I agree, PixelDoc. Until we all have actually use an actual production iPad at an Apple Store or a borrowed one from a friend, it is very difficult and quite impossible to actually judge a product based on it's merits.
Absolutely. It's deju vu all over again.
This is the exact same scenario with different names and hardware bits. It's as if so-called "tech journalists" have their own special edition MadLibs for Apple product releases. Simply fill in the blanks and presto, you've got a hit-whoring article any Apple-hater can love! Swap floppy disk for Flash. FireWire for stylus. Camera for keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil
All the bitching and the moaning reminded me of the time when Apple introduced the .... the Bondi iMac had no serial ports,2 USB ports that were seldomly used in Wintel PCs , a severe shortage of software as well as hardware peripherals and of yeah, an underpowered G3 PowerPC chip.
By the tone of that little chunk, I'd guess that you were definitely NOT a Mac user at the time.
As a Mac user since pretty much the beginning, there's plenty of software. (Yes, the list of games is pathetic, at best.) If there's a specific application that's "missing" there have always been file translation utilities. It ALL really boils down to the data, after all.
As for "underpowered G3". The G3 at the time was a fantastic chip. It ran faster, cooler and more efficiently than the furnaces churned out by Intel. Remember the megahertz myth? Yes, it was real. At the time, the same G3 chip was used in every Mac from PowerMac to PowerBook to iMac.
Millions of Mac uses have gone to great lengths to all but rid themselves of what Adobe has thrown upon us (not unlike a steaming pile of crap).
Adobe should have had the courtesy to show OS X and its users similar support... Instead the Corporation (project leaders?) took the easy way out and /ignore OSX was their standard operating procedure.
Ever hear of spell check?
If it weren't for the Macintosh, there would BE NO ADOBE. They should have some loyalty and release their software with feature parity!
I use Photoshop, Acrobat Pro and Illustrator and until there are alternatives, I'll continue to use them. It's a bummer Adobe killed Freehand and most likely because it was Mac only (i could be wrong on that!
Even the core of the MS Office apps, Word and Excel (not sure about PowderPoint) started on the Mac and were ported later.
The biggest problem with Flash is the complete lack of design discipline of show-off web site designers.
As for Flash itself, ClickToFlash works fine for me. If there's some Flash content I really want to see, I click. If not, it doesn't waste my time, bandwidth or CPU cycles downloading and displaying a bunch of superfluous drivel. I have a TV for that
will the apple remote work??? can i use my current wireless keyboard??
i will definitely buy it for my mom and dad.
I think this is the real market. My folks don't like computers, they have to use them for email and such, but they don't like them and at least 30% of the population is there. Give them a keyboard when they need one, but easy touch screening for everything else and barely an OS to get mad at and they will be happy.
Get the Pogo Sketch, it works better. Yep, I bought both.
Can you write with it? I don't care about handwriting recognition at all, but it would be nice to be able to write and project whatever is being written. Wouldn't the touch stuff leave hand marks all over the place? I have a couple of Tablet PC's from HP and Lenovo. Really nice for writing and I specifically avoided getting the touch screen option. Don't need pressure sensitive but the ability to annotate pdf files at least would be great. I am not talking of writing out a whole lecture on an iPad, just a few lines here and there.
I agree, PixelDoc. Until we all have actually use an actual production iPad at an Apple Store or a borrowed one from a friend, it is very difficult and quite impossible to actually judge a product based on it's merits.
Absolutely. It's deju vu all over again.
This is the exact same scenario with different names and hardware bits. It's as if so-called "tech journalists" have their own special edition MadLibs for Apple product releases. Simply fill in the blanks and presto, you've got a hit-whoring article any Apple-hater can love! Swap floppy disk for Flash. FireWire for stylus. Camera for keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil
All the bitching and the moaning reminded me of the time when Apple introduced the .... the Bondi iMac had no serial ports,2 USB ports that were seldomly used in Wintel PCs , a severe shortage of software as well as hardware peripherals and of yeah, an underpowered G3 PowerPC chip.
By the tone of that little chunk, I'd guess that you were definitely NOT a Mac user at the time.
