or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM demonstrates PlayBook with faster Web browsing than Apple's iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM demonstrates PlayBook with faster Web browsing than Apple's iPad - Page 3

post #81 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Doesn't matter. But ok let's say it took RIM 6 months to figure out they don't have the chops to do it on their own- better buy some company that does have the necessary talent. The fact is they started out easily a year behind Apple. And with a blue print - an iPad.

So? Google bought Android, they didn't have the talent either.
post #82 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by agolongo View Post

An eye for an eye, you just called the original poster spinless.

in a roundabout way, you're right, i did. my apologies.

it's still annoying.
post #83 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by msheredy View Post

Is it really something to tout when it's between "can" vs "can't" & "can" vs "I don't want to" wherein Apple is clearly the latter?

It's one thing for Apple to say that they don't want to --- because of performance issues.

But if RIM can launch the playbook with acceptable flash performance and acceptable battery life --- then it becomes an entire different issue.
post #84 of 274
With probably twice the processing power of an iPad, I would expect the Playbook to be faster. Processor power is purposely reduced in handheld devices to reduce power consumption. I can't see how running a multicore chip and Flash that the playbook is going to have good battery life. Unless it has more battery which increases weight and thickness. Frankly, I don't care either, I find my iPad pretty snappy so I'm not looking for a big improvement in speed. I've said this before and I'll say it again - all those pro-RIM, pro-BB, pro-PlayBook folks better be buying this when it comes out otherwise, the Apple fanboys win. Talking about it doesn't count.
post #85 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It's one thing for Apple to say that they don't want to --- because of performance issues.

But if RIM can launch the playbook with acceptable flash performance and acceptable battery life --- then it becomes an entire different issue.

very true. it would be significant for RIM if the playbook has acceptable flash and battery life. we'll see in 2-4 months.
post #86 of 274
Really?
RIM is effed up! They are using Apple's ipad a springboard to launch their own device. Pathetic. A web browser showdown? OMFG! To the suckers out there that must be real impressive. Meh!
Look, have you ever seen Apple show off an early prototype whatever going against something similar already in the market? HELL NO!
post #87 of 274
Engadget has a world's first hands-on with the RIM playbook.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/16/b...ands-on-video/
post #88 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyearsun View Post

agreed. the rallying cry of the mediocre, the fence sitters, and those too afraid to have an opinion.

Or perhaps some people can see beyond the perimeters of the walled garden?

I'm a user of Apple products and as I believe that the Apple's superior (in a number of ways) I wouldn't consider purchasing competing products. However, that does not preclude me from being able to recognise that for some people - possibly many of people - the Apple product may not be the solution for any number of reasons.

And yes, in the end it does benefit everyone in the long run to have more than one company pushing boundaries, including users of Apple products.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #89 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by trapezoidboy View Post

Anyone notice the shadow around the RIM device? Wonder why it's propped up on the left?
Also, until they actually get one of these in the hands of a "real" person this is just speculation.

Well, spotted. It does seem strange. Wonder what the back would look like...
post #90 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyearsun View Post

it's a cop-out...a broad statement that nobody in their right mind would disagree with usually made by posters who are meek and non-confrontational. and it's annoying to hear it so frequently

Maybe some people are annoyed by the constant closing down of interesting and thoughtful discussion by tech-zealots on both sides of the fence?
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #91 of 274
I'm a digital fiction publisher and have created a cloud-based e-reading service. In short, we don't publish e-books -- we serve short stories to connected readers. So I want to see the entire tablet market grow by leaps and bounds. Our site was designed with the iPad in mind, but we want to be accessible on as many mobile devices as possible. With hight hopes, I made a trip to a local Verizon store to check out the Samsung Galaxy Tab, and my hopes were dashed. I'll have the same reservation about the RIM tablet, no matter how good it may be...

What troubles me, now that I've seen it, is the HD video screen proportion (1024 x 600?). While it may be optimal for viewing HD video, it is a pain for surfing the web. The extra 168 pixels of height provided by the iPad's 1024 x 768 resolution makes a big difference -- particularly to a media provider whose product is mostly words and images. Of course HD videos can still play at the full 1024 width.
post #92 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbsbeme View Post


What troubles me, now that I've seen it, is the HD video screen proportion (1024 x 600?). While it may be optimal for viewing HD video, it is a pain for surfing the web. The extra 168 pixels of height provided by the iPad's 1024 x 768 resolution makes a big difference -- particularly to a media provider whose product is mostly words and images. Of course HD videos can still play at the full 1024 width.

