Did you read the same post? He was mocking the folks that wrote that.
On frame rates... When I'm gaming I need to see a minimum average of 45fps. Some of the people on the Xoom etc. forums were apparently claiming "25 fps is smooth enough". If so, they are delusional.
It is much more complicated. Experiments with film have to do with shutter angle which complicates things. I know for example watching sports on my Samsung 46" needs 100hz when watching football (soccer). The flight of the ball through the air is distinctively smooth and not choppy. Some of the 120hz etc can be gimmicky but done right eg. by Samsung I can never go back to watching sports (a) not in HD and (b) not at least as 100hz.
There are many instances IMO of modern visual input where the brain can detect anomalies even at 100hz depending very much on the content.
In fact, 24fps film at the cinema is something I find quite distracting due to the projector flicker. Digital projection is the way to go.
Whatever it is, times are changing a lot. One thing though, watching 24fps film at 60hz or more makes it looks like video and hence there is still that "magic" of 24fps film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist
On the subject of framerates: I remember reading an article—sorry I can't link to it, but this was in the Dead Tree Era™—about an experiment Stephen Spielberg conducted. Of course everybody knows 24 fps is inadequate for rapid movement, so he wanted to see what was really the optimum framerate for action movies.
He filmed a bunch of supposedly exciting footage—battle scenes, flying, roller-coaster rides, etc.—at a variety of framerates. Then he showed them to a number of volunteers after wiring them up like a polygraph—heart rate, respiration, skin galvanic response. He found that people's measurable "excitement" did indeed increase with framerate, presumably because it seemed more realistic or involving, until he hit 60 fps. After that there was no further improvement.
As a result of that, I consider it an observed scientific fact that 60 fps is the most the human visual system can handle, and anything over that is overkill—or just one of those meaningless specs that geeks like to quote.
Of course, I could be wrong. When stereo was invented, the brain wasn't supposed to be able to detect different arrival times at each ear, just differing loudness. That turned out to be baloney. Also, the TV I'm looking at right now actually has 1920 X 1080 pixels on the screen. (That was a prerequisite for me, so I'm a very late adopter on HDTV.) In this area we have five 1080i channels and five 720p channels. Doing the arithmetic, from this distance I shouldn't be able to resolve 720 lines, let alone 1080, but I can tell the 720p channels appear dull and lifeless compared with the 1080i ones. I can't explain it, but it's an observed fact for me.
I think someone should revisit Spielberg's experiment in the electronic era. A question that occurs to me is: these new 3D TVs think they need 120 Hz for 3D, but I wonder if alternating 30 fps per eye would add up to a perceived 60 fps?
I'm using Windows 7 as I type this. I love it (you have to understand I was stuck with Vista before this) and it is definitely more stable than many previous versions of Windows (XP excluded, since it was by far the most stable in my experience). But easy to use? No. Easier than previous versions, yes. But easy? Compared to my wife's Mac? Not even close, IMO.
Windows 7 is the arguably the best Windows ever made. But it is defintiely not the best OS ever made. I'm getting sick of the Windows 7 UI after a few years, actually. There is something so timeless about the Mac, even OS 10.3 or System 9 or whatever.
24 FPS is used in movies, AFAIK, and the real "human eye can't see the difference beyond taht" number is 60 FPS...
(Last serial post, I promise) ... 24 FPS is the MINIMUM for people to perceive smooth motion. With the advent of computer games, etc. people can discern 30, 60, 100 fps.
On the subject of framerates: I remember reading an article—sorry I can't link to it, but this was in the Dead Tree Era™—about an experiment Stephen Spielberg conducted. Of course everybody knows 24 fps is inadequate for rapid movement, so he wanted to see what was really the optimum framerate for action movies.
He filmed a bunch of supposedly exciting footage—battle scenes, flying, roller-coaster rides, etc.—at a variety of framerates. Then he showed them to a number of volunteers after wiring them up like a polygraph—heart rate, respiration, skin galvanic response. He found that people's measurable "excitement" did indeed increase with framerate, presumably because it seemed more realistic or involving, until he hit 60 fps. After that there was no further improvement.