As a Mac user since pretty much the beginning, there's plenty of software. (Yes, the list of games is pathetic, at best.) If there's a specific application that's "missing" there have always been file translation utilities. It ALL really boils down to the data, after all.
As for "underpowered G3". The G3 at the time was a fantastic chip. It ran faster, cooler and more efficiently than the furnaces churned out by Intel. Remember the megahertz myth? Yes, it was real. At the time, the same G3 chip was used in every Mac from PowerMac to PowerBook to iMac.
Some great points.
Apple don't need flash. They've got their own tech or they use open tech or they use their tech with open tech. Shrugs* We don't need Adobe or their patronising support for the Mac platform. (Lack of feature parity, bloated upgrades and resource hog software...) The iPad is about a new Paradigm shift away from the 1984 Gui.
Do we need USB? If it's included in the dock? I'm not sure we need the 'missing' camera feature at the moment. But as bandwidth, cpu and power saving features improve...it will come.
Developers will flock around the iPad like bees around honey. It's going to be easy to develop for. 30-70 cut of revenue, no print, no distribution costs...you can leave behind all the 'hard work' legacy desktop metaphors and bumf and have a nice, OS-X lite and clean start. What's not to like? You can do all the 140,000 things an iPhone can do but with wayyyy more cpu/gpu power and the screen real estate of a personal a4 sheet of paper. S'funnee. That seems to be the size people of the last hundred years or so have done an awful lot of work on...
90% of people may not like or get that based from a product they've not(!) used...but they will get it. Time to bend the wallet over for another reaming.
I'm amazed at the people, reviewers and fans who don't 'get it.'
I can't wait to hold one and get her on the sofa. Baby.
If it weren't for the Macintosh, there would BE NO ADOBE. They should have some loyalty and release their software with feature parity!
Appears we're cut from the same cloth You stated a fact there!
Quote:
I use Photoshop, Acrobat Pro and Illustrator and until there are alternatives, I'll continue to use them. It's a bummer Adobe killed Freehand and most likely because it was Mac only (i could be wrong on that!
Yes... I am also extremely miffed about Adobe killing FreeHand for a far less capable Illustrator. They very well could have kept FreeHand running as well, but decided to go the kill route instead. I still use it (in SL) for about 75% of my packaging design work. BTW: it also ran on Windows since WinNT. Not sure about Win7.
Quote:
The biggest problem with Flash is the complete lack of design discipline of show-off web site designers.
...add the fact, that in most cases, it's a thoroughly wasted experience in Flash, which would/could be much better using existing standards-based mark-up using CSS and AJAX. It's just that the tools made by Adobe made it so easy. Good visualizing tools are still somewhat weak pulling all the new technologies together for non-tech enthusiasts (like photographers for instance), being able to create their own Image-Branded sites.
Quote:
As for Flash itself, ClickToFlash works fine for me. If there's some Flash content I really want to see, I click. If not, it doesn't waste my time, bandwidth or CPU cycles downloading and displaying a bunch of superfluous drivel. I have a TV for that
I couldn't live without it. I have a slow internet connection, that becomes unbearable with Flash, as well as running any browser without an Ad Blocker.
However, most people don't like to be on camera, which is why we never had a clamoring market for videophones despite having had the technology for decades
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX
that's the dumbest excuse I've ever heard for not having a camera. I need a webcam for skype. Why have a camera on the mac then?
pff
Don't sweat it. He's just giving you Canned Answer No. 389:
The biggest problem with Flash is the complete lack of design discipline of show-off web site designers.
Its also very hardware intensive, especially on Macs. Pretty embarrassing that a Nehaelm Mac Pro can't play Hulu videos in full screen without dropping frames, see here. It also has a tendency to crash your browser which is really annoying with 10 tabs open. The new safari has mitigated that to a large extent but it still happens.
Why can't it print? I Have a blue tooth printer, this thing has a USB adapter - there are two potential ways to print already. A lot of people making assumptions based on zero facts.
Apple should be able to offer printing fairly easily in future hardware/software. I actually think this is a coming feature myself.