Wait til retina comes out on iPad. I read more on my iPhone 4 than my iPad because the retina display is unbelievably clear. I had no idea how huge that feature would be when I bought the iPhone 4. Now I can tell you it's more important to me than face time and other new features
post #93 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by DimMok View Post

This is a RIM Job!

That's immatu...... -_- Oh who am I kidding? Hahahaha Nice.
post #94 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

I know, it is sad. I lived in FW for many years.

Liar! You cant live in FireWire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

Wait til retina comes out on iPad.

Youll likely be waiting at least 6 years. Even if we dont use the iPhone 4s ppi, but the minimum of 20/20 vision its a tablet you are still looking at a resolution that would exceed an iMac.

The best we could hope for is quadrupling the ppi like the iPhone 4 did over the 3GS, but even that seems unlikely at this point.
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 #95 of 274
I hv used numerous amount of notebook, netbook, minicomputer, UMPC, PDA for last 15 years and I hv to say in the long run larger screen (10in) will likely earn its #1 spot.

Minicomputer/UMPC with 5 to 7 in screen always look sexy, cute, handy. But once you start to use it long hours u will start feeling that this can't be a replacement of ur computer - the screen simply isn't large to perform most of the tasks.

When I switch to iPad, I hv never thought about buying another netbook or UMPC again, the 10 inch screen together with touch interface is a haven compared to other small/sexy looking devices. Reading books or web or documents on iPAD is just "natural", you don't hv to adjust any behavior to fit the device, the device is made to fit you and the wonderful thing is that I never worry about the battery life. Of course I think Apple should always try to make the device lighter, thinner and with longer battery. Funny is my wife feel exactly the same way and bought one for herself and she never is a fan of gadget.

7/5 in tablet will always hv a market, coz it always looks and feels sexy/attractive, people always imagine they can carry it in their pocket/handbag/suitcase and do everything mobile but soon they will find out they need to adjust too many habits to use the device. Look at all the UMPCs, I don't think the reason of failure is just the interface/OS/battery life, it's the screen size that's limiting all the natural transition from desk to iPAD. The only exception is Kindle, it only serve one purpose and all the function are integrated in a perfect way, that's why it works.

I wonder why no major computer manufacturer is brave enough to hv a head to head competition with APPLE. They are just trying to find niche sector in market. I wish they can make 10 in tablet which is lighter/thinner/longer battery life and I think the world will be moving towards a more paperless/environmental friendly manner.
post #96 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


The best we could hope for is quadrupling the ppi like the iPhone 4 did over the 3GS, but even that seems unlikely at this point.

What are the technical hurdles? Can't they just make current iPhone 4 screen larger?
post #97 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Ngan View Post

I wonder why no major computer manufacturer is brave enough to hv a head to head competition with APPLE.

It's nothing to do with brave or not brave --- that's how the real world works.

Airbus and Boeing NEVER compete directly against each other. Airbus would have a 200 seater and Boeing would come up with a 225 seater. Airbus comes up with a 250 seater and Boeing would come up with a 275 seater. They never match up directly.
post #98 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

What are the technical hurdles? Can't they just make current iPhone 4 screen larger?

Cost, power/battery life for starters. Then there's the issue of apps requiring re-writing - as mentioned elsewhere many times, an iPad screen with the same dpi as an iPhone 4 would be higher resolution than the 27" iMac.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #99 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Or perhaps some people can see beyond the perimeters of the walled garden?

I'm a user of Apple products and as I believe that the Apple's superior (in a number of ways) I wouldn't consider purchasing competing products. However, that does not preclude me from being able to recognise that for some people - possibly many of people - the Apple product may not be the solution for any number of reasons.

And yes, in the end it does benefit everyone in the long run to have more than one company pushing boundaries, including users of Apple products.

True. And I don't deny that it benefits everyone.

I'm just saying. We've heard it a thousand times. In and of itself, it's not exactly a compelling or original statement anymore.