As a result of that, I consider it an observed scientific fact that 60 fps is the most the human visual system can handle, and anything over that is overkill—or just one of those meaningless specs that geeks like to quote.
Of course, I could be wrong. When stereo was invented, the brain wasn't supposed to be able to detect different arrival times at each ear, just differing loudness. That turned out to be baloney. Also, the TV I'm looking at right now actually has 1920 X 1080 pixels on the screen. (That was a prerequisite for me, so I'm a very late adopter on HDTV.) In this area we have five 1080i channels and five 720p channels. Doing the arithmetic, from this distance I shouldn't be able to resolve 720 lines, let alone 1080, but I can tell the 720p channels appear dull and lifeless compared with the 1080i ones. I can't explain it, but it's an observed fact for me.
I think someone should revisit Spielberg's experiment in the electronic era. A question that occurs to me is: these new 3D TVs think they need 120 Hz for 3D, but I wonder if alternating 30 fps per eye would add up to a perceived 60 fps?
Doug Trumbull, the great film effects artist who created the Star Gate sequence for 2001, the spacecraft for Close Encounters and a lot of the effects in Blade Runner (among a great deal of other notable work) at one point was trying to get his "Showscan" process off the ground.
The story goes that he was editing some 70mm footage shot at high speed on a flatbed, fast forwarding through a sequence, and was struck by how footage shot at high speeds viewed at high speeds (which then appears to run at "normal" speed, instead of slow motion) took on an almost 3D quality. His subsequent experimentation led him to conclude that the optimal effect was achieved on 70mm film shot and viewed at 60fps.
He directed Natalie Wood's last movie, "Brainstorm", intending it to be a showcase for the new process (with most of the film shot and projected conventionally and "brainstorm" sequences, depicting direct experience of other people's memories, in Showscan) but he couldn't get enough theater owners to invest in the considerable expense of retrofitting their projectors. He went on to use Showscan for showrides in amusement parks.
I've always wondered why, given the change over to digital acquisition and projection, there hasn't been a reinvestigation of increasing frame rates for both shooting and projection this way. There aren't any electromechanical issues as in film projection, doubling your data storage costs isn't particularly burdensome, and it gives you denser information per second (with more visible impact) than just boosting resolution. It certainly would be easier to implement (and probably easier to enjoy) than the benighted 3D craze.
Doug Trumbull, the great film effects artist who created the Star Gate sequence for 2001, the spacecraft for Close Encounters and a lot of the effects in Blade Runner (among a great deal of other notable work) at one point was trying to get his "Showscan" process off the ground.
The story goes that he was editing some 70mm footage shot at high speed on a flatbed, fast forwarding through a sequence, and was struck by how footage shot at high speeds viewed at high speeds (which then appears to run at "normal" speed, instead of slow motion) took on an almost 3D quality. His subsequent experimentation led him to conclude that the optimal effect was achieved on 70mm film shot and viewed at 60fps.
He directed Natalie Wood's last movie, "Brainstorm", intending it to be a showcase for the new process (with most of the film shot and projected conventionally and "brainstorm" sequences, depicting direct experience of other people's memories, in Showscan) but he couldn't get enough theater owners to invest in the considerable expense of retrofitting their projectors. He went on to use Showscan for showrides in amusement parks.
I've always wondered why, given the change over to digital acquisition and projection, there hasn't been a reinvestigation of increasing frame rates for both shooting and projection this way. There aren't any electromechanical issues as in film projection, doubling your data storage costs isn't particularly burdensome, and it gives you denser information per second (with more visible impact) than just boosting resolution. It certainly would be easier to implement (and probably easier to enjoy) than the benighted 3D craze.
Thanks for the history. It actually appears that we're going backwards: It seems to be a little-known fact that Blu-Ray players displaying 1080-line material are limited to 24 fps. If your TV can't switch to that framerate, or the player and TV can't handshake on it, the output defaults to 720p at 30 fps.