Quote:
Why does it need to multitask - can you see two applications on this screen at the same time? I think not, so quickly flick between open apps. Easy.
Then you blow it here. It is almost like people don't understand what multitasking is. Frankly this is probably the case as people don't seem to get it even with Mac OS. So I can only suggest you address this ignorance of the technology yourself via some technical education.
In any event the ability for the user to start his own tasks and run them in background is huge. The types of apps that one often wants to run in background do not need the user interface to be useful. Examples are starting long downloads in background while using entirely different tools I'm the forground, GPS data logging, alternative media sources (Internet radio), device monitoring/data acquisition and a host of others. This doesn't even take into account cooperative apps like the iWork suite.
Frankly any of these could be interesting and useful but a few could break new ground for Apple. Device monitoring and data collection being one of those that could see significant adoption. All you need is an app that runs independantly of the foreground user process.
What one needs to remember is that each and everyone of these tablets comes with a number of RF communication ports that can easily access the local environment. This means nothing has to be added to the iPad to establish communications with the world outside of the device.
In a nut shell objecting to multitasking is simple telling the world you don't understand it or are a person with simple needs. That is OK but when you publically dis multitasking you are really irritating the users that can and do leverage such features.
Except that the iPad's 1024x768 screen doesn't support 720P HD either, which is 1280x720. That leaves 20% of the width missing.
And even if the iPad did have "real" 720p screen It's highly unlikely in a real double-blind test that you would be able to tell the difference anyway.
Under 17" resolution simply doesn't matter - esp. for movies. Color depth and black level are far more important which is what makes the IPS LCD so critical.
But again, hand-wringing about non-existant issues is where internet forums excel - carry on!
And even if the iPad did have "real" 720p screen It's highly unlikely in a real double-blind test that you would be able to tell the difference anyway.
Did you even read the text in the link you provided? Starting with the first line "720p refers to a progrssive HDTV signal with 720 horizontal lines and an Aspect Ratio (AR) of 16:9 (1.78:1)"
1024x768 is NOT HD because it is NOT the widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9
You said, "Just like a 720p plasma has a 16x9 of 1024 x 768" - Yeah, those TV's aren't running a native HD resolution - they're ACCEPTING an HD signal and converting it to something that isn't truely HD. Oh and "16x9 of 1024 x 768" ummm you might want to recheck the math on that!
You also said, "Except the standard for 720p HD only counts the horizontal scan lines" which is also not true. Your link even proves otherwise. For something to be considered to be HD, it MUST have an aspect ratio of 16:9. The iPad may be able to play HD content, but it won't be displaying it in true HD
It would require a 578 height with a 192px letter box padding above and below while the rest of the display [landscape] is 1024.
You are correct from a strict technical sense that the iPad is not displaying true HD resolution.
But you are pushing your point too far. Movies are not shot in 1.78 (16x9) aspect ratio, movies are shot in 1.85 or 2.39. When you see a movie in 1.78 that means it was cropped. Are you saying if the movie is viewed in its true aspect ratio on an HD monitor that means its not true HD?
People make too big a deal about resolution. Resolution is important, but there are many techniques to trick the eye with resolution. Whats far more important is color depth and contrast. They are much more noticeable than resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustFrozen
1024x768 is NOT HD because it is NOT the widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9
Comments
I agree, PixelDoc. Until we all have actually use an actual production iPad at an Apple Store or a borrowed one from a friend, it is very difficult and quite impossible to actually judge a product based on it's merits.
Absolutely. It's deju vu all over again.
This is the exact same scenario with different names and hardware bits. It's as if so-called "tech journalists" have their own special edition MadLibs for Apple product releases. Simply fill in the blanks and presto, you've got a hit-whoring article any Apple-hater can love! Swap floppy disk for Flash. FireWire for stylus. Camera for keyboard.
All the bitching and the moaning reminded me of the time when Apple introduced the .... the Bondi iMac had no serial ports,2 USB ports that were seldomly used in Wintel PCs , a severe shortage of software as well as hardware peripherals and of yeah, an underpowered G3 PowerPC chip.
