Not demo'ing ANY third-party app that uses the increased CPU/GPU speed.
Oh, samab, I don't expect much of you, but this is lame even by that standard. You missed the iMovie and GarageBand demos? Why would they need a third-party app to demonstrate that when they had their own? Of all the shills who come here to AI, and there are plenty of them, you are the saddest of them.
Except your assertion is based at a single frame of a demo video -- with no idea of what was going on at the time or, what the number represented, or even if the number displayed was accurate.
My hands-on experience is based of years of usage of Flash (dating from dealing with Macromedia Flash experts) to personal experience (as recently as yesterday) where Flash hangs/crashes the browser.
I have iPads -- I know how they perform!.
I have read/watched everything I can about the PlayBook -- and everything points to throwing hardware at a poor OS/UI implementation.
When the PlayBook becomes available, we will be able to experience how well or poorly the device performs (including battery).
Of course, time will prove which is the right or wrong assessment.
QNX with Flash UI has been in 20 million automobiles --- with CPU and memory a lot less than tablets and smartphones.
With regard to performance and battery, you talked in the past about how poorly it would be --- based on engadget's screen shot of the battery life. Guess what --- that playbook had ONLY one of the core enabled in that demo. Freeze-frame the video at 29 seconds.
Very different than the video I cited earlier today --- when the freeze-frame of the video clearly stated processor1 and processor2. Huge battery life improvement just by enabling the second core on.
A single 1GHz Cortex A9 core is 25% faster than a single 1GHz Cortex A8 core that the original ipad1 has. That's the performance we are talking about. People screamed that the CES videos on the playbook --- the flash website (often shown was tbs.com) was slow and stutterly. Well, the Playbook was operating on a single core --- with HD video playing in the background, quake 3 demo running in the background, the photo app playing a slideshow in the background, and the tbs.com website was stutterly in the foreground.
Oh, samab, I don't expect much of you, but this is lame even by that standard. You missed the iMovie and GarageBand demos? Why would they need a third-party app to demonstrate that when they had their own? Of all the shills who come here to AI, and there are plenty of them, you are the saddest of them.
No, I didn't say that Apple needed to bring out third party developers on stage to demo third party apps that take advantage of improved speed in CPU/GPU --- just to prove that the new hardware rocks.
I said that Apple was rushing to launch the ipad2 because of the zillion of android tablets --- and because of that rush, no outside developers had the tools nor the time to actually make third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware. This is rather like the Motorola Xoom launching with 16 tablet apps in the app store.
No, I didn't say that Apple needed to bring out third party developers on stage to demo third party apps that take advantage of improved speed in CPU/GPU --- just to prove that the new hardware rocks.
I said that Apple was rushing to launch the ipad2 because of the zillion of android tablets --- and because of that rush, no outside developers had the tools nor the time to actually make third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware. This is rather like the Motorola Xoom launching with 16 tablet apps in the app store.
Actually except the Xoom, nothing significant has come out yet, so there's actually no need to rush because of the 'zillion of android tablets' in your dream. Besides, end of March was the time iPad1 launched, iPad2 is only 2-3 weeks sooner which should not be considered a 'rush' by any standard.
Its likely the iPad can make better use of RAM and doesn't need 1GB like the Xoom. More isn't always better.
How is that likely? And what the hell do you mean more RAM isn't always better? Do you mean when somebody other than Apple includes more memory, as in diehard apple fanboy-speak?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
What really is the point of playing 1920x1080 on a 1280x800 screen?
Slow down and read the posts! We're talking about output via the video connector ie connecting to an external screen or projector.
Actually except the Xoom, nothing significant has come out yet, so there's actually no need to rush because of the 'zillion of android tablets' in your dream. Besides, end of March was the time iPad1 launched, iPad2 is only 2-3 weeks sooner which should not be considered a 'rush' by any standard.
That's a matter of opinion and I can live with people disagreeing with me.
But Apple is selling an ipad2 with enough horses in both the 2x faster CPU and 9x faster GPU to decode 1080p videos. They expect you to pay $35 for that cable and I think it is fair for the consumer to expect that they can actually decode 1080p video.
I didn't make that statement out of thin air, there are numerous factors that are at least supporting my argument.
No, I didn't say that Apple needed to bring out third party developers on stage to demo third party apps that take advantage of improved speed in CPU/GPU --- just to prove that the new hardware rocks.
I said that Apple was rushing to launch the ipad2 because of the zillion of android tablets --- and because of that rush, no outside developers had the tools nor the time to actually make third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware. This is rather like the Motorola Xoom launching with 16 tablet apps in the app store.
