sadly, HP is right. from a pure web surfing experience, the HP is indisputably superior. Can't even use the Windows vs. OS X argument here. The kicker will be the battery lives. Steve claims adding flash woudl knock down the battery life from 10 to 2 hours. Something tells my the HP slate is going to have more than 2 hour battery life.
Apple is banking on HTML 5 being the future of web, and IE is not capable of running a lot of HTML 5. Granted you'll be able to download other browsers but I suspect none will have the ground up design around touch that Safari for mobile has.
Having used a couple of other windows touch devices designed around the touch API in Vista & Win 7 I can tell you the touch experience on any Win device out there is going to stink in comparison with the iPad. Responsiveness & accuracy on those things is just aweful. In the end what good is touch if it only ever frustrates you.
If the iPad's speakers are anything like the speakers on my mid-2006 MacBook, silent movies may be the way to go.
Edit:
I would note, I wrote this on said MacBook and it loves me.
Hey, my late '08 unibody 15" MBP isn't anything to write home about in the sound department either. My late '05 17" PB G4 actually had significantly better sound. But then, I didn't really buy my 15" MBP for it's sonic performance.
Hey, my late '08 unibody 15" MBP isn't anything to write home about in the sound department either. My late '05 17" PB G4 actually had significantly better sound. But then, I didn't really buy my 15" MBP for it's sonic performance.
Nor did I buy my MacBook for its. On the other hand, it would be nice if it were just a bit louder - I have adorable cousins and they are rather fond of being able to hear the video they're watching via my iTunes collection, a collection they've had a considerable role influencing and the smallest background noise can make that darn near impossible.
I had hoped that a MBP would be a possible future solution... *sigh*
Nor did I buy my MacBook for its. On the other hand, it would be nice if it were just a bit louder - I have adorable cousins and they are rather fond of being able to hear the video they're watching via my iTunes collection, a collection they've had a considerable role influencing and the smallest background noise can make that darn near impossible.
I had hoped that a MBP would be a possible future solution... *sigh*
Well, my PB G4 was the 17" model after all and I think that had a lot to do with how decent it sounded. Truth is, I don't know if the 17" unibody MBP shares the 15" model's sonic shortcomings. But then the 17" PB was just so damn big.
It was also pointed out yesterday that IMAX is 22m x 16.1m for an aspect ratio of 1.37. An aspect ratio of 4:3 is 1.33. So according to iGenius IMAX is "antqiue" and an "1930s technology".
Well, if we want to go totally off-topic and talk about the aspect ratios of film, we have to go back to Edison. For reasons I've never been clear on, it was Edison who determined that motion-picture film stock should be 35 millimeters wide, and that one frame should equal four perforations. That gives an aspect ratio of about 1.3:1 ?*but that only lasted until the advent of the optical soundtrack. The soundtrack on a movie print occupies a little bit of the film on the left side, inside the perforations, so the picture had to be slightly narrower. It became about 1.4:1, which is called the "Academy sound aperture." (The other size is the "Academy silent aperture," because it was used on silent films, obviously.)
We still use 4-perf 35mm film almost exclusively today, but we use either an anamorphic process that yields a final aspect ratio of about 2.4:1, or we matte out the bottom and top of the frame to get to the 1.85:1 aperture.
IMAX doesn't use 35mm film at all; it uses 70mm film, but pulled sideways instead of vertically through the camera. (That part isn't unique; you can pull 35mm film sideways through a motion picture camera as well, in a format called Vistavision.) A frame of IMAX is 15 perfs wide, with a negative aspect ratio of about 1.3:1. But due to a peculiarity of the IMAX format, the actual projected aperture is closer to 1.4:1.
Quote:
Also according to Wikipedia, the 'Pad uses the same aspect ratio as 16mm film.
Very close to it. Sixteen millimeter film uses the same aperture aspect ratio as 4-perf 35mm (1.4:1, roughly) for the simple reason that you can easily blow up a 16mm negative to a 35mm release print.
Then there's Super 16, which uses only one row of perfs on the edge of the film and can take a slightly wider image with a 1.7:1 aspect ratio, making it close to but slightly taller than HDTV. Lots of movies are shot on Super 16 and then hard-matted to the 1.85 ratio for the 35mm release prints.
This is all trivia, unless you happen to work in film. The bottom line is that there's more to aspect ratios than what shape your television is. The aspect ratio of HDTV isn't magical; in fact, it's unique, being different from the various other common aspect ratios in our lives. So saying the iPad is poorly designed because it uses an aspect ratio that's different from a television screen (or a feature film, or whatever) is kind of dumb.