If it were being used to back up a point, it'd be different. but as a point in and of itself, it's annoying at best and a cop-out at worst.
post #100 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Maybe some people are annoyed by the constant closing down of interesting and thoughtful discussion by tech-zealots on both sides of the fence?

My opposition to the one does not necessitate support of the other.
post #101 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by z3r0 View Post

I wonder how the QNX OS compares to Mac OS X/iOS performance wise.

QNX has been running on embedded systems for a while and more then likely is more optimized.

I'd love to compare both kernel and OS designs. I'm have a feeling that the QNX OS is better designed in many respects. It doesn't take much to beat Mac OS X's messaging system,
its pretty dog slow by design. Here are some sample tests (a bit old) but interesting nonetheless...

Kernel design really effects performance. I would love to see how QNX compares.

I like QNX's design because of its 'modularity' (best word to describe it?). However, in comparison to iOS, I don't see very many large benefits. iOS's kernel has been highly optimized to run on a mobile device with specific hardware and the same thing would have to be done with QNX in order for it to be efficient, since it requires and creates tight integration with the CPU and its "technique" can cause issues beyond the messaging system (which can cause problems in the programming stack [or pool?] or SDK development later if not maintained correctly) - At least from what I know about it, which is older knowledge; I'm not a pro.

I'd be interested to see what RIM has done behind the scenes and the performance comparison as well.
post #102 of 274
Hey, can't blame RIM for marketing their strengths. Obviously it doesn't tell the whole story, plus it is not independent. I am bias toward Apple, but I think most people could agree you couldn't conclude anything from this video other than the RIM product seems better at these SPECIFIC tests under CONTROLLED conditions. And yet you still see the iPad and its much bigger screen looking nice in this video in which RIM wants the playbook to look like the better product... If I were working for RIM to make this video I would of tried to make the size difference less noticeable.

And yes, RIM is touting a product and its abilities that are not on the market yet. In 2 or 3 months (or more) when it is out, it will not seem as amazing as it does today, nor will the price. Add to that Apple will most likely have its 2nd generation iPad with a significant update to design/specs/features just around the corner. Maybe we should start looking for Apple employees with "security clearance" in bars with iPads that look or behave oddly...

Plus, rendering speed doesn't tell the whole story. Small nuances in the experience are totally unaccounted for until you try them for yourself or at least have independent uncompensated reviewers tell you what they honestly think in large numbers. Battery life for example is excellent on the 1st generation iPad, and I can't see it getting worse in the 2nd generation. Touch responsiveness in iOS is EXTREMELY consistent and I always give Apple credit on just how predictable a touch is on their iOS devices. The touch screen and software accuracy is amazing when you compare it to other tablets or mobile phones.

Apple often delays features that other products have such as copy and paste, but at the same time, I think Apple holds back features that they think are not up to Apple standards of quality. Apple in my opinion rarely makes a frustrating main feature in a device. I am reminded of when they introduced visual voicemail with the original iPhone. Before this, voicemail was a HORRENDOUS experience that has heard much foul language directed at it. The same goes for video on early iPhones. Cycorder was able to 'unlock' video recording, but it was never great quality. On the 3GS, Apple introduced video recording and at the time, it was great quality for what it was.

I do agree Apple is very controlling of what is and isn't allowed, and sometimes should offer choice, but sometimes this control keeps their users from making bad or unproductive decisions that keep them more or less happy or satisfied using Apple products. Overall, Apple does a great job.
post #103 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Cost, power/battery life for starters. Then there's the issue of apps requiring re-writing - as mentioned elsewhere many times, an iPad screen with the same dpi as an iPhone 4 would be higher resolution than the 27" iMac.

Even if they could simply make a larger display and have it not cost too much more (which i dont think is possible), I dont think the GPU attached to those ARM processors could being to feasibly push data to that many pixels.
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 #104 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Cost, power/battery life for starters. Then there's the issue of apps requiring re-writing - as mentioned elsewhere many times, an iPad screen with the same dpi as an iPhone 4 would be higher resolution than the 27" iMac.

These don't seem like significant issues.