... But Apple is selling an ipad2 with enough horses in both the 2x faster CPU and 9x faster GPU to decode 1080p videos. They expect you to pay $35 for that cable and I think it is fair for the consumer to expect that they can actually decode 1080p video. ...
It's fair for consumers to expect the iPad can do what Apple claims it can do. Expecting it to do something it wasn't advertised to do is pretty dumb.
That's a completely false premise. I'd wager that the iPad 2 was in development before any Android tablets were even seriously though about.
The Android tablets are working around the success of the iPad. Currently Android tablets have had no appreciable success that Apple needs to compete against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
I said that Apple was rushing to launch the ipad2 because of the zillion of android tablets --- and because of that rush, no outside developers had the tools nor the time to actually make third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware. This is rather like the Motorola Xoom launching with 16 tablet apps in the app store.
How is that likely? And what the hell do you mean more RAM isn't always better? Do you mean when somebody other than Apple includes more memory, as in diehard apple fanboy-speak?
Because iOS software is fine tuned specifically to the iPad hardware in away that Android is not fine tuned the Xoom.
That fact has nothing to do with fanboism, its simply a fact.
Quote:
Slow down and read the posts! We're talking about output via the video connector ie connecting to an external screen or projector.
Seeing as we actually have not seen how well the Xoom can do this. I'd hold out my wide sweeping judgements. It might another coming soon in the near future type feature.
It's fair for consumers to expect the iPad can do what Apple claims it can do. Expecting it to do something it wasn't advertised to do is pretty dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Welcome to the twisted logic of internet forums.
It is also expected that consumers don't have to read the fine print to actually find out that they pay $35 for that cable because Steve Jobs said it can output to a 1080 hdtv and then find out at home they can't actually play those videos. Some how that's twisted logic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
That's a completely false premise. I'd wager that the iPad 2 was in development before any Android tablets were even seriously though about.
The Android tablets are working around the success of the iPad. Currently Android tablets have had no appreciable success that Apple needs to compete against.
It is clear that Apple started ipad2 development as soon as they launched the original ipad.
I said that the TOOLS that third party developers needed weren't available earlier --- and that no third party developers had time to develop third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware to be launched at the same time as the actual ipad2 launch.
Well BS that we need to get this info from a fourth party. Further it is BS in the sense that Apple does publish many specs for the iPads but prefers to screw over the consummer with respect to this one important parameter.
RAM is very important, if Apple has stayed with 256MB the upgrade would be worthless. From the day it debuted iPad one has suffered from the lack of RAM.
Hmm, all of your recent comments are worthless. Thanks for sharing.
It is also expected that consumers don't have to read the fine print to actually find out that they pay $35 for that cable because Steve Jobs said it can output to a 1080 hdtv and then find out at home they can't actually play those videos. Some how that's twisted logic?
The iPad has never been able to play 1080P before. Why would someone suddenly assume that it does? Why would someone need to look through the fine print to find out that the iPad does not have a functionality that it has never had?
Quote:
I said that the TOOLS that third party developers needed weren't available earlier --- and that no third party developers had time to develop third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware to be launched at the same time as the actual ipad2 launch.
What makes this a false premise is the fact that Apple did not present the iPad 2 to developers for them to do anything with it. You are inventing an entire premise in your mind and coming up with an entire conclusion to something that never happened in reality.
Because iOS software is fine tuned specifically to the iPad hardware in away that Android is not fine tuned the Xoom.
That fact has nothing to do with fanboism, its simply a fact.
It is also simply a fact that the Playbook uses an embedded OS that will have a smaller memory footprint than the ipad --- and they come with a gig of memory.
The iPad has never been able to play 1080P before. Why would someone suddenly assume that it does? Why would someone need to look through the fine print to find out that the iPad does not have a functionality that it has never had?
What makes this a false premise is the fact that Apple did not present the iPad 2 to developers for them to do anything with it. You are inventing an entire premise in your mind and coming up with an entire conclusion to something that never happened in reality.
Apple also never sold a HDMI cable before.
Third party developers don't need Apple to present them with an actual ipad2 in order for the developers to start coding. What they need is the development TOOLS.
It is also simply a fact that the Playbook uses an embedded OS that will have a smaller memory footprint than the ipad --- and they come with a gig of memory.
Comments
I really hope not, I don;t want to have to upgrade, I have no interest in cameras on a mobile device other then the odd phone snap. None whatsoever.
Not demo'ing ANY third-party app that uses the increased CPU/GPU speed.
Oh, samab, I don't expect much of you, but this is lame even by that standard. You missed the iMovie and GarageBand demos? Why would they need a third-party app to demonstrate that when they had their own? Of all the shills who come here to AI, and there are plenty of them, you are the saddest of them.
The question for me is, will iOS 4.3 do to the ipad 1 what 4.2 did to the 3gs?