By the tone of that little chunk, I'd guess that you were definitely NOT a Mac user at the time.
As a Mac user since pretty much the beginning, there's plenty of software. (Yes, the list of games is pathetic, at best.) If there's a specific application that's "missing" there have always been file translation utilities. It ALL really boils down to the data, after all.
As for "underpowered G3". The G3 at the time was a fantastic chip. It ran faster, cooler and more efficiently than the furnaces churned out by Intel. Remember the megahertz myth? Yes, it was real. At the time, the same G3 chip was used in every Mac from PowerMac to PowerBook to iMac.
fuch f:ask
Millions of Mac uses have gone to great lengths to all but rid themselves of what Adobe has thrown upon us (not unlike a steaming pile of crap).
Adobe should have had the courtesy to show OS X and its users similar support... Instead the Corporation (project leaders?) took the easy way out and /ignore OSX was their standard operating procedure.
Ever hear of spell check?
If it weren't for the Macintosh, there would BE NO ADOBE. They should have some loyalty and release their software with feature parity!
I use Photoshop, Acrobat Pro and Illustrator and until there are alternatives, I'll continue to use them. It's a bummer Adobe killed Freehand and most likely because it was Mac only (i could be wrong on that!
Even the core of the MS Office apps, Word and Excel (not sure about PowderPoint) started on the Mac and were ported later.
The biggest problem with Flash is the complete lack of design discipline of show-off web site designers.
As for Flash itself, ClickToFlash works fine for me. If there's some Flash content I really want to see, I click. If not, it doesn't waste my time, bandwidth or CPU cycles downloading and displaying a bunch of superfluous drivel. I have a TV for that
will the apple remote work??? can i use my current wireless keyboard??
i will definitely buy it for my mom and dad.
I think this is the real market. My folks don't like computers, they have to use them for email and such, but they don't like them and at least 30% of the population is there. Give them a keyboard when they need one, but easy touch screening for everything else and barely an OS to get mad at and they will be happy.
Get the Pogo Sketch, it works better. Yep, I bought both.
Can you write with it? I don't care about handwriting recognition at all, but it would be nice to be able to write and project whatever is being written. Wouldn't the touch stuff leave hand marks all over the place? I have a couple of Tablet PC's from HP and Lenovo. Really nice for writing and I specifically avoided getting the touch screen option. Don't need pressure sensitive but the ability to annotate pdf files at least would be great. I am not talking of writing out a whole lecture on an iPad, just a few lines here and there.
Thank's...philip
Quote:
The iPad truly supports real desktop style apps with even more sophisticated multitouch input that the iPhone.
*sniffle*
Goodbye open and free choice Mac OS X.
Meet your closed and eventual replacement with a nice hardware lock too.
No wonder the App developers are not porting to OS X.
*cry*
PS: Guess if you wanted to use a real keyboard in landscape mode you have to get the wireless one.
Is it just me, or all the accessories needed to use this device really padding the price up to laptop levels?
Goodbye 1984. And it's been a long time coming.
Don't worry, by the time you've finished this new girl you won't care about your stale marriage.
Intimate.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Originally Posted by Wil
I agree, PixelDoc. Until we all have actually use an actual production iPad at an Apple Store or a borrowed one from a friend, it is very difficult and quite impossible to actually judge a product based on it's merits.
Absolutely. It's deju vu all over again.
This is the exact same scenario with different names and hardware bits. It's as if so-called "tech journalists" have their own special edition MadLibs for Apple product releases. Simply fill in the blanks and presto, you've got a hit-whoring article any Apple-hater can love! Swap floppy disk for Flash. FireWire for stylus. Camera for keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil
All the bitching and the moaning reminded me of the time when Apple introduced the .... the Bondi iMac had no serial ports,2 USB ports that were seldomly used in Wintel PCs , a severe shortage of software as well as hardware peripherals and of yeah, an underpowered G3 PowerPC chip.
By the tone of that little chunk, I'd guess that you were definitely NOT a Mac user at the time.
As a Mac user since pretty much the beginning, there's plenty of software. (Yes, the list of games is pathetic, at best.) If there's a specific application that's "missing" there have always been file translation utilities. It ALL really boils down to the data, after all.