I always wondered what the 120 Hz refresh rate on new TVs was all about when 60 is already overkill for the signals they're displaying. I finally realized it was to resolve this problem?if the incoming signal is 30 fps, each frame will be refreshed 4 times, if it's 24 fps, 5 times. The Player doesn't have to know anything.
* Xoom has one model with a second one planned for WiFi with no release date, right? Only one Playbook planned, right? And the Galaxy Tab only has one, right? The Asus tablets are the only I can think of that have any diversity, but it?s not capacity diversity, but unique qualities to the OS type and/or casing for specific usage needs. At least the Asus tablets all have IPS panels. Go Asus!
Speaking of Asus, remember this quote from Asus chairman Jonney Shih last month?
"We already know some of the details of that device, such as what kind of processor they chose. We very carefully chose our tablet processor, the Nvidia Tegra 2, and to really compete it will take [Apple] some time. You know, [Nvidia] is well known for graphics."
Seems he didn't know as much about the processor as he thought. The Tegra 2 bandwagon that every non-iPad tablet is on doesn't look so exciting now, does it?
I wish you and the other moderators would use that hammer with all trolls, not just those that happen to tick you off or wound your personal pride.
In other words, be consistent. It helps AI's credibility.
Yes I agree.
And what about the blatant racists., they get immunity.
You Americans only see coloured racism, but what about the other kind.
Some Finn doesn't like Russians and made nasty comments.
Why? This is a tech blog. I posted to this creep to watch itself, and it got even nastier.
I complained to the moderators but they replied it was okay and it was allowed to post as such. See double standards. What irks one person may not irk another.
But I didn't even mention the hinge magnets; solipsism had me exactly right.
In any case, my own iPad 2 hasn't arrived yet, so I was just briefly using a friend's. His seemed a little awkward but generally firm. That could be a function of my grip at the time I was using it (left-handed, but I'm a righty) or just differences in magnet strengths. After all, some iPad's have the LCD bleed issue but most don't. If (as solipsism mentioned) the 'feature' is unintentional, then that would explain why it's highly variable (assuming it is).
Sorry friend, but you did. The hinge magnet is the same one holding it to the back. If that's not what you meant, then it wasn't clear. There is no other magnet holding it to the back. The magnets that hold it closed to the front have no effect when it's turned to the rear.
"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. "
Let's not forget that since you started buying Macs, the quality of ALL computers has increased significantly. Even since you got your iMac G5, Microsoft has released two new versions of Windows, with the latest one being extremely stable and easy to use.
And no great advance either. Even Ballmer announced it as being"Vista done right". Great campaign slogan.
Sorry friend, but you did. The hinge magnet is the same one holding it to the back. If that's not what you meant, then it wasn't clear. There is no other magnet holding it to the back. The magnets that hold it closed to the front have no effect when it's turned to the rear.
"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. "
In my leather case, when I flip the cover around the magnets at the distal end of the cover stick to the back at the posterior end just behind the volume buttons and mute switch. As previously stated, it’s not a good hold but it stays up fine providing I have some support on the two innermost medial segments of the cover.
Whether he is right or not, quoting financial analysts talking out of their ass isn't worth shit.
Except that reviewers are saying the same thing. And, more importantly, reviewers are techno geeks. It's what they do, and love. For them, a geeky UI is great. Look at what they said about the Palm Pre and WebOS. But WebOS is terrible for everyone else. It's too complex, and isn't obvious. What I've been reading about Honeycomb seems to be similar. Once you figure it out, it's fine. But the average person buying these things doesn't want to have to figure it out. Honeycomb is much more complex than Android.
A financial analyst is closer to the average person as far as geekiness goes. If he finds it to be confusing, then it's more likely the average person will as well.
And you're talking out of your ass as well, because I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that you haven't used it, or you would have said so. It's too late now to pretend you have.