I really hope not, I don;t want to have to upgrade, I have no interest in cameras on a mobile device other then the odd phone snap. None whatsoever.
I've been running the 4.3 beta for quite some time -- works fine!
I believe it was designed more for the iPad 1 than for the iPad 2.
That said, the 4.3 GM is available to developers today -- iPad 2 - specifics, shown yesterday, could be included in that.
Developers are under NDA, so you are unlikely to hear many details until 4.3 is released on 3/11.
Except your assertion is based at a single frame of a demo video -- with no idea of what was going on at the time or, what the number represented, or even if the number displayed was accurate.
My hands-on experience is based of years of usage of Flash (dating from dealing with Macromedia Flash experts) to personal experience (as recently as yesterday) where Flash hangs/crashes the browser.
I have iPads -- I know how they perform!.
I have read/watched everything I can about the PlayBook -- and everything points to throwing hardware at a poor OS/UI implementation.
When the PlayBook becomes available, we will be able to experience how well or poorly the device performs (including battery).
Of course, time will prove which is the right or wrong assessment.
QNX with Flash UI has been in 20 million automobiles --- with CPU and memory a lot less than tablets and smartphones.
With regard to performance and battery, you talked in the past about how poorly it would be --- based on engadget's screen shot of the battery life. Guess what --- that playbook had ONLY one of the core enabled in that demo. Freeze-frame the video at 29 seconds.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/06/b...ybook-preview/
Very different than the video I cited earlier today --- when the freeze-frame of the video clearly stated processor1 and processor2. Huge battery life improvement just by enabling the second core on.
A single 1GHz Cortex A9 core is 25% faster than a single 1GHz Cortex A8 core that the original ipad1 has. That's the performance we are talking about. People screamed that the CES videos on the playbook --- the flash website (often shown was tbs.com) was slow and stutterly. Well, the Playbook was operating on a single core --- with HD video playing in the background, quake 3 demo running in the background, the photo app playing a slideshow in the background, and the tbs.com website was stutterly in the foreground.
Oh, samab, I don't expect much of you, but this is lame even by that standard. You missed the iMovie and GarageBand demos? Why would they need a third-party app to demonstrate that when they had their own? Of all the shills who come here to AI, and there are plenty of them, you are the saddest of them.
No, I didn't say that Apple needed to bring out third party developers on stage to demo third party apps that take advantage of improved speed in CPU/GPU --- just to prove that the new hardware rocks.
I said that Apple was rushing to launch the ipad2 because of the zillion of android tablets --- and because of that rush, no outside developers had the tools nor the time to actually make third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware. This is rather like the Motorola Xoom launching with 16 tablet apps in the app store.
No, I didn't say that Apple needed to bring out third party developers on stage to demo third party apps that take advantage of improved speed in CPU/GPU --- just to prove that the new hardware rocks.
I said that Apple was rushing to launch the ipad2 because of the zillion of android tablets --- and because of that rush, no outside developers had the tools nor the time to actually make third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware. This is rather like the Motorola Xoom launching with 16 tablet apps in the app store.
Actually except the Xoom, nothing significant has come out yet, so there's actually no need to rush because of the 'zillion of android tablets' in your dream. Besides, end of March was the time iPad1 launched, iPad2 is only 2-3 weeks sooner which should not be considered a 'rush' by any standard.
Its likely the iPad can make better use of RAM and doesn't need 1GB like the Xoom. More isn't always better.
How is that likely? And what the hell do you mean more RAM isn't always better? Do you mean when somebody other than Apple includes more memory, as in diehard apple fanboy-speak?
What really is the point of playing 1920x1080 on a 1280x800 screen?
Slow down and read the posts! We're talking about output via the video connector ie connecting to an external screen or projector.
How can the Xoom play back 1080p? Isn't that physically impossible considering it has a resolution of 1280x800???
It has video output... you can plug it into a screen or projector... read the posts before replying...
Actually except the Xoom, nothing significant has come out yet, so there's actually no need to rush because of the 'zillion of android tablets' in your dream. Besides, end of March was the time iPad1 launched, iPad2 is only 2-3 weeks sooner which should not be considered a 'rush' by any standard.
That's a matter of opinion and I can live with people disagreeing with me.
But Apple is selling an ipad2 with enough horses in both the 2x faster CPU and 9x faster GPU to decode 1080p videos. They expect you to pay $35 for that cable and I think it is fair for the consumer to expect that they can actually decode 1080p video.
I didn't make that statement out of thin air, there are numerous factors that are at least supporting my argument.
No, I didn't say that Apple needed to bring out third party developers on stage to demo third party apps that take advantage of improved speed in CPU/GPU --- just to prove that the new hardware rocks.
