I'd like to see that because all the games I've seen so far use less demanding graphics when running on the iPad 1. That includes RR 2 HD, which has no problem on my iPad 1, but looks great on my iPad 2. That is, now, my wife's iPad 1.
If you bought a SmartCover... you just think the iPad 2 belongs to you
The thing I wish they did with the cover was to have magnets hold it against the back when folded over. It's annoying having it flap back and forth.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but so far as I can tell, it works exactly the way you want it to. The blue cover attaches to the back using the same magnet (I think) as it uses to control the on/off function of the front. The cover doesn't lay 100% flat against the back, but it does stick. That said, rolling into a triangle and using it as a grip against the back seem more comfortable.
Finally, I think game makers are going to be making some interesting, very near console-quality titles with these graphics.
Hell, I think the iPad 2 will already do that!
That's just with a quick update... Imagine how good it will get once devs starting making games with the iPad 2 in their minds.
However, to reach AAA status developers will also have to work on nullifying the touch controls' disadvantages using the touch screen's greatest advantage (ultimate flexibility).
Quote:
The iPad 3 will definitely run what we consider PS3 and Xbox360 AAA "hardcore gamer" titles. There is very little reason for Apple NOT to release a gaming console with the A6.
I don't subscribe so I can't read past the first two paragraphs which don't mention the price. But I can read the comments section and many on the first page react to the thought of paying $1000 for it. Since you subscribe, can you confirm the contents of the article?
I just read it. The WSJ didn't say that as something from their sources. Here's a quote from the article. its where the pricing comes from. As I said, this pricing was all over at the time, and the WSJ was just reporting on what others were saying.
Quote:
A key factor for the tablet's success will be price. Yair Reiner, an analyst for Oppenheimer & Co., said in a research note last month that the tablet would be priced at about $1,000, citing sources. One challenge: Apple's MacBook laptops start at $999.
I'm surprised people even care to compare iPad 2 with the Xoom. Besides those fancy ads, the Xoom has shown nothing, there's no lines during release, there's only mediocre reviews, and there's only 100 apps specifically made for it so far. To me it's not even worth a comparison.
Most sites doing comparisons are just looking for click traffic. The Xoom was the hot story before iPad 2.
Honestly, I'm beginning to get confused over all the standards and compatibility questions.
Supposedly, OpenGL 3 is OpenCL compatible. Plus, it adds a number of efficiencies that 2 doesn't have, in addition to having more abilities. We can always use newer standards developers will take advantage of.
I remember reviewers saying that the IBM PC with a 286 could do all that businesses required. Later, it was said that a 1HGz Pentium was as fast as would be needed. There are a lot more statements like that. Software follows hardware. When the hardware can work the math quickly enough, we'll see the software be upgraded. So we should see OpenGL 3 at some point. Do we want it? Sure we do!
Or, when Tom Watson Sr., CEO of IBM, said that the market potential for [mainframe] computers was 5.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but so far as I can tell, it works exactly the way you want it to. The blue cover attaches to the back using the same magnet (I think) as it uses to control the on/off function of the front. The cover doesn't lay 100% flat against the back, but it does stick. That said, rolling into a triangle and using it as a grip against the back seem more comfortable.
It doesn't stick to the rear when flat. The hinge attaches the cover to the side. When closed, the magnets hold the cover closed. Those are not the same magnets holding it onto the case. I don't know why you would think the magnets in the hinge control the on and off, unless you've not seen, or used this, and don't know how it works. Watch Apple's video on the cover and you'll learn that.
The hinge magnets aren't strong enough to allow you to use the folded up cover as a handle. It will pop off. It wasn't intended to be used that way.