As for "underpowered G3". The G3 at the time was a fantastic chip. It ran faster, cooler and more efficiently than the furnaces churned out by Intel. Remember the megahertz myth? Yes, it was real. At the time, the same G3 chip was used in every Mac from PowerMac to PowerBook to iMac.
Some great points.
Apple don't need flash. They've got their own tech or they use open tech or they use their tech with open tech. Shrugs* We don't need Adobe or their patronising support for the Mac platform. (Lack of feature parity, bloated upgrades and resource hog software...) The iPad is about a new Paradigm shift away from the 1984 Gui.
Do we need USB? If it's included in the dock? I'm not sure we need the 'missing' camera feature at the moment. But as bandwidth, cpu and power saving features improve...it will come.
Developers will flock around the iPad like bees around honey. It's going to be easy to develop for. 30-70 cut of revenue, no print, no distribution costs...you can leave behind all the 'hard work' legacy desktop metaphors and bumf and have a nice, OS-X lite and clean start. What's not to like? You can do all the 140,000 things an iPhone can do but with wayyyy more cpu/gpu power and the screen real estate of a personal a4 sheet of paper. S'funnee. That seems to be the size people of the last hundred years or so have done an awful lot of work on...
90% of people may not like or get that based from a product they've not(!) used...but they will get it. Time to bend the wallet over for another reaming.
I'm amazed at the people, reviewers and fans who don't 'get it.'
I can't wait to hold one and get her on the sofa. Baby.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Sitting 'at' computers will seem strange after 'touching' this and having it sit 'with' you.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Ever hear of spell check?
If it weren't for the Macintosh, there would BE NO ADOBE. They should have some loyalty and release their software with feature parity!
Appears we're cut from the same cloth
I use Photoshop, Acrobat Pro and Illustrator and until there are alternatives, I'll continue to use them. It's a bummer Adobe killed Freehand and most likely because it was Mac only (i could be wrong on that!
Yes... I am also extremely miffed about Adobe killing FreeHand for a far less capable Illustrator. They very well could have kept FreeHand running as well, but decided to go the kill route instead. I still use it (in SL) for about 75% of my packaging design work. BTW: it also ran on Windows since WinNT. Not sure about Win7.
The biggest problem with Flash is the complete lack of design discipline of show-off web site designers.
...add the fact, that in most cases, it's a thoroughly wasted experience in Flash, which would/could be much better using existing standards-based mark-up using CSS and AJAX. It's just that the tools made by Adobe made it so easy. Good visualizing tools are still somewhat weak pulling all the new technologies together for non-tech enthusiasts (like photographers for instance), being able to create their own Image-Branded sites.
As for Flash itself, ClickToFlash works fine for me. If there's some Flash content I really want to see, I click. If not, it doesn't waste my time, bandwidth or CPU cycles downloading and displaying a bunch of superfluous drivel. I have a TV for that
I couldn't live without it. I have a slow internet connection, that becomes unbearable with Flash, as well as running any browser without an Ad Blocker.
Do people want this new device? This motorcycle of computing? We will see...
How many families own motorcycles? Among those who own them, how many use it on a daily basis?
However, most people don't like to be on camera, which is why we never had a clamoring market for videophones despite having had the technology for decades
that's the dumbest excuse I've ever heard for not having a camera. I need a webcam for skype. Why have a camera on the mac then?
pff
Don't sweat it. He's just giving you Canned Answer No. 389:
Nobody wants [X], except for you.
Ever hear of spell check?
The biggest problem with Flash is the complete lack of design discipline of show-off web site designers.
Its also very hardware intensive, especially on Macs. Pretty embarrassing that a Nehaelm Mac Pro can't play Hulu videos in full screen without dropping frames, see here. It also has a tendency to crash your browser which is really annoying with 10 tabs open. The new safari has mitigated that to a large extent but it still happens.
How many families own motorcycles? Among those who own them, how many use it on a daily basis?
Enough people own and use motorcycles that companies have been making them for over a 100 years.
Enough people own and use motorcycle that there is an ecosystem that developed around the motorcycle.