I said that Apple was rushing to launch the ipad2 because of the zillion of android tablets --- and because of that rush, no outside developers had the tools nor the time to actually make third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware. This is rather like the Motorola Xoom launching with 16 tablet apps in the app store.
It's not really like it at all.
... But Apple is selling an ipad2 with enough horses in both the 2x faster CPU and 9x faster GPU to decode 1080p videos. They expect you to pay $35 for that cable and I think it is fair for the consumer to expect that they can actually decode 1080p video. ...
It's fair for consumers to expect the iPad can do what Apple claims it can do. Expecting it to do something it wasn't advertised to do is pretty dumb.
The Android tablets are working around the success of the iPad. Currently Android tablets have had no appreciable success that Apple needs to compete against.
I said that Apple was rushing to launch the ipad2 because of the zillion of android tablets --- and because of that rush, no outside developers had the tools nor the time to actually make third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware. This is rather like the Motorola Xoom launching with 16 tablet apps in the app store.
It's fair for consumers to expect the iPad can do what Apple claims it can do. Expecting it to do something it wasn't advertised to do is pretty dumb.
How is that likely? And what the hell do you mean more RAM isn't always better? Do you mean when somebody other than Apple includes more memory, as in diehard apple fanboy-speak?
Because iOS software is fine tuned specifically to the iPad hardware in away that Android is not fine tuned the Xoom.
That fact has nothing to do with fanboism, its simply a fact.
Slow down and read the posts! We're talking about output via the video connector ie connecting to an external screen or projector.
Seeing as we actually have not seen how well the Xoom can do this. I'd hold out my wide sweeping judgements. It might another coming soon in the near future type feature.
It's fair for consumers to expect the iPad can do what Apple claims it can do. Expecting it to do something it wasn't advertised to do is pretty dumb.
Welcome to the twisted logic of internet forums.
It is also expected that consumers don't have to read the fine print to actually find out that they pay $35 for that cable because Steve Jobs said it can output to a 1080 hdtv and then find out at home they can't actually play those videos. Some how that's twisted logic?
That's a completely false premise. I'd wager that the iPad 2 was in development before any Android tablets were even seriously though about.
The Android tablets are working around the success of the iPad. Currently Android tablets have had no appreciable success that Apple needs to compete against.
It is clear that Apple started ipad2 development as soon as they launched the original ipad.
I said that the TOOLS that third party developers needed weren't available earlier --- and that no third party developers had time to develop third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware to be launched at the same time as the actual ipad2 launch.
Well BS that we need to get this info from a fourth party. Further it is BS in the sense that Apple does publish many specs for the iPads but prefers to screw over the consummer with respect to this one important parameter.
RAM is very important, if Apple has stayed with 256MB the upgrade would be worthless. From the day it debuted iPad one has suffered from the lack of RAM.
Hmm, all of your recent comments are worthless. Thanks for sharing.
It is also expected that consumers don't have to read the fine print to actually find out that they pay $35 for that cable because Steve Jobs said it can output to a 1080 hdtv and then find out at home they can't actually play those videos. Some how that's twisted logic?
The iPad has never been able to play 1080P before. Why would someone suddenly assume that it does? Why would someone need to look through the fine print to find out that the iPad does not have a functionality that it has never had?
I said that the TOOLS that third party developers needed weren't available earlier --- and that no third party developers had time to develop third party apps that took advantage of the new hardware to be launched at the same time as the actual ipad2 launch.
What makes this a false premise is the fact that Apple did not present the iPad 2 to developers for them to do anything with it. You are inventing an entire premise in your mind and coming up with an entire conclusion to something that never happened in reality.
Because iOS software is fine tuned specifically to the iPad hardware in away that Android is not fine tuned the Xoom.
That fact has nothing to do with fanboism, its simply a fact.
It is also simply a fact that the Playbook uses an embedded OS that will have a smaller memory footprint than the ipad --- and they come with a gig of memory.
The iPad has never been able to play 1080P before. Why would someone suddenly assume that it does? Why would someone need to look through the fine print to find out that the iPad does not have a functionality that it has never had?
What makes this a false premise is the fact that Apple did not present the iPad 2 to developers for them to do anything with it. You are inventing an entire premise in your mind and coming up with an entire conclusion to something that never happened in reality.
Apple also never sold a HDMI cable before.
Third party developers don't need Apple to present them with an actual ipad2 in order for the developers to start coding. What they need is the development TOOLS.
And an interesting take on developing apps for the Playbook.
You win. I concede defeat. I no longer want to attempt developing an app for the Playbook.
It is also simply a fact that the Playbook uses an embedded OS that will have a smaller memory footprint than the ipad --- and they come with a gig of memory.