Cost: iPhone 4 gets retina without the need of price increase.
Power: iPhone 4 battery with 4x resolution lasts longer than 3G.
App upgrades: upgrades are optional not necessary. I have not upgraded any of my apps on the store for retina yet.
post #105 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

I like QNX's design because of its 'modularity' (best word to describe it?). However, in comparison to iOS, I don't see very many large benefits. iOS's kernel has been highly optimized to run on a mobile device with specific hardware and the same thing would have to be done with QNX in order for it to be efficient, since it requires and creates tight integration with the CPU and its "technique" can cause issues beyond the messaging system (which can cause problems up the programming stack later if not maintained correctly) - At least from what I know about it, which is older knowledge; I'm not a pro.

I'd be interested to see what RIM has done behind the scenes and the performance comparison as well.

If you remember the stories on jailbreaking/unlocking iphone 4 --- it is that Apple swtiched the baseband OS from Nucleus to Threadx. So it is kind of like running Threadx as a hypervisor and iOS runs on top of it.

When RIM migrates their blackberries to QNX, it will be just one OS running the whole show --- that the baseband is just going to be just another QNX program.

RIM also talked about going quad-core --- again another benefit of going with QNX.

http://erictric.com/2010/11/16/black...e-near-future/
post #106 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by DimMok View Post

This is a RIM Job!

That's hysterical
post #107 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

These don't seem like significant issues.

Cost: iPhone 4 gets retina without the need of price increase.
Power: iPhone 4 battery with 4x resolution lasts longer than 3G.
App upgrades: upgrades are optional not necessary. I have not upgraded any of my apps on the store for retina yet.

Are having a laugh? The display on the iPad is 8x the size of the iPhone.
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 #108 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

These don't seem like significant issues.

Cost: iPhone 4 gets retina without the need of price increase.
Power: iPhone 4 battery with 4x resolution lasts longer than 3G.
App upgrades: upgrades are optional not necessary. I have not upgraded any of my apps on the store for retina yet.

Why is it that iPad competitors are unable to compete with a similarly sized device? The cost of touch screens, to a great extent. Add "retina-esque" dpi to a 9.7" screen, no way can apple sell that for the current price and margin.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #109 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Are having a laugh? The display on the iPad is 8x the size of the iPhone.

This article says the system architecture is in place for more res. Maybe not as much as retina , but looks like something is in the works.

http://www.9to5mac.com/17896/is-the-ipad-going-retina
post #110 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Why is it that iPad competitors are unable to compete with a similarly sized device? The cost of touch screens, to a great extent. Add "retina-esque" dpi to a 9.7" screen, no way can apple sell that for the current price and margin.

Probably right...but I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility to say, that in the not too distant future, Apple will put Retina displays in their iPads and perhaps MBP and MBA's.

Apple seems like it has an "in" with the suppliers!

Best
post #111 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

If you remember the stories on jailbreaking/unlocking iphone 4 --- it is that Apple swtiched the baseband OS from Nucleus to Threadx. So it is kind of like running Threadx as a hypervisor and iOS runs on top of it.

When RIM migrates their blackberries to QNX, it will be just one OS running the whole show --- that the baseband is just going to be just another QNX program.

RIM also talked about going quad-core --- again another benefit of going with QNX.

The fact that it would be another QNX segment doesn't make it necessarily better or worse. QNX would need to be tightly integrated an optimized to balance its "own" baseband to prevent it from interfering with other parts of the top layer (I think you get what I am getting at) in the OS. As you add more into it, it becomes more complicated. I'm not the biggest fan of microkernels due to the fact that they aren't great at managing the OS as a whole. In embedded systems, this is less of a problem but in a more complicated OS, this can get hairy.
post #112 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

This article says the system architecture is in place for more res. Maybe not as much as retina , but looks like something is in the works.

http://www.9to5mac.com/17896/is-the-ipad-going-retina

In all this talk of retina displays you have still failed to define what a retina display is. I thought I opened that up with my previous comment, but I guess not. So how do you define a retina display. 326ppi like the iPhone 4? Have you figured out the resolution for a 9.7 4:3 display with 326ppi? 276 ppi, the minimum for 20/20 vision at 12 away from your eyes? Have you figured out that resolution? Have you figured what GPU from Imagination Tech can feasibly push that many pixels?
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 #113 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

The fact that it would be another QNX segment doesn't make it necessarily better or worse. QNX would need to be tightly integrated an optimized to balance its "own" baseband to prevent it from interfering with other parts of the top layer (I think you get what I am getting at) in the OS. As you add more into it, it becomes more complicated. I'm not the biggest fan of microkernels due to the fact that they aren't great at managing the OS as a whole. In embedded systems, this is less of a problem but in a more complicated OS, this can get hairy.