When you turn the cover flat against the back, there is nothing to prevent the free edge from flapping back and forth. It's annoying because when using it for reading (as an example), you don't know whether to hold it by the case alone, and let the cover flap. Or to remove the cover. Or to hold it by the cover with your fingers in the rear, and your thumb over the front bezel. The problem with the first, is that's it's very annoying to have the cover flapping against your hand. The second is annoying because you then have to get the cover and replace it. the third is annoying because the cover, being foldable, wants to move away from your fingers holding it, and you're constantly, as a result, changing your grip.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but so far as I can tell, it works exactly the way you want it to. The blue cover attaches to the back using the same magnet (I think) as it uses to control the on/off function of the front. The cover doesn't lay 100% flat against the back, but it does stick. That said, rolling into a triangle and using it as a grip against the back seem more comfortable.
The Smart Cover does magnetically adhere to the back, but it?s a weak magnetic attraction compared to the other magnetics making me think this may not be intentioned. They do have worry about the electronics so it?s possible they just couldn?t work it into the design.
Even though I wish the attraction was as good as the topside I don?t think it?s an issue as my hand on either side holds it in place nicely.
24 FPS is used in movies, AFAIK, and the real "human eye can't see the difference beyond taht" number is 60 FPS.
And no, I don't have a hefty graphics card on my 13" MBP... it's not even dedicated
Actually, graphics card options seem to be one of the top "features" of the mythical xMac... probably because few people can afford a Mac Pro for for gaming
60FPS depends on the real-time system.
Quote:
Frame rate is also a term used in real-time computing. In a fashion somewhat comparable to the moving-picture definition presented above, a real-time frame is the time it takes to complete a full round of the system's processing tasks. If the frame rate of a real-time system is 60 hertz, the system reevaluates all necessary inputs and updates the necessary outputs 60 times per second under all circumstances.
The designed frame rates of real-time systems vary depending on the equipment. For a real-time system that is steering an oil tanker, a frame rate of 1 Hz may be sufficient, while a rate of even 100 Hz may not be adequate for steering a guided missile. The designer must choose a frame rate appropriate to the application's requirements.
NTSC
Quote:
There is a large difference in framerate between film, which runs at 24.0 frames per second, and the NTSC standard, which runs at approximately 29.97 frames per second.
30p is a progressive format and produces video at 30 frames per second. Progressive (noninterlaced) scanning mimics a film camera's frame-by-frame image capture. The effects of inter-frame judder are less noticeable than 24p yet retains a cinematic-like appearance. Shooting Video in 30p mode gives no interlace artifacts but can introduce judder on image movement and on some camera pans. The widescreen film process Todd-AO used this frame rate in 1954?1956.
Frame rates in video games refer to the speed at which the image is refreshed (typically in frames per second, or FPS). Many underlying processes, such as collision detection and network processing, run at different or inconsistent frequencies or in different physical components of a computer. FPS affect the experience in two ways: low FPS does not give the illusion of motion effectively and affects the user's capacity to interact with the game, while FPS that vary substantially from one second to the next depending on computational load produce uneven, ?choppy? animation. Many games lock their frame rate at lower but more sustainable levels to give consistently smooth motion.
The first 3D first-person shooter game for a personal computer, 3D Monster Maze, had a frame rate of approximately 6 frame/s, and was still a success. In modern action-oriented games where players must visually track animated objects and react quickly, frame rates of between 30 to 100+ FPS are considered acceptable by most, though this can vary significantly from game to game. Modern action games, including popular console shooters such as Halo 3, are locked at 30 frame/s maximum, while others, such as Unreal Tournament 3, can run well in excess of 100 frame/s on sufficient hardware. The frame rate within games varies considerably depending upon what is currently happening at a given moment, or with the hardware configuration (especially in PC games.) When the computation of a frame consumes more time than is alloted between frames, the frame rate decreases.