The bottom line is that there's more to aspect ratios than what shape your television is. The aspect ratio of HDTV isn't magical; in fact, it's unique, being different from the various other common aspect ratios in our lives. So saying the iPad is poorly designed because it uses an aspect ratio that's different from a television screen (or a feature film, or whatever) is kind of dumb.
Even if the iPad had been designed as a dedicated video viewer it would have been dumb, though in that case 19;9 would have been a better choice as it would have been a good compromise for viewing most modern films / videos. But the discussion is ridiculous because the iPad is not designed for viewing video - though if you choose to do so it will serve that purpose well.
He he - reading your post also makes it clear that the aspect ratios of virtually all cinema screens, like the iPad, are utterly useless for watching any kind of video / movie as they are not fixed one way or the other .
Q1: Has anyone here gone to an HP forum simply to trash talk HP's efforts the way iGenius is here trash talking the iPad and every other Apple product?
Nobody. That's because people who buy Apple products are always better people.
The iPad is serving up all kinds of media, not just video. So I can see why the screen may not necessarily be tied to the aspect ratio typically associated with video, or computer monitors, or any other specific thing.
Yep. It tries to be all things to all people. And for web surfing and vidos, it fails big time.
I expect that it will work great as an eReader, tho.
Since when is form factor referred to as technology. You might need to look up the definition of technology. And then look up the definition of design/industrial design.
Main Entry: tech·nol·o·gy
Pronunciation: \\-jē\\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural tech·nol·o·gies
Etymology: Greek technologia systematic treatment of an art, from technē art, skill + -o- + -logia -logy
Date: 1859
1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 <medical technology> b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving technology>
2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage>
3 : the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology>
How is a 4:3 aspect ratio not technology? It seems to be the practical application of knowledge and a manner of accomplishing a task.
But I forget where I am. We can use the word to mean anything we want.
Well to be accurate iGenius isn't so much PRO HP as much as he is vehemently anti-Apple or at the very least anti-iPad and even if I'm wrong and iGenius is in fact MR-HP-GUNG-HO then I still feel that posting a never-ceasing stream of rants and untruths on HP "Fan Forums" is still beneath all but the most annoying posters here on AI.
What untruths have I posted?
And BTW, just so you know, my identity does not depend on my adoration of multinational brands.
Well, one has to wonder why he feels compelled to choose the name "iGenius".
In my experience, people who needlessly advertise their status as a "mental giant" do so because they have learned that other people won't just naturally recognize that status as a normal consequence of interaction. In other words, such people think more highly of themselves than other people commonly do. Usually, but admittedly not always, the other people are correct.
Thompson
Because it is ridiculous to put "i" in front of words. Because it is ridiculous to call the PBTC in a mall a Genius.
It's called satire.
And you are right. Nobody would imagine that some pimple-faced kid working in a mall is a genius. That is why Apple calls them that - to make other people think more highly of their mall rats.
When it comes down to arguing over which is better, always keep in mind:
Each platform has unique functionality and a different target audience--neither of which really needs Flash in order to find value in the tablet device itself.
going by today's market cap yes. but there's a difference between being today's darling on the stock exchange, and being a mammoth company that does 2x in annual revenue. Apple isn't beating down HP in anything. HP is a mammoth.
Was it perhaps a Freudian slip that you equated HP to an animal that is extinct?
Just a helpful hint: I've found that the moment anybody says "It's called satire," sneer and snort optional, is the precise moment when you can safely stop listening to them, secure in the knowledge that you're not missing a thing from there on out.
Sorry for going off-topic, but I just thought I'd share.
How good this is depends on how well HP have adapted Win 7 to multi-touch, but the underpinnings are clearly pretty solid. Full multi-tasking, a virtually unlimited amount of applications, an open unlocked OS, and access to a variety of full web browsers. Could be nice I guess, and generations ahead of a crippled device like the iPad. Like it or not flash it ubiquitous and essential to access the the world's most popular web sites.
When I hear people proudly declaring how the iPad will be replacing laptops and will be *everywhere* I just shake my head in disbelief. The lack of multi-tasking alone is a total deal breaker for the iPad - having to quit your email app/game/etc just to read/answer an IM, then reload it all again is mind numbingly stupid. I hate having to do it on my iPhone but on a device which has ambitions of being a laptop replacement..!? No chance.
