That's backwards thinking that lacks vision and imagination. MS thought a tablet was simply a keyboard-less laptop. One that ran a marginally modified, stylus driven version of Windows, and one that was burdened with the same PC era expansion and media slots.
Apple re-invented the idea of a tablet by abandoning the windows metaphor and stylus input in favor of a completely new touch-based OS. Then they removed the expansion slot idea. Then they did away with the keyboard. All these bold decisions defined what Apple was doing, and all these concepts were absent in the wholly unoriginal and failed MS tablets... from yesteryear as well as the future!
<div class="price pricerange" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;text-align:center;vertical-align:baseline;">Well, here is CNet reviewing it in 2002 - they refer to it as a "tablet", and in a way that makes it sound like there were others to choose from... </div>
<p class="theBottomLine" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:10px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;text-align:left;vertical-align:baseline;"><strong style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:inherit;font-weight:bold;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;text-align:left;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(134,0,0);">The bottom line:</strong>
<span class="description" id="user_seodescription" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;text-align:left;vertical-align:baseline;">The TC1000 isn't the speediest tablet we've seen, but if you're after style and flexibility, it's a winner.</span>
</p>
Simmer down people. My post wasn't about semantics or the definition of the word tablet. I'm well aware that tablets have been around for decades. By calling the TC1000 a mere keyboard-less laptop doesn't negate that's it's technically a tablet. I don't care if it's defined as a tablet or not. My point, again is this:
Someone here insinuated that the TC1000 was basically an iPad years before the Apple tablet hit stores. It wasn't. The iPad is massively different and far more advanced and forward thinking. So I called him on his bullsh*t.
When all is said and done, Microsoft's tablet initiative was a bust. They worked very poorly. They were mostly used in warehouses and hospitals with programs written specially for the stylus which rarely required anything more than a signature, a sentence or two and mostly little boxes you could tap to check off items.
This is why Apple took so long. First, the processing power was too weak for a tablet. Microsoft tablets were really full fledged laptops, with most of them weighing between 3.5 to 6 pounds. Secondly, the battery life was too short. Windows wasn't properly accommodating to a stylus, and even Win 8 still isn't, referring to the Desktop.
That's because, by the very nature of their function, ALL tablet comupters share the same basic aesthetic, one primarily of a detached laptop display... and they likely always will.
Additionally: The primary reason for manufacturers not proving 'expansion' slots etc. to just to force consumers to buy higher capacity models at exorbitant prices, and very little else.
No, you miss the point of not having expansion slots. The point is to provide a simple to use, straightforward OS that does away with need for desktop-esque file management. The iPad just works. There's no remembering where you saved something, or the OS needing to keep track of where files were moved. And with the advent of the cloud, there is less and less need for local storage.
And by "manufacturers" you're primarily talking about Apple, as Android OEMs still continue to add useless ports and slots to pump up the feature spec list.
So basically this confirms that the iPhone and iPod Touch are small tablets and not the other way around what people have been saying that the iPad is just a blown up iPhone/iPod Touch..
AppleThink is always proven to be correct eventually.
What we're supposed to be talking about was your post claiming that the TC1000 somehow predated the iPad. It did not.
What?
FACT: The Hp TC1000 very much 'predated the iPad' given that the Hp TC1000) Tablet Computer was avaiable for purchase in 2002, and the Apple iPad wasn't even announced until 2010.
No, you miss the point of not having expansion slots. The point is to provide a simple to use, straightforward OS that does away with need for desktop-esque file management.
You're obviously ignorant as to how modern memory exspansion works in many of these mobile devices given that there's no need for any of what you mentioned, as all files etc. are completely integrated into to device's total file system.
Folk the whole table things is not new even before Newton Apple created a prototype table based on the Powerbook Duo if you remember them., They removed the keyboard and attached the display to where the keyboard and track ball was and it work with a pen, but your finger worked as well just not as smoothly as the pen or touch displays today.
It never saw the light of day, it was around for a while before the killed the idea when Newton came out.
As someone commented about how long it take for these to come to market, this is not unusually, I saw prototypes of the trackpad back in 1989 which worked just not real well and I also saw prototypes of the inkjet printers in 1990 it works but was very slow took minutes to print a plane page of text. Company who do not rush technology to market usually are very successful.
Think back on digital camera image quality around 2004. High quality output was very expensive, affordable not nearly so much.
The original images shown in the article were likely shot on film, either C41 process, or fast black and white, like Tri-X or Tmax-400.
I had a Nikon D100 in 2002 for $2000. I think Apple could have afforded one as well. It still takes fabulous 17 MB shots today. Regardless of what that image was shot with, it was either intentionally made grainy of accidentally but it has absolutely nothing to do with any limitation of equipment either film based or digital.
Posting up pictures of old Samsung photo frames and HP 'tablets' turned off without showing the operating systems running them does little to either make your point or gain you credibility.
And your claim begs the question:
If all these companies came up with the idea for an 'iPad' or 'iPhone' first, then why aren't they in the position where they own those markets now like Apple does?
The answer, is because these devices were nothing like the 'sum products' that Apple makes, hence you only being able to pick individual features one at a time across the entire range of them.
Comments
Fixed it for ya...
I think it is an old white MacBook with the keyboard ripped off!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ
Ummm, yeah. This was a prototype. That is why it looks like one. And even then, what windows tablet looked even close?
Hmmm... The HP TC1000 that I've owned since 2003?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
That actually existed? I'm pretty sure that was the minority. Most Windows tablets were of the "convertible" style.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeniThings
Bullsh*t.
The TC 1000 was a laptop running windows with a removable screen that could be driven via stylus. The iPad prototype was far more forward thinking.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well, here is CNet reviewing it in 2002 - they refer to it as a "tablet", and in a way that makes it sound like there were others to choose from...