A culture of competition has arisen among game enthusiasts with regard to frame rates, with players striving to obtain the highest FPS possible, due to their utility in demonstrating a system's power and efficiency. Indeed, many benchmarks (such as 3DMark) released by the marketing departments of hardware manufacturers and published in hardware reviews focus on the FPS measurement. Even though the typical LCD monitors of today are locked at 60 frame/s, making extremely high frame rates impossible to see in realtime, playthroughs of game ?timedemos? at hundreds or thousands of FPS for benchmarking purposes are still common.
LCD panels being locked at 60FPS reflects the 60Hz Real-time rate and anything beyond it is absurd. The 30FPS references the Motion Picture 29.937 FPS make sense that game developers would produce products that mimic the Motion Picture rate.
It doesn't stick to the rear when flat. The hinge attaches the cover to the side. When closed, the magnets hold the cover closed. Those are not the same magnets holding it onto the case. I don't know why you would think the magnets in the hinge control the on and off, unless you've not seen, or used this, and don't know how it works. Watch Apple's video on the case and you'll learn that.
The hinge magnets aren't strong enough to allow you to use the folded up cover as a handle. It will pop off. It wasn't intended to be used that way.
When you turn the cover flat against the back, there is nothing to prevent the free edge from flapping back and forth. It's annoying because when using it for reading (as an example), you don't know whether to hold it by the case alone, and let the cover flap. Or to remove the cover. Or to hold it by the cover with your fingers in the rear, and your thumb over the front bezel. The problem with the first, is that's it's very annoying to have the cover flapping against your hand. The second is annoying because you then have to get the cover and replace it. the third is annoying because the cover, being foldable, wants to move away from your fingers holding it, and you're constantly, as a result, changing your grip.
1) I don?t think he was implying the hinge magnets control the display/touch panel on/off.
2) My hinge magnet is strong enough to hold it in that way, though I think it?s an unnatural feel. I can swing mine and rotate in any direction by the cover, so long as I don?t use too much force to swing it around.
3) I?m not getting a flapping at all. I have one hand on the device at all times. Whether that is on the left or right at least half is flat against the back and the weak attraction to the distal end of cover still holds it in place when I?m holding it at the hinge side so long as my fingers are on the two medial segments of the cover. If I am holding it by the first medial segment the magnet will be insufficient to hold it in place.
I just read it. The WSJ didn't say that as something from their sources. Here's a quote from the article. its where the pricing comes from. As I said, this pricing was all over at the time, and the WSJ was just reporting on what others were saying.
The Smart Cover does magnetically adhere to the back, but it?s a weak magnetic attraction compared to the other magnetics making me think this may not be intentioned. They do have worry about the electronics so it?s possible they just couldn?t work it into the design.
Even though I wish the attraction was as good as the topside I don?t think it?s an issue as my hand on either side holds it in place nicely.
The cover is using neodymium magnets, so they're strong. The reason why there's a very weak attraction from the rear, not enough to be useful, is because of the strength. They're being attracted to the magnetic material inside the iPad that attaches it to the front. It's purely coincidental.
When steve said that OSx will be the platform for at least 20 years in 2000 I though that it was pretty ambitious, now that OSx is in laptops, phones and tablets and is killing competition on each of those I finally see what he meant.
1) I don’t think he was implying the hinge magnets control the display/touch panel on/off.
I don't know what he meant. I know what he wrote.
Quote:
2) My hinge magnet is strong enough to hold it in that way, though I think it’s an unnatural feel. I can swing mine and rotate in any direction by the cover, so long as I don’t use too much force to swing it around.
Sure, if you're careful. Are you willing to take a chance while you're using it? If I do what he says, and give it a little shake, the tablet pops off. That's dangerous enough for me to avoid doing it.
Quote:
3) I’m not getting a flapping at all. I have one hand on the device at all times. Whether that is on the left or right at least half is flat against the back and the weak attraction to the distal end of cover still holds it in place when I’m holding it at the hinge side so long as my fingers are on the two medial segments of the cover. If I am holding it by the first medial segment the magnet will be insufficient to hold it in place.
it definitely flaps around if you move your hand a bit. If you're steady as a rock, then it won't move. If you're not hold g the cover, then it hangs away from the case. Very awkward.