Comments
sadly, HP is right. from a pure web surfing experience, the HP is indisputably superior. Can't even use the Windows vs. OS X argument here. The kicker will be the battery lives. Steve claims adding flash woudl knock down the battery life from 10 to 2 hours. Something tells my the HP slate is going to have more than 2 hour battery life.
Apple is banking on HTML 5 being the future of web, and IE is not capable of running a lot of HTML 5. Granted you'll be able to download other browsers but I suspect none will have the ground up design around touch that Safari for mobile has.
Having used a couple of other windows touch devices designed around the touch API in Vista & Win 7 I can tell you the touch experience on any Win device out there is going to stink in comparison with the iPad. Responsiveness & accuracy on those things is just aweful. In the end what good is touch if it only ever frustrates you.
If the iPad's speakers are anything like the speakers on my mid-2006 MacBook, silent movies may be the way to go.
Edit:
I would note, I wrote this on said MacBook and it loves me.
Hey, my late '08 unibody 15" MBP isn't anything to write home about in the sound department either. My late '05 17" PB G4 actually had significantly better sound. But then, I didn't really buy my 15" MBP for it's sonic performance.
Hey, my late '08 unibody 15" MBP isn't anything to write home about in the sound department either. My late '05 17" PB G4 actually had significantly better sound. But then, I didn't really buy my 15" MBP for it's sonic performance.
Nor did I buy my MacBook for its. On the other hand, it would be nice if it were just a bit louder - I have adorable cousins and they are rather fond of being able to hear the video they're watching via my iTunes collection, a collection they've had a considerable role influencing and the smallest background noise can make that darn near impossible.
I had hoped that a MBP would be a possible future solution... *sigh*
Nor did I buy my MacBook for its. On the other hand, it would be nice if it were just a bit louder - I have adorable cousins and they are rather fond of being able to hear the video they're watching via my iTunes collection, a collection they've had a considerable role influencing and the smallest background noise can make that darn near impossible.
I had hoped that a MBP would be a possible future solution... *sigh*
Well, my PB G4 was the 17" model after all and I think that had a lot to do with how decent it sounded. Truth is, I don't know if the 17" unibody MBP shares the 15" model's sonic shortcomings. But then the 17" PB was just so damn big.
It was also pointed out yesterday that IMAX is 22m x 16.1m for an aspect ratio of 1.37. An aspect ratio of 4:3 is 1.33. So according to iGenius IMAX is "antqiue" and an "1930s technology".
Well, if we want to go totally off-topic and talk about the aspect ratios of film, we have to go back to Edison. For reasons I've never been clear on, it was Edison who determined that motion-picture film stock should be 35 millimeters wide, and that one frame should equal four perforations. That gives an aspect ratio of about 1.3:1 ?*but that only lasted until the advent of the optical soundtrack. The soundtrack on a movie print occupies a little bit of the film on the left side, inside the perforations, so the picture had to be slightly narrower. It became about 1.4:1, which is called the "Academy sound aperture." (The other size is the "Academy silent aperture," because it was used on silent films, obviously.)
We still use 4-perf 35mm film almost exclusively today, but we use either an anamorphic process that yields a final aspect ratio of about 2.4:1, or we matte out the bottom and top of the frame to get to the 1.85:1 aperture.
IMAX doesn't use 35mm film at all; it uses 70mm film, but pulled sideways instead of vertically through the camera. (That part isn't unique; you can pull 35mm film sideways through a motion picture camera as well, in a format called Vistavision.) A frame of IMAX is 15 perfs wide, with a negative aspect ratio of about 1.3:1. But due to a peculiarity of the IMAX format, the actual projected aperture is closer to 1.4:1.
Also according to Wikipedia, the 'Pad uses the same aspect ratio as 16mm film.
Very close to it. Sixteen millimeter film uses the same aperture aspect ratio as 4-perf 35mm (1.4:1, roughly) for the simple reason that you can easily blow up a 16mm negative to a 35mm release print.
Then there's Super 16, which uses only one row of perfs on the edge of the film and can take a slightly wider image with a 1.7:1 aspect ratio, making it close to but slightly taller than HDTV. Lots of movies are shot on Super 16 and then hard-matted to the 1.85 ratio for the 35mm release prints.
This is all trivia, unless you happen to work in film. The bottom line is that there's more to aspect ratios than what shape your television is. The aspect ratio of HDTV isn't magical; in fact, it's unique, being different from the various other common aspect ratios in our lives. So saying the iPad is poorly designed because it uses an aspect ratio that's different from a television screen (or a feature film, or whatever) is kind of dumb.