------------------------------------------------------------
$450.14
Review Date:
11/05/02
3.5stars11 user reviewsAverage User Rating
The good: Flexible design; extremely small and light; excellent stylus; low base price.
The bad: Weak performance; dock costs extra.
The bottom line: The TC1000 isn't the speediest tablet we've seen, but if you're after style and flexibility, it's a winner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Hmmm... The HP TC1000 that I've owned since 2003?
Just one? I thought 3 each or bust.
Simmer down people. My post wasn't about semantics or the definition of the word tablet. I'm well aware that tablets have been around for decades. By calling the TC1000 a mere keyboard-less laptop doesn't negate that's it's technically a tablet. I don't care if it's defined as a tablet or not. My point, again is this:
Someone here insinuated that the TC1000 was basically an iPad years before the Apple tablet hit stores. It wasn't. The iPad is massively different and far more advanced and forward thinking. So I called him on his bullsh*t.
This is why Apple took so long. First, the processing power was too weak for a tablet. Microsoft tablets were really full fledged laptops, with most of them weighing between 3.5 to 6 pounds. Secondly, the battery life was too short. Windows wasn't properly accommodating to a stylus, and even Win 8 still isn't, referring to the Desktop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
That's because, by the very nature of their function, ALL tablet comupters share the same basic aesthetic, one primarily of a detached laptop display... and they likely always will.
Additionally: The primary reason for manufacturers not proving 'expansion' slots etc. to just to force consumers to buy higher capacity models at exorbitant prices, and very little else.
No, you miss the point of not having expansion slots. The point is to provide a simple to use, straightforward OS that does away with need for desktop-esque file management. The iPad just works. There's no remembering where you saved something, or the OS needing to keep track of where files were moved. And with the advent of the cloud, there is less and less need for local storage.
And by "manufacturers" you're primarily talking about Apple, as Android OEMs still continue to add useless ports and slots to pump up the feature spec list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
haha
Also relevant to the topic is this groundbreaking device which Apple started work on in 1987...
Not once did Apple tried to shoehorn its desktop OS into a released tablet-like product; not the MassagePad, not Newton, not Hi Fi Speaker...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150
So basically this confirms that the iPhone and iPod Touch are small tablets and not the other way around what people have been saying that the iPad is just a blown up iPhone/iPod Touch..
AppleThink is always proven to be correct eventually.
Stay Strong!
Steve Jobs was smart not to go too fast with this. Other companies would have taken this design and rushed to market.
I remember seeing this thing, briefly, back when I worked there. Here's a quick writeup of the big event :-)
http://www.digitalcomposting.com/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al
Steve Jobs was smart not to go too fast with this. Other companies would have taken this design and rushed to market.
Other companies did take their designs and rushed them to market. Motorola's XOOM and RIM's Playbook, and the stillborn Touchpad all come to mind.
I won't include the countless of chinese iPad knockoffs that couldn't even get a stock image of Android running right.
Is that an early version of the 30 pin connector in the upper photo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeniThings
The TC 1000 was a laptop running windows with a removable screen that could be driven via stylus. The iPad prototype was far more forward thinking.
Hmm... "MeniThings"... I seem to recall an animator with a name like that. Are you an animator?
What?
FACT: The Hp TC1000 very much 'predated the iPad' given that the Hp TC1000) Tablet Computer was avaiable for purchase in 2002, and the Apple iPad wasn't even announced until 2010.
You're obviously ignorant as to how modern memory exspansion works in many of these mobile devices given that there's no need for any of what you mentioned, as all files etc. are completely integrated into to device's total file system.
I'm sure someone will post a picture of their Galaxy Note and proclaim that Samsung was doing this years before Newton. It's that type of forum.
Folk the whole table things is not new even before Newton Apple created a prototype table based on the Powerbook Duo if you remember them., They removed the keyboard and attached the display to where the keyboard and track ball was and it work with a pen, but your finger worked as well just not as smoothly as the pen or touch displays today.
It never saw the light of day, it was around for a while before the killed the idea when Newton came out.
As someone commented about how long it take for these to come to market, this is not unusually, I saw prototypes of the trackpad back in 1989 which worked just not real well and I also saw prototypes of the inkjet printers in 1990 it works but was very slow took minutes to print a plane page of text. Company who do not rush technology to market usually are very successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
I'm sure someone will post a picture of their Galaxy Note and proclaim that Samsung was doing this years before Newton. It's that type of forum.
If you want to be utterly infuriated with Android fanboyism, troll posts and baiting, visit this thread on The Verge: http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/18/3167346/apple-order-samsung-copy-uk ;
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveH
Think back on digital camera image quality around 2004. High quality output was very expensive, affordable not nearly so much.
The original images shown in the article were likely shot on film, either C41 process, or fast black and white, like Tri-X or Tmax-400.
I had a Nikon D100 in 2002 for $2000. I think Apple could have afforded one as well. It still takes fabulous 17 MB shots today. Regardless of what that image was shot with, it was either intentionally made grainy of accidentally but it has absolutely nothing to do with any limitation of equipment either film based or digital.
Hmmm... The HP TC1000 that I've owned since 2003?
Posting up pictures of old Samsung photo frames and HP 'tablets' turned off without showing the operating systems running them does little to either make your point or gain you credibility.
And your claim begs the question:
If all these companies came up with the idea for an 'iPad' or 'iPhone' first, then why aren't they in the position where they own those markets now like Apple does?
The answer, is because these devices were nothing like the 'sum products' that Apple makes, hence you only being able to pick individual features one at a time across the entire range of them.