It depends on which side you're holding it. Whether you're lefty, as I am, or righty. I tend to hold it with my right hand, so the cover is flapping all over. It doesn't feel secure at all. Not that the cover will come off, but it slips under my grip. Holding it with my left hand is a bit better, but for me, not as comfortable, again, being left handed. It's more awkward swiping, or pointing with my right hand.
A few apps require the tablet be held with the button down when locked into vertical position, such as Stanza.
Hold it with your right hand, but don't hold the cover down. Hold it by the iPad case alone, and tell me if it flaps.
It would have been better if we could have attached if from either side.
The magnets do nothing for it at all. If you hold the iPad so that it's vertical and the top is slightly facing downward, then the cover is held there by gravity. But hold it straight up, and the cover wanders. Hold it slightly away, with the top angled, and the cover flaps open. The magnets are useless for that.
This is 100% right (Google being the old Microsoft in the sense that all it is doing is copying everybody else in all areas outside of its search engine business). If Google's search results weren't so good (the best) I would use something else (Bing sucks).
It amazes me how people deride the iPad for various reasons but don't acknowledge just how influential that product was in the tablet market. If the iPad was not that revolutionary, then (1) how come no one released anything remotely like it before it was introduced and (2) how come everyone is now essentially copying it (most of the hardware form factors are almost exact replicas of the ipad).
What was in the market before the iPad and how well were those devices selling?
When the iPad was first announced, some analyst predicted that in 2010, 10.5 million tablets would be sold and 300,000, or so would be iPads.
Jokingly, I predicted that 10 million would be iPads and 100,000 others.
I was wrong on both counts:
-- Apple outperformed
-- Samsung outsmoothed
This year, CY 2011, I predict 60 million iPads (both iPad 1 and iPad 2) will be sold.
I believe that Apple will ramp up production to over 5 million per month.
Brian Klug did more WP7 articles by himself than with Anand, yet you claimed there is only Anand writing the reviews.
The big WP7 review has "Anand Lal Shimpi & Brian Klug" as the writers. That is two people doing the review, hence the used of ‘they’.
& is a logogram known as an ampersand. It means ‘and’. It comes the Latin et, which is a ligature derived from a capital ‘E' and lowercase ’t' when written in cursive.
THEY did the review, Anand wrote it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
They like some things about WP7, but if you actually read the site, as I do, you'll see they don't like it more.
You are right on ... Just look at the upgrades of Macbook ... prices have been dropping some, but, performance is better, better, better with each iteration. The White Macbook for students is being replaced with Macbook air. Instant on, light weight, longer battery life, the essential legacy ports for EZ data shifting. Macbook Pro with discrete graphics is the most powerful laptop on the planet. OS Lion is bringing revolution to integration within the Mac Apple lines of products. Their wallet is growing, and the revolution continues. iPAD is fabulous for many things people do with their laptops. But many want the features of Macbook Air in iPAD. But try to hold Macbook Air with one hand and read a book, etc vs iPAD. All things in one device loses. That is why my workshop has many tools. Each one for the specific job it needs to do. ShopSmith tried to integrate many great functions into one system. It failed, because of setup time and reset and realign. I'll stop here with analogies.
ShopSmith. Now there is a throwback to my 60's and 70's. Had to look them up to see if they were still in existence.
You are right on as well. I was about to buy one, but I learned a good lesson trying to get my Radial Arm to multi-function. That and my wife noticing the trips to Sears on the weekends to buy 'accessories' that I had kind of told her wouldn't be necessary.
Comments
I'd like to see that because all the games I've seen so far use less demanding graphics when running on the iPad 1. That includes RR 2 HD, which has no problem on my iPad 1, but looks great on my iPad 2. That is, now, my wife's iPad 1.
