Have you bothered to look at those Apps? Might as well say the iPad is better than Photoshop for photo editing or Vegas/Premiere/Avid for video editing. They are nothing more than Android equivalents of iOS Apps like Snapseed or iMovie. It might seem impressive to do photo editing in your smartphone, but when compared to desktop software you quickly realize how lacking they are.
Feel I should elaborate about my previous comment: I don't want Apple to move to a cloud-software system. I won't buy the Pixel. I hate cloud systems. I want an Apple-branded, simple-stupid, own-cloud-at-home-solution for server-style stuff, and standard-classic software running onmy own computer in my own home .
NO YEARLY FEE, NO UNWANTED UPGRADES.
OFFICE 360, ADOBE CLOUD? GTFO.
That's where Apple's iCloud approach is better because it gives you the choice. You still run apps natively but your data is stored and synced in the cloud. But if you don't want to use the cloud you can just save to your HD as always.
So you get the ChromeBook with LTE. That 1TB will cost (over LTE) about $10/GB so read and write it 1 time (2TB of access) will be about $20,000.
If you are going to count the 1TB as a minus cost, I will count the cost of bandwidth toward the device.
Almost as though the person you quoted is responding to my post. I don't see half the comments on the forums as I use the "Block Member" option and reporting options rather copiously compared to many members apparently. Rest assured that if someone were reported in a thread that I was likely the person to have reported the person. I probably drive the moderators to insanity.
The article implied that Apple stopped advertising the retina MacBook Pro as its superlative due to the Chromebook, but images taken from the very page the article references prove that wrong.
You and matrix07 each posted of an image that says that the MBP was the highest and yet you seem to seem to say it wasn't. The reason for the change on Apple's part was that it's no longer the case that both are the highest -and- second-highest, it's now the highest and third-highest.
Why mention native client and ignore the things it can't do? Like communicate with hardware. Sure it's fast, but since it's a subset of x86 using benchmarks to say how fast it runs is pointless if it can't do everything you want.
I don't see many developers bothering to use Native Client. If you're going to go through all the trouble to write in C/C++, then why not write your entire App instead of splitting off portions to run Native and portions to run in the browser.
The article originally stated that they weren't pitching it as the "highest-resolution" anymore. The images taken directly from the site show otherwise, proving the original article wrong. Why anyone was confused in the slightest by that is beyond me.
So if it contains any software under its brand that is not wholly free per GNU, save for non-GNU kernels, you won't say its Linux even though it looks like Linux, works like Linux, acts like Linux, and does everything else a basic Linux distro does? Doesn't Red Hat Enterprise come with software that doesn't fall under GNU? Wouldn't that make it non-Linux in your eyes?
Just an example. ReHat is what I use for my servers. I am certainly not knowledgeable about Chrome OS or Android. I only mentioned the apparently odd configuration of Android as being very nonstandard in the sense of Davlik VM, if it can even be considered a distro of Linux. I have no interest in splitting hairs. If it has all the same features and utilities normally found in Linux then I suppose it is Linux. I really don't give a **** about Android or Chrome.
The article originally stated that they weren't pitching it as the "highest-resolution" anymore. The images taken directly from the site show otherwise, proving the original article wrong. Why anyone was confused in the slightest by that is beyond me.
The article originally stated, and I quote directly from Matrix07's post that he quoted…
Apple, never shy in touting the specifications of its devices when they are at the top of industry offerings, used to market its 13- and 15-inch Retina MacBook Pros as "The highest-resolution notebook ever. And the second-