But we are talking about embedded systems. QNX has the the OS and the expertise to optimize it. Apple is trying to shoehorn a desktop OS into a phone.

What QNX is doing --- is what they have been doing for the last 30 years. They make sure the UI doesn't interfere with the software that runs the nuclear reactor.
post #114 of 274
Next time try demoing a comparison of a released product against a released product. Fail.
post #115 of 274
Don't get me wrong... I LOVE my iPad. I use it every night and have to share it with my wife (who also loves it). That said, we'd both love it a lot more if it played Flash. There are reasons for it not to.. I get that it decreases battery life and whatever else, but I'm cool with that. Just do like Macs do and release it without Flash... and then let me download it if I want it. Maybe even pop up a message that says "We at Apple don't recommend installing Flash because it's been known to eat into battery life and doesn't use open web standards". And then put an install button there. They could even put a dedicated Uninstall Flash button in the System Preferences.

Not a lot of sites I go to use Flash. I mostly visit blogs, but it's nice if I can go to a Flash page and have it render out properly. I like iPad despite missing Flash, but I'd send Apple a love letter if they software updated the option.
post #116 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

These don't seem like significant issues.

Cost: iPhone 4 gets retina without the need of price increase.
Power: iPhone 4 battery with 4x resolution lasts longer than 3G.
App upgrades: upgrades are optional not necessary. I have not upgraded any of my apps on the store for retina yet.

Let's not forget that the iPhone 4 us using the same chip as the iPad, which still has MORE pixels. So yes retina was easy to implement. What type of chip would be needed to animate a retina iPad?

You could probably cook eggs on your iPad if you put those chip(s) in there.
post #117 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Of course RIM's 'Playbook' is faster it only has 45% of a screen to fill up!

That's the "benefit" of a 7" tablet!

</sarcasm>

QFT .... look at 1.02 timeframe in clip .... approx. bottom 1/3 of the webpage is "missing from playbook. .... FAIL !
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 #118 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

In all this talk of retina displays you have still failed to define what a retina display is. I thought I opened that up with my previous comment, but I guess not. So how do you define a retina display. 326ppi like the iPhone 4? Have you figured out the resolution for a 9.7 4:3 display with 326ppi? 276 ppi, the minimum for 20/20 vision at 12 away from your eyes? Have you figured out that resolution? Have you figured what GPU from Imagination Tech can feasibly push that many pixels?

From what I'm researching you are right. This will be very tricky. I'd say 15 to 17 inches from eyes is an acceptable guess. Some are claiming 2 feet which I think is a stretch. 326 is asking a lot of 9" plus. I wonder if its feasable if apple claims double the pixels instead of 4x for the next generation?
post #119 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolian View Post

Let's not forget that the iPhone 4 us using the same chip as the iPad, which still has MORE pixels. So yes retina was easy to implement. What type of chip would be needed to animate a retina iPad?

You could probably cook eggs on your iPad if you put those chip(s) in there.

What about all that CUSTOM silicon that apple brags about

I'm living in fantasy land aren't I?

But I tell you I never load iBooks on the iPad since I got the iPhone 4
post #120 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

so iOS 4.2 is vaporware? it is no more real than the Playbook, nor is it shipping, and its innovation is unknown, as it is not publicly available (only in the friendly hands of Apple engineers and beta testers). So by your definition it is vaporware, or does Apple get a special pass?

People don't understand vapourware. Vapourware is not something that isn't shipping. It's something that has past reasonable amount of time to ship and people doubt that it's a real product at all. iOS4.2 obviously isn't vapourware, and the Playbook obviously isn't vapourware. Unless you don't believe it will be a real product, or you don't believe it will ship this spring.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • RIM demonstrates PlayBook with faster Web browsing than Apple's iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM demonstrates PlayBook with faster Web browsing than Apple's iPad