a cam and Facetime then it will offer more in the way of features.

Originally Posted by NasserAE

I don't think you got my post. When the iPad was released it was called a larger iPod touch. Now the same people are try to look the other way when it comes to the Samsung Tab. If you are going to call the iPad a large iPod touch then you should call this a large Android phone.

Originally Posted by bcahill009

And btw how in the hell does this thing not infringe on some of the ipad's patents. I mean it's pretty sad that these other companies can only copy instead of come up with something at all original.

Originally Posted by dasanman69

There's not much that can be done with form factor. I'm sure your flat panel TV/monitor looks a lot like Phillips first available to consumers plasma TV and very much like your neighbors Sony/Toshiba/Samsung/Panasonic etc but no one yells bloody murder at that. Historically one company leads the way and others follow suit. Companies copy other companies and not just in the electronic world. Nabisco copied the Hydrox and made the Oreo. Get over it people, competition no matter how inferior is good.

Originally Posted by Newtron

Man, this looks great. I look forward to the WiFi-only models.

Originally Posted by os2baba

At 11.98mm against 12.7mm of iPad's thickness, it's 0.72mm thinner than the iPad.

Originally Posted by 0yvind

Even Samsung admits they're aiming to copy a rumored 7" iPad. (Which I'd love to have myself... ;o)

Originally Posted by NasserAE

I don't think you got my post. When the iPad was released it was called a larger iPod touch. Now the same people are try to look the other way when it comes to the Samsung Tab. If you are going to call the iPad a large iPod touch then you should call this a large Android phone.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

I think, being late to the troll, extremeskater is just engaging in schmuckenfreude.

.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Its interesting that the two newest Android tablets from different vendors Ive read about in the last day have a wonky 1024x600 resolution (1:71 aspect ratio) with one being a 7 display and the other 10, but I am under the impression that Android v2.2 Froyo only natively supports resolutions up to 854×480. So are these some add on that will make 3rd-party apps not work right, is there a 1024x600 option built in, or will these be using a version of Android newer than 2.2?

Originally Posted by extremeskater

I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Most Tablets that come to market at least when they are first generation are going to be nothing more then a larger version of something that already exists.

As I posted above this the Samsung is nothing more then a larger version of something that already exists. In turn the iPad is still nothing more then a larger version of the Touch.

I would expect as all Tablets mature that will not be the case but you have to start somewhere.

There isn't anything about my statement that can be confused with trolling. That term is used on this form so often it has no meaning at all, its hard to believe at times this is a forum with adults.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Yes, but the ratio of xy:z is significantly higher (~ 3.5 vs. 2.0) for the iPad vs. Galaxy Tab, making the iPad much thinner, relative to itself, than the Galaxy Tab, relative to itself. Despite all the nonsense in this thread, this is the important metric when discussing the thinness of a device. The absolute dimension (which, for the iPad is 13.4mm, btw, not 12.7) is meaningful if you are making cases, but in terms of how it will feel in one's hand, it's the overall size (xy) compared to the thickness (z) that matters.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

It's probably your belligerent attitude that gets you labeled a troll.

But, you're simply wrong in equating the iPad to a large iPod Touch. Yes, the form factor is similar, scaled up in the iPad. Yes, they are both touchscreen devices. But that's where the commonality ends. The much larger screen (and very different UI) create a user experience very different from that of the iPod Touch/iPhone. At an extremely superficial level, you are correct. In every other way, you are wrong.

Originally Posted by FurbiesAndBeans

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."

Originally Posted by anonymouse

It's probably your belligerent attitude that gets you labeled a troll.

But, you're simply wrong in equating the iPad to a large iPod Touch. Yes, the form factor is similar, scaled up in the iPad. Yes, they are both touchscreen devices. But that's where the commonality ends. The much larger screen (and very different UI) create a user experience very different from that of the iPod Touch/iPhone. At an extremely superficial level, you are correct. In every other way, you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

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.

.

Originally Posted by FurbiesAndBeans

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."

Originally Posted by FurbiesAndBeans

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."

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.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Going to back to DaHarders 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 isnt what he meant by his us of the word comparably, and maybe he didnt 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, Id say that scaling the iPhone to match the Samsung Tab or iPads 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.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum



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.

.

Originally Posted by FurbiesAndBeans


(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."

Originally Posted by extremeskater

If you mostly use an iPad you don't have any heavy lifting.

Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach

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.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

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.

.

Originally Posted by Groovetube

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.

Originally Posted by maccherry

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.

Originally Posted by Newtron

Why does that matter? It is not a pocket device. Being comfortable to hold is the proper criteria, not some spec.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

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.

.

Originally Posted by extremeskater

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.

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach

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.

Originally Posted by DaHarder

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.

Originally Posted by Newtron

Hence my comment about waiting for WiFi-only models.

Originally Posted by Newtron

Man, this looks great. I look forward to the WiFi-only models.