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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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."
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.
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.
...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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
OK, this is a small thing but it's annoying me.
I-Pod/I-Phone
MAC
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.