If you bought a SmartCover... you just think the iPad 2 belongs to you
The thing I wish they did with the cover was to have magnets hold it against the back when folded over. It's annoying having it flap back and forth.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but so far as I can tell, it works exactly the way you want it to. The blue cover attaches to the back using the same magnet (I think) as it uses to control the on/off function of the front. The cover doesn't lay 100% flat against the back, but it does stick. That said, rolling into a triangle and using it as a grip against the back seem more comfortable.
Finally, I think game makers are going to be making some interesting, very near console-quality titles with these graphics.
Hell, I think the iPad 2 will already do that!
That's just with a quick update... Imagine how good it will get once devs starting making games with the iPad 2 in their minds.
However, to reach AAA status developers will also have to work on nullifying the touch controls' disadvantages using the touch screen's greatest advantage (ultimate flexibility).
The iPad 3 will definitely run what we consider PS3 and Xbox360 AAA "hardcore gamer" titles. There is very little reason for Apple NOT to release a gaming console with the A6.
Next-gen AppleTV variation maybe?
OK Mel, I went back to see if I could find the original WSJ article and here it is from Jan. 5, 2010:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle
I don't subscribe so I can't read past the first two paragraphs which don't mention the price. But I can read the comments section and many on the first page react to the thought of paying $1000 for it. Since you subscribe, can you confirm the contents of the article?
I just read it. The WSJ didn't say that as something from their sources. Here's a quote from the article. its where the pricing comes from. As I said, this pricing was all over at the time, and the WSJ was just reporting on what others were saying.
A key factor for the tablet's success will be price. Yair Reiner, an analyst for Oppenheimer & Co., said in a research note last month that the tablet would be priced at about $1,000, citing sources. One challenge: Apple's MacBook laptops start at $999.
I'm surprised people even care to compare iPad 2 with the Xoom. Besides those fancy ads, the Xoom has shown nothing, there's no lines during release, there's only mediocre reviews, and there's only 100 apps specifically made for it so far. To me it's not even worth a comparison.
Most sites doing comparisons are just looking for click traffic. The Xoom was the hot story before iPad 2.
If you bought a SmartCover... you just think the iPad 2 belongs to you
Yeah, I did. No she's been happy with her iMac and iPhone. She won't be using this the way I will.
Atomic Web Browser. The only way to surf the web on an iPad. Trust me. I haven't used Safari for many months now.
I prefer Terra...free tabbed browsing, excellent performance.
Honestly, I'm beginning to get confused over all the standards and compatibility questions.
Supposedly, OpenGL 3 is OpenCL compatible. Plus, it adds a number of efficiencies that 2 doesn't have, in addition to having more abilities. We can always use newer standards developers will take advantage of.
I remember reviewers saying that the IBM PC with a 286 could do all that businesses required. Later, it was said that a 1HGz Pentium was as fast as would be needed. There are a lot more statements like that. Software follows hardware. When the hardware can work the math quickly enough, we'll see the software be upgraded. So we should see OpenGL 3 at some point. Do we want it? Sure we do!
Or, when Tom Watson Sr., CEO of IBM, said that the market potential for [mainframe] computers was 5.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but so far as I can tell, it works exactly the way you want it to. The blue cover attaches to the back using the same magnet (I think) as it uses to control the on/off function of the front. The cover doesn't lay 100% flat against the back, but it does stick. That said, rolling into a triangle and using it as a grip against the back seem more comfortable.
It doesn't stick to the rear when flat. The hinge attaches the cover to the side. When closed, the magnets hold the cover closed. Those are not the same magnets holding it onto the case. I don't know why you would think the magnets in the hinge control the on and off, unless you've not seen, or used this, and don't know how it works. Watch Apple's video on the cover and you'll learn that.
The hinge magnets aren't strong enough to allow you to use the folded up cover as a handle. It will pop off. It wasn't intended to be used that way.
When you turn the cover flat against the back, there is nothing to prevent the free edge from flapping back and forth. It's annoying because when using it for reading (as an example), you don't know whether to hold it by the case alone, and let the cover flap. Or to remove the cover. Or to hold it by the cover with your fingers in the rear, and your thumb over the front bezel. The problem with the first, is that's it's very annoying to have the cover flapping against your hand. The second is annoying because you then have to get the cover and replace it. the third is annoying because the cover, being foldable, wants to move away from your fingers holding it, and you're constantly, as a result, changing your grip.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but so far as I can tell, it works exactly the way you want it to. The blue cover attaches to the back using the same magnet (I think) as it uses to control the on/off function of the front. The cover doesn't lay 100% flat against the back, but it does stick. That said, rolling into a triangle and using it as a grip against the back seem more comfortable.
The Smart Cover does magnetically adhere to the back, but it?s a weak magnetic attraction compared to the other magnetics making me think this may not be intentioned. They do have worry about the electronics so it?s possible they just couldn?t work it into the design.
Even though I wish the attraction was as good as the topside I don?t think it?s an issue as my hand on either side holds it in place nicely.
24 FPS is used in movies, AFAIK, and the real "human eye can't see the difference beyond taht" number is 60 FPS.
And no, I don't have a hefty graphics card on my 13" MBP... it's not even dedicated
Actually, graphics card options seem to be one of the top "features" of the mythical xMac... probably because few people can afford a Mac Pro for for gaming
60FPS depends on the real-time system.
Frame rate is also a term used in real-time computing. In a fashion somewhat comparable to the moving-picture definition presented above, a real-time frame is the time it takes to complete a full round of the system's processing tasks. If the frame rate of a real-time system is 60 hertz, the system reevaluates all necessary inputs and updates the necessary outputs 60 times per second under all circumstances.
The designed frame rates of real-time systems vary depending on the equipment. For a real-time system that is steering an oil tanker, a frame rate of 1 Hz may be sufficient, while a rate of even 100 Hz may not be adequate for steering a guided missile. The designer must choose a frame rate appropriate to the application's requirements.
NTSC
There is a large difference in framerate between film, which runs at 24.0 frames per second, and the NTSC standard, which runs at approximately 29.97 frames per second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_r...and_television
30p is a progressive format and produces video at 30 frames per second. Progressive (noninterlaced) scanning mimics a film camera's frame-by-frame image capture. The effects of inter-frame judder are less noticeable than 24p yet retains a cinematic-like appearance. Shooting Video in 30p mode gives no interlace artifacts but can introduce judder on image movement and on some camera pans. The widescreen film process Todd-AO used this frame rate in 1954?1956.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_r...in_video_games
Frame rates in video games refer to the speed at which the image is refreshed (typically in frames per second, or FPS). Many underlying processes, such as collision detection and network processing, run at different or inconsistent frequencies or in different physical components of a computer. FPS affect the experience in two ways: low FPS does not give the illusion of motion effectively and affects the user's capacity to interact with the game, while FPS that vary substantially from one second to the next depending on computational load produce uneven, ?choppy? animation. Many games lock their frame rate at lower but more sustainable levels to give consistently smooth motion.
The first 3D first-person shooter game for a personal computer, 3D Monster Maze, had a frame rate of approximately 6 frame/s, and was still a success. In modern action-oriented games where players must visually track animated objects and react quickly, frame rates of between 30 to 100+ FPS are considered acceptable by most, though this can vary significantly from game to game. Modern action games, including popular console shooters such as Halo 3, are locked at 30 frame/s maximum, while others, such as Unreal Tournament 3, can run well in excess of 100 frame/s on sufficient hardware. The frame rate within games varies considerably depending upon what is currently happening at a given moment, or with the hardware configuration (especially in PC games.) When the computation of a frame consumes more time than is alloted between frames, the frame rate decreases.
A culture of competition has arisen among game enthusiasts with regard to frame rates, with players striving to obtain the highest FPS possible, due to their utility in demonstrating a system's power and efficiency. Indeed, many benchmarks (such as 3DMark) released by the marketing departments of hardware manufacturers and published in hardware reviews focus on the FPS measurement. Even though the typical LCD monitors of today are locked at 60 frame/s, making extremely high frame rates impossible to see in realtime, playthroughs of game ?timedemos? at hundreds or thousands of FPS for benchmarking purposes are still common.
LCD panels being locked at 60FPS reflects the 60Hz Real-time rate and anything beyond it is absurd. The 30FPS references the Motion Picture 29.937 FPS make sense that game developers would produce products that mimic the Motion Picture rate.
It doesn't stick to the rear when flat. The hinge attaches the cover to the side. When closed, the magnets hold the cover closed. Those are not the same magnets holding it onto the case. I don't know why you would think the magnets in the hinge control the on and off, unless you've not seen, or used this, and don't know how it works. Watch Apple's video on the case and you'll learn that.
The hinge magnets aren't strong enough to allow you to use the folded up cover as a handle. It will pop off. It wasn't intended to be used that way.
When you turn the cover flat against the back, there is nothing to prevent the free edge from flapping back and forth. It's annoying because when using it for reading (as an example), you don't know whether to hold it by the case alone, and let the cover flap. Or to remove the cover. Or to hold it by the cover with your fingers in the rear, and your thumb over the front bezel. The problem with the first, is that's it's very annoying to have the cover flapping against your hand. The second is annoying because you then have to get the cover and replace it. the third is annoying because the cover, being foldable, wants to move away from your fingers holding it, and you're constantly, as a result, changing your grip.
1) I don?t think he was implying the hinge magnets control the display/touch panel on/off.
2) My hinge magnet is strong enough to hold it in that way, though I think it?s an unnatural feel. I can swing mine and rotate in any direction by the cover, so long as I don?t use too much force to swing it around.
3) I?m not getting a flapping at all. I have one hand on the device at all times. Whether that is on the left or right at least half is flat against the back and the weak attraction to the distal end of cover still holds it in place when I?m holding it at the hinge side so long as my fingers are on the two medial segments of the cover. If I am holding it by the first medial segment the magnet will be insufficient to hold it in place.
I just read it. The WSJ didn't say that as something from their sources. Here's a quote from the article. its where the pricing comes from. As I said, this pricing was all over at the time, and the WSJ was just reporting on what others were saying.
Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.
The Smart Cover does magnetically adhere to the back, but it?s a weak magnetic attraction compared to the other magnetics making me think this may not be intentioned. They do have worry about the electronics so it?s possible they just couldn?t work it into the design.
Even though I wish the attraction was as good as the topside I don?t think it?s an issue as my hand on either side holds it in place nicely.
The cover is using neodymium magnets, so they're strong. The reason why there's a very weak attraction from the rear, not enough to be useful, is because of the strength. They're being attracted to the magnetic material inside the iPad that attaches it to the front. It's purely coincidental.
1) I don’t think he was implying the hinge magnets control the display/touch panel on/off.
I don't know what he meant. I know what he wrote.
2) My hinge magnet is strong enough to hold it in that way, though I think it’s an unnatural feel. I can swing mine and rotate in any direction by the cover, so long as I don’t use too much force to swing it around.
Sure, if you're careful. Are you willing to take a chance while you're using it? If I do what he says, and give it a little shake, the tablet pops off. That's dangerous enough for me to avoid doing it.
3) I’m not getting a flapping at all. I have one hand on the device at all times. Whether that is on the left or right at least half is flat against the back and the weak attraction to the distal end of cover still holds it in place when I’m holding it at the hinge side so long as my fingers are on the two medial segments of the cover. If I am holding it by the first medial segment the magnet will be insufficient to hold it in place.
it definitely flaps around if you move your hand a bit. If you're steady as a rock, then it won't move. If you're not hold g the cover, then it hangs away from the case. Very awkward.