You make an excellent point. I think they've been making "retina" displays for a long time now. It all has to do with "yield". So they try to make 'retina' screens for the iPad... They only get one out of 10, per say. Bad yield right... no. They take what they can from that and put it in the iPhone or iPod touch.
They have been building them for a long time now. The so called 'rejects' end up in the phone or touch. It gets more complicated than that, but I believe they are building up supply. Who knows, by the time they release it, it may be a 9 out of 10 yield....
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What does a retina display for the iPad have to do with retina displays for the iPhone? There's nothing in common between the displays.
And what about the blatant racists., they get immunity.
You Americans only see coloured racism, but what about the other kind.
Some Finn doesn't like Russians and made nasty comments.
Why? This is a tech blog. I posted to this creep to watch itself, and it got even nastier.
I complained to the moderators but they replied it was okay and it was allowed to post as such. See double standards. What irks one person may not irk another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee
I couldn't agree more!
It depends on the remark. Some are really bad, and others aren't. If I seen something that's bad, I'll remove it. But we don't have enough mods, and some things go unnoticed. Some people complain about very minor remarks as well. We can't remove something just because someone complains about it. It's a judgement call.
In my leather case, when I flip the cover around the magnets at the distal end of the cover stick to the back at the posterior end just behind the volume buttons and mute switch. As previously stated, it’s not a good hold but it stays up fine providing I have some support on the two innermost medial segments of the cover.
Not at all for the poly covers. There is just the slightest magnetic attraction from the metal from behind the screen, but there is no way that I can get it to stick even lightly.
I don't know what you mean by support. If it needs support to stick, then it isn't sticking.
I don't know what you mean by support. If it needs support to stick, then it isn't sticking.
I have to hold the iPad in some way, with my left or right hand. If I try to hold the iPad with a finger attempting to only allow the cover to stick to the back panel without any support (I.e.: a hand) it won?t hold. The full weight of the cover is too much for the magnet. However, if I hold it naturally with my right hand I?m then pressing it against the magnet which makes it a moot point. If I hold it with my left hand it will hold on the right side, providing I?m at least holding at least a tiny portion of the 2nd cover segment from the medial end. If I?m only holding one of the leather segments it will flip down as soon as I move it briskly.
I have to hold the iPad in some way, with my left or right hand. If I try to hold the iPad with a finger attempting to only allow the cover to stick to the back panel without any support (I.e.: a hand) it won?t hold. The full weight of the cover is too much for the magnet. However, if I hold it naturally with my right hand I?m then pressing it against the magnet which makes it a moot point. If I hold it with my left hand it will hold on the right side, providing I?m at least holding at least a tiny portion of the 2nd cover segment from the medial end. If I?m only holding one of the leather segments it will flip down as soon as I move it briskly.
Basically, it doesn't stick. That's what we're both saying. It has to be helped, which means it doesn't stick. I expect it to have a minor attraction when it's held vertically, and it does. But that's so weak, it won't stay if it's even moved the slightest. And it has to be bent around the edge to do even that. We're discussing something that's irrelevant, because it's so useless.
The cover seems best when used as a stand. For that, it's better than the old one, which I had to cut a bit off the edge so it would lean back a bit more when slid into the slot in the back.
I'm wondering if we'll see cases that will have the left edge cut out so that the cover can be used with them. Apple has stated that manufacturers are free to do whatever they wanted to do with the magnets in the iPad itself, so I suppose we'll see cases from others using them in some way. It should be very interesting to see what some others come up with. This offers even more possibilities than we had with the first model.
I'm going to put four clear vinyl feet, about 3/8 wide by about a 1/16 thick on the back of my iPad for now. I'm thinking about putting them slightly over the rounded portion of the back where it sits when in the typing mode, and cutting a small portion off the circle to square off that edge. This will at least keep it from touching a surface when the cover can't be rolled over the back, something that's a hazard anyway, as it may pick up small bits of sharp matter that could possibly scratch the screen.
Comments
Did you read the same post? He was mocking the folks that wrote that.