Growing up in NYC we had a car but we did not use it every day. So was the car lacking in something? So what is your point?
Why can't it print? I Have a blue tooth printer, this thing has a USB adapter - there are two potential ways to print already. A lot of people making assumptions based on zero facts.
Apple should be able to offer printing fairly easily in future hardware/software. I actually think this is a coming feature myself.
Why does it need to multitask - can you see two applications on this screen at the same time? I think not, so quickly flick between open apps. Easy.
Then you blow it here. It is almost like people don't understand what multitasking is. Frankly this is probably the case as people don't seem to get it even with Mac OS. So I can only suggest you address this ignorance of the technology yourself via some technical education.
In any event the ability for the user to start his own tasks and run them in background is huge. The types of apps that one often wants to run in background do not need the user interface to be useful. Examples are starting long downloads in background while using entirely different tools I'm the forground, GPS data logging, alternative media sources (Internet radio), device monitoring/data acquisition and a host of others. This doesn't even take into account cooperative apps like the iWork suite.
Frankly any of these could be interesting and useful but a few could break new ground for Apple. Device monitoring and data collection being one of those that could see significant adoption. All you need is an app that runs independantly of the foreground user process.
What one needs to remember is that each and everyone of these tablets comes with a number of RF communication ports that can easily access the local environment. This means nothing has to be added to the iPad to establish communications with the world outside of the device.
In a nut shell objecting to multitasking is simple telling the world you don't understand it or are a person with simple needs. That is OK but when you publically dis multitasking you are really irritating the users that can and do leverage such features.
Dave
Pick one thing that you like, and one thing that you don't like about the iPad.
People complaining about non existent problems on a product they haven't even touched.
Oh, and people spamming forums with link bait
Except that the iPad's 1024x768 screen doesn't support 720P HD either, which is 1280x720. That leaves 20% of the width missing.
And even if the iPad did have "real" 720p screen It's highly unlikely in a real double-blind test that you would be able to tell the difference anyway.
Under 17" resolution simply doesn't matter - esp. for movies. Color depth and black level are far more important which is what makes the IPS LCD so critical.
But again, hand-wringing about non-existant issues is where internet forums excel - carry on!
And even if the iPad did have "real" 720p screen It's highly unlikely in a real double-blind test that you would be able to tell the difference anyway.
Those 720p grapes are sour! Who need 'em?
The iPad wasn't designed to do high def video.
Did you even read the text in the link you provided? Starting with the first line "720p refers to a progrssive HDTV signal with 720 horizontal lines and an Aspect Ratio (AR) of 16:9 (1.78:1)"
1024x768 is NOT HD because it is NOT the widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9
You said, "Just like a 720p plasma has a 16x9 of 1024 x 768" - Yeah, those TV's aren't running a native HD resolution - they're ACCEPTING an HD signal and converting it to something that isn't truely HD. Oh and "16x9 of 1024 x 768" ummm you might want to recheck the math on that!
You also said, "Except the standard for 720p HD only counts the horizontal scan lines" which is also not true. Your link even proves otherwise. For something to be considered to be HD, it MUST have an aspect ratio of 16:9. The iPad may be able to play HD content, but it won't be displaying it in true HD
It would require a 578 height with a 192px letter box padding above and below while the rest of the display [landscape] is 1024.
Those 720p grapes are sour! Who need 'em?
The iPad wasn't designed to do high def video.
You should be careful, your face will get stuck that way.
But you are pushing your point too far. Movies are not shot in 1.78 (16x9) aspect ratio, movies are shot in 1.85 or 2.39. When you see a movie in 1.78 that means it was cropped. Are you saying if the movie is viewed in its true aspect ratio on an HD monitor that means its not true HD?
People make too big a deal about resolution. Resolution is important, but there are many techniques to trick the eye with resolution. Whats far more important is color depth and contrast. They are much more noticeable than resolution.
1024x768 is NOT HD because it is NOT the widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9
You are correct from a strict technical sense that the iPad is not displaying true HD resolution.
He is correct in every sense. The iPad will not display HD. Deal with it.