It depends on which side you're holding it. Whether you're lefty, as I am, or righty. I tend to hold it with my right hand, so the cover is flapping all over. It doesn't feel secure at all. Not that the cover will come off, but it slips under my grip. Holding it with my left hand is a bit better, but for me, not as comfortable, again, being left handed. It's more awkward swiping, or pointing with my right hand.
A few apps require the tablet be held with the button down when locked into vertical position, such as Stanza.
Hold it with your right hand, but don't hold the cover down. Hold it by the iPad case alone, and tell me if it flaps.
It would have been better if we could have attached if from either side.
The magnets do nothing for it at all. If you hold the iPad so that it's vertical and the top is slightly facing downward, then the cover is held there by gravity. But hold it straight up, and the cover wanders. Hold it slightly away, with the top angled, and the cover flaps open. The magnets are useless for that.
This is 100% right (Google being the old Microsoft in the sense that all it is doing is copying everybody else in all areas outside of its search engine business). If Google's search results weren't so good (the best) I would use something else (Bing sucks).
It amazes me how people deride the iPad for various reasons but don't acknowledge just how influential that product was in the tablet market. If the iPad was not that revolutionary, then (1) how come no one released anything remotely like it before it was introduced and (2) how come everyone is now essentially copying it (most of the hardware form factors are almost exact replicas of the ipad).
What was in the market before the iPad and how well were those devices selling?
When the iPad was first announced, some analyst predicted that in 2010, 10.5 million tablets would be sold and 300,000, or so would be iPads.
Jokingly, I predicted that 10 million would be iPads and 100,000 others.
I was wrong on both counts:
-- Apple outperformed
-- Samsung outsmoothed
This year, CY 2011, I predict 60 million iPads (both iPad 1 and iPad 2) will be sold.
I believe that Apple will ramp up production to over 5 million per month.
.
I’ll repeat this again, just for you.
Brian Klug did more WP7 articles by himself than with Anand, yet you claimed there is only Anand writing the reviews.
The big WP7 review has "Anand Lal Shimpi & Brian Klug" as the writers. That is two people doing the review, hence the used of ‘they’.
& is a logogram known as an ampersand. It means ‘and’. It comes the Latin et, which is a ligature derived from a capital ‘E' and lowercase ’t' when written in cursive.
THEY did the review, Anand wrote it.
They like some things about WP7, but if you actually read the site, as I do, you'll see they don't like it more.
"In my opinion it’s more beautiful than anything else on the market today - including Apple’s iOS." http://www.anandtech.com/show/3982/w...one-7-review/1
OT anyhow.
Nice device, that ipad2
You are right on ... Just look at the upgrades of Macbook ... prices have been dropping some, but, performance is better, better, better with each iteration. The White Macbook for students is being replaced with Macbook air. Instant on, light weight, longer battery life, the essential legacy ports for EZ data shifting. Macbook Pro with discrete graphics is the most powerful laptop on the planet. OS Lion is bringing revolution to integration within the Mac Apple lines of products. Their wallet is growing, and the revolution continues. iPAD is fabulous for many things people do with their laptops. But many want the features of Macbook Air in iPAD. But try to hold Macbook Air with one hand and read a book, etc vs iPAD. All things in one device loses. That is why my workshop has many tools. Each one for the specific job it needs to do. ShopSmith tried to integrate many great functions into one system. It failed, because of setup time and reset and realign. I'll stop here with analogies.
ShopSmith. Now there is a throwback to my 60's and 70's. Had to look them up to see if they were still in existence.
You are right on as well. I was about to buy one, but I learned a good lesson trying to get my Radial Arm to multi-function. That and my wife noticing the trips to Sears on the weekends to buy 'accessories' that I had kind of told her wouldn't be necessary.