The bottom line is that there's more to aspect ratios than what shape your television is. The aspect ratio of HDTV isn't magical; in fact, it's unique, being different from the various other common aspect ratios in our lives. So saying the iPad is poorly designed because it uses an aspect ratio that's different from a television screen (or a feature film, or whatever) is kind of dumb.
Even if the iPad had been designed as a dedicated video viewer it would have been dumb, though in that case 19;9 would have been a better choice as it would have been a good compromise for viewing most modern films / videos. But the discussion is ridiculous because the iPad is not designed for viewing video - though if you choose to do so it will serve that purpose well.
He he - reading your post also makes it clear that the aspect ratios of virtually all cinema screens, like the iPad, are utterly useless for watching any kind of video / movie as they are not fixed one way or the other .
Q1: Has anyone here gone to an HP forum simply to trash talk HP's efforts the way iGenius is here trash talking the iPad and every other Apple product?
Nobody. That's because people who buy Apple products are always better people.
The iPad is serving up all kinds of media, not just video. So I can see why the screen may not necessarily be tied to the aspect ratio typically associated with video, or computer monitors, or any other specific thing.
Yep. It tries to be all things to all people. And for web surfing and vidos, it fails big time.
I expect that it will work great as an eReader, tho.
I expect that it will work great as an eReader, tho.
But... but... but it uses an LCD instead of e-ink so it sucks at that, too.
Since when is form factor referred to as technology. You might need to look up the definition of technology. And then look up the definition of design/industrial design.
Main Entry: tech·nol·o·gy
Pronunciation: \\-jē\\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural tech·nol·o·gies
Etymology: Greek technologia systematic treatment of an art, from technē art, skill + -o- + -logia -logy
Date: 1859
1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 <medical technology> b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving technology>
2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage>
3 : the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology>
How is a 4:3 aspect ratio not technology? It seems to be the practical application of knowledge and a manner of accomplishing a task.
But I forget where I am. We can use the word to mean anything we want.
Well to be accurate iGenius isn't so much PRO HP as much as he is vehemently anti-Apple or at the very least anti-iPad and even if I'm wrong and iGenius is in fact MR-HP-GUNG-HO then I still feel that posting a never-ceasing stream of rants and untruths on HP "Fan Forums" is still beneath all but the most annoying posters here on AI.
What untruths have I posted?
And BTW, just so you know, my identity does not depend on my adoration of multinational brands.
I don't think a pencil's thickness varies with the shade of graphite.
Yeah? Is that why my #27 pencil is as thick as my arm?
jk jk
I just said #2 pencil out of habit I guess lol.
Well, one has to wonder why he feels compelled to choose the name "iGenius".
In my experience, people who needlessly advertise their status as a "mental giant" do so because they have learned that other people won't just naturally recognize that status as a normal consequence of interaction. In other words, such people think more highly of themselves than other people commonly do. Usually, but admittedly not always, the other people are correct.
Thompson
Because it is ridiculous to put "i" in front of words. Because it is ridiculous to call the PBTC in a mall a Genius.
It's called satire.
And you are right. Nobody would imagine that some pimple-faced kid working in a mall is a genius. That is why Apple calls them that - to make other people think more highly of their mall rats.
Each platform has unique functionality and a different target audience--neither of which really needs Flash in order to find value in the tablet device itself.
Because it is ridiculous to put "i" in front of words. Because it is ridiculous to call the PBTC in a mall a Genius.
It's called satire.
Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium?
But... but... but it uses an LCD instead of e-ink so it sucks at that, too.
I have no real experience with eInk. But from what I have seen, LCD is far superior overall.
Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium?
Look it up.
going by today's market cap yes. but there's a difference between being today's darling on the stock exchange, and being a mammoth company that does 2x in annual revenue. Apple isn't beating down HP in anything. HP is a mammoth.
Was it perhaps a Freudian slip that you equated HP to an animal that is extinct?
Sorry for going off-topic, but I just thought I'd share.
When I hear people proudly declaring how the iPad will be replacing laptops and will be *everywhere* I just shake my head in disbelief. The lack of multi-tasking alone is a total deal breaker for the iPad - having to quit your email app/game/etc just to read/answer an IM, then reload it all again is mind numbingly stupid. I hate having to do it on my iPhone but on a device which has ambitions of being a laptop replacement..!? No chance.