On frame rates... When I'm gaming I need to see a minimum average of 45fps. Some of the people on the Xoom etc. forums were apparently claiming "25 fps is smooth enough". If so, they are delusional.
There are many instances IMO of modern visual input where the brain can detect anomalies even at 100hz depending very much on the content.
In fact, 24fps film at the cinema is something I find quite distracting due to the projector flicker. Digital projection is the way to go.
Whatever it is, times are changing a lot. One thing though, watching 24fps film at 60hz or more makes it looks like video and hence there is still that "magic" of 24fps film.
On the subject of framerates: I remember reading an article—sorry I can't link to it, but this was in the Dead Tree Era™—about an experiment Stephen Spielberg conducted. Of course everybody knows 24 fps is inadequate for rapid movement, so he wanted to see what was really the optimum framerate for action movies.
He filmed a bunch of supposedly exciting footage—battle scenes, flying, roller-coaster rides, etc.—at a variety of framerates. Then he showed them to a number of volunteers after wiring them up like a polygraph—heart rate, respiration, skin galvanic response. He found that people's measurable "excitement" did indeed increase with framerate, presumably because it seemed more realistic or involving, until he hit 60 fps. After that there was no further improvement.
As a result of that, I consider it an observed scientific fact that 60 fps is the most the human visual system can handle, and anything over that is overkill—or just one of those meaningless specs that geeks like to quote.
Of course, I could be wrong. When stereo was invented, the brain wasn't supposed to be able to detect different arrival times at each ear, just differing loudness. That turned out to be baloney. Also, the TV I'm looking at right now actually has 1920 X 1080 pixels on the screen. (That was a prerequisite for me, so I'm a very late adopter on HDTV.) In this area we have five 1080i channels and five 720p channels. Doing the arithmetic, from this distance I shouldn't be able to resolve 720 lines, let alone 1080, but I can tell the 720p channels appear dull and lifeless compared with the 1080i ones. I can't explain it, but it's an observed fact for me.
I think someone should revisit Spielberg's experiment in the electronic era. A question that occurs to me is: these new 3D TVs think they need 120 Hz for 3D, but I wonder if alternating 30 fps per eye would add up to a perceived 60 fps?
I'm using Windows 7 as I type this. I love it (you have to understand I was stuck with Vista before this) and it is definitely more stable than many previous versions of Windows (XP excluded, since it was by far the most stable in my experience). But easy to use? No. Easier than previous versions, yes. But easy? Compared to my wife's Mac? Not even close, IMO.
Windows 7 is the arguably the best Windows ever made. But it is defintiely not the best OS ever made. I'm getting sick of the Windows 7 UI after a few years, actually. There is something so timeless about the Mac, even OS 10.3 or System 9 or whatever.
They actually have a video using OpenGL here where you can see the difference: http://www.iosnoops.com/2011/03/13/i...nchmark-tests/
Great stuff. This is a big jump in iPad graphics, especially once game developers start optimising for it.
24 FPS is used in movies, AFAIK, and the real "human eye can't see the difference beyond taht" number is 60 FPS...
(Last serial post, I promise) ... 24 FPS is the MINIMUM for people to perceive smooth motion. With the advent of computer games, etc. people can discern 30, 60, 100 fps.
On the subject of framerates: I remember reading an article—sorry I can't link to it, but this was in the Dead Tree Era™—about an experiment Stephen Spielberg conducted. Of course everybody knows 24 fps is inadequate for rapid movement, so he wanted to see what was really the optimum framerate for action movies.
He filmed a bunch of supposedly exciting footage—battle scenes, flying, roller-coaster rides, etc.—at a variety of framerates. Then he showed them to a number of volunteers after wiring them up like a polygraph—heart rate, respiration, skin galvanic response. He found that people's measurable "excitement" did indeed increase with framerate, presumably because it seemed more realistic or involving, until he hit 60 fps. After that there was no further improvement.
As a result of that, I consider it an observed scientific fact that 60 fps is the most the human visual system can handle, and anything over that is overkill—or just one of those meaningless specs that geeks like to quote.
Of course, I could be wrong. When stereo was invented, the brain wasn't supposed to be able to detect different arrival times at each ear, just differing loudness. That turned out to be baloney. Also, the TV I'm looking at right now actually has 1920 X 1080 pixels on the screen. (That was a prerequisite for me, so I'm a very late adopter on HDTV.) In this area we have five 1080i channels and five 720p channels. Doing the arithmetic, from this distance I shouldn't be able to resolve 720 lines, let alone 1080, but I can tell the 720p channels appear dull and lifeless compared with the 1080i ones. I can't explain it, but it's an observed fact for me.
I think someone should revisit Spielberg's experiment in the electronic era. A question that occurs to me is: these new 3D TVs think they need 120 Hz for 3D, but I wonder if alternating 30 fps per eye would add up to a perceived 60 fps?
Doug Trumbull, the great film effects artist who created the Star Gate sequence for 2001, the spacecraft for Close Encounters and a lot of the effects in Blade Runner (among a great deal of other notable work) at one point was trying to get his "Showscan" process off the ground.
The story goes that he was editing some 70mm footage shot at high speed on a flatbed, fast forwarding through a sequence, and was struck by how footage shot at high speeds viewed at high speeds (which then appears to run at "normal" speed, instead of slow motion) took on an almost 3D quality. His subsequent experimentation led him to conclude that the optimal effect was achieved on 70mm film shot and viewed at 60fps.
He directed Natalie Wood's last movie, "Brainstorm", intending it to be a showcase for the new process (with most of the film shot and projected conventionally and "brainstorm" sequences, depicting direct experience of other people's memories, in Showscan) but he couldn't get enough theater owners to invest in the considerable expense of retrofitting their projectors. He went on to use Showscan for showrides in amusement parks.
I've always wondered why, given the change over to digital acquisition and projection, there hasn't been a reinvestigation of increasing frame rates for both shooting and projection this way. There aren't any electromechanical issues as in film projection, doubling your data storage costs isn't particularly burdensome, and it gives you denser information per second (with more visible impact) than just boosting resolution. It certainly would be easier to implement (and probably easier to enjoy) than the benighted 3D craze.
Doug Trumbull, the great film effects artist who created the Star Gate sequence for 2001, the spacecraft for Close Encounters and a lot of the effects in Blade Runner (among a great deal of other notable work) at one point was trying to get his "Showscan" process off the ground.
The story goes that he was editing some 70mm footage shot at high speed on a flatbed, fast forwarding through a sequence, and was struck by how footage shot at high speeds viewed at high speeds (which then appears to run at "normal" speed, instead of slow motion) took on an almost 3D quality. His subsequent experimentation led him to conclude that the optimal effect was achieved on 70mm film shot and viewed at 60fps.
He directed Natalie Wood's last movie, "Brainstorm", intending it to be a showcase for the new process (with most of the film shot and projected conventionally and "brainstorm" sequences, depicting direct experience of other people's memories, in Showscan) but he couldn't get enough theater owners to invest in the considerable expense of retrofitting their projectors. He went on to use Showscan for showrides in amusement parks.
I've always wondered why, given the change over to digital acquisition and projection, there hasn't been a reinvestigation of increasing frame rates for both shooting and projection this way. There aren't any electromechanical issues as in film projection, doubling your data storage costs isn't particularly burdensome, and it gives you denser information per second (with more visible impact) than just boosting resolution. It certainly would be easier to implement (and probably easier to enjoy) than the benighted 3D craze.
Thanks for the history. It actually appears that we're going backwards: It seems to be a little-known fact that Blu-Ray players displaying 1080-line material are limited to 24 fps. If your TV can't switch to that framerate, or the player and TV can't handshake on it, the output defaults to 720p at 30 fps.
I always wondered what the 120 Hz refresh rate on new TVs was all about when 60 is already overkill for the signals they're displaying. I finally realized it was to resolve this problem?if the incoming signal is 30 fps, each frame will be refreshed 4 times, if it's 24 fps, 5 times. The Player doesn't have to know anything.
* Xoom has one model with a second one planned for WiFi with no release date, right? Only one Playbook planned, right? And the Galaxy Tab only has one, right? The Asus tablets are the only I can think of that have any diversity, but it?s not capacity diversity, but unique qualities to the OS type and/or casing for specific usage needs. At least the Asus tablets all have IPS panels. Go Asus!
Speaking of Asus, remember this quote from Asus chairman Jonney Shih last month?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...2&pageNumber=1
"We already know some of the details of that device, such as what kind of processor they chose. We very carefully chose our tablet processor, the Nvidia Tegra 2, and to really compete it will take [Apple] some time. You know, [Nvidia] is well known for graphics."
Seems he didn't know as much about the processor as he thought. The Tegra 2 bandwagon that every non-iPad tablet is on doesn't look so exciting now, does it?
I wish you and the other moderators would use that hammer with all trolls, not just those that happen to tick you off or wound your personal pride.
In other words, be consistent. It helps AI's credibility.
Yes I agree.
And what about the blatant racists., they get immunity.
You Americans only see coloured racism, but what about the other kind.
Some Finn doesn't like Russians and made nasty comments.
Why? This is a tech blog. I posted to this creep to watch itself, and it got even nastier.
I complained to the moderators but they replied it was okay and it was allowed to post as such. See double standards. What irks one person may not irk another.
I wish you and the other moderators would use that hammer with all trolls, not just those that happen to tick you off or wound your personal pride.
In other words, be consistent. It helps AI's credibility.
I couldn't agree more!
But I didn't even mention the hinge magnets; solipsism had me exactly right.
In any case, my own iPad 2 hasn't arrived yet, so I was just briefly using a friend's. His seemed a little awkward but generally firm. That could be a function of my grip at the time I was using it (left-handed, but I'm a righty) or just differences in magnet strengths. After all, some iPad's have the LCD bleed issue but most don't. If (as solipsism mentioned) the 'feature' is unintentional, then that would explain why it's highly variable (assuming it is).
Sorry friend, but you did. The hinge magnet is the same one holding it to the back. If that's not what you meant, then it wasn't clear. There is no other magnet holding it to the back. The magnets that hold it closed to the front have no effect when it's turned to the rear.
"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. "
Let's not forget that since you started buying Macs, the quality of ALL computers has increased significantly. Even since you got your iMac G5, Microsoft has released two new versions of Windows, with the latest one being extremely stable and easy to use.
And no great advance either. Even Ballmer announced it as being"Vista done right". Great campaign slogan.
Sorry friend, but you did. The hinge magnet is the same one holding it to the back. If that's not what you meant, then it wasn't clear. There is no other magnet holding it to the back. The magnets that hold it closed to the front have no effect when it's turned to the rear.
"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. "
In my leather case, when I flip the cover around the magnets at the distal end of the cover stick to the back at the posterior end just behind the volume buttons and mute switch. As previously stated, it’s not a good hold but it stays up fine providing I have some support on the two innermost medial segments of the cover.
Whether he is right or not, quoting financial analysts talking out of their ass isn't worth shit.
Except that reviewers are saying the same thing. And, more importantly, reviewers are techno geeks. It's what they do, and love. For them, a geeky UI is great. Look at what they said about the Palm Pre and WebOS. But WebOS is terrible for everyone else. It's too complex, and isn't obvious. What I've been reading about Honeycomb seems to be similar. Once you figure it out, it's fine. But the average person buying these things doesn't want to have to figure it out. Honeycomb is much more complex than Android.
A financial analyst is closer to the average person as far as geekiness goes. If he finds it to be confusing, then it's more likely the average person will as well.
And you're talking out of your ass as well, because I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that you haven't used it, or you would have said so. It's too late now to pretend you have.
I wish you and the other moderators would use that hammer with all trolls, not just those that happen to tick you off or wound your personal pride.
In other words, be consistent. It helps AI's credibility.
I try. I really do. But one post isn't a troll. It's stupid to try it with a mod though.
You make an excellent point. I think they've been making "retina" displays for a long time now. It all has to do with "yield". So they try to make 'retina' screens for the iPad... They only get one out of 10, per say. Bad yield right... no. They take what they can from that and put it in the iPhone or iPod touch.
They have been building them for a long time now. The so called 'rejects' end up in the phone or touch. It gets more complicated than that, but I believe they are building up supply. Who knows, by the time they release it, it may be a 9 out of 10 yield....
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What does a retina display for the iPad have to do with retina displays for the iPhone? There's nothing in common between the displays.
Yes I agree.
And what about the blatant racists., they get immunity.
You Americans only see coloured racism, but what about the other kind.
Some Finn doesn't like Russians and made nasty comments.
Why? This is a tech blog. I posted to this creep to watch itself, and it got even nastier.
I complained to the moderators but they replied it was okay and it was allowed to post as such. See double standards. What irks one person may not irk another.
I couldn't agree more!
It depends on the remark. Some are really bad, and others aren't. If I seen something that's bad, I'll remove it. But we don't have enough mods, and some things go unnoticed. Some people complain about very minor remarks as well. We can't remove something just because someone complains about it. It's a judgement call.
In my leather case, when I flip the cover around the magnets at the distal end of the cover stick to the back at the posterior end just behind the volume buttons and mute switch. As previously stated, it’s not a good hold but it stays up fine providing I have some support on the two innermost medial segments of the cover.
Not at all for the poly covers. There is just the slightest magnetic attraction from the metal from behind the screen, but there is no way that I can get it to stick even lightly.
I don't know what you mean by support. If it needs support to stick, then it isn't sticking.
I don't know what you mean by support. If it needs support to stick, then it isn't sticking.
I have to hold the iPad in some way, with my left or right hand. If I try to hold the iPad with a finger attempting to only allow the cover to stick to the back panel without any support (I.e.: a hand) it won?t hold. The full weight of the cover is too much for the magnet. However, if I hold it naturally with my right hand I?m then pressing it against the magnet which makes it a moot point. If I hold it with my left hand it will hold on the right side, providing I?m at least holding at least a tiny portion of the 2nd cover segment from the medial end. If I?m only holding one of the leather segments it will flip down as soon as I move it briskly.
I have to hold the iPad in some way, with my left or right hand. If I try to hold the iPad with a finger attempting to only allow the cover to stick to the back panel without any support (I.e.: a hand) it won?t hold. The full weight of the cover is too much for the magnet. However, if I hold it naturally with my right hand I?m then pressing it against the magnet which makes it a moot point. If I hold it with my left hand it will hold on the right side, providing I?m at least holding at least a tiny portion of the 2nd cover segment from the medial end. If I?m only holding one of the leather segments it will flip down as soon as I move it briskly.
Basically, it doesn't stick. That's what we're both saying. It has to be helped, which means it doesn't stick. I expect it to have a minor attraction when it's held vertically, and it does. But that's so weak, it won't stay if it's even moved the slightest. And it has to be bent around the edge to do even that. We're discussing something that's irrelevant, because it's so useless.
The cover seems best when used as a stand. For that, it's better than the old one, which I had to cut a bit off the edge so it would lean back a bit more when slid into the slot in the back.
I'm wondering if we'll see cases that will have the left edge cut out so that the cover can be used with them. Apple has stated that manufacturers are free to do whatever they wanted to do with the magnets in the iPad itself, so I suppose we'll see cases from others using them in some way. It should be very interesting to see what some others come up with. This offers even more possibilities than we had with the first model.
I'm going to put four clear vinyl feet, about 3/8 wide by about a 1/16 thick on the back of my iPad for now. I'm thinking about putting them slightly over the rounded portion of the back where it sits when in the typing mode, and cutting a small portion off the circle to square off that edge. This will at least keep it from touching a surface when the cover can't be rolled over the back, something that's a hazard anyway, as it may pick up small bits of sharp matter that could possibly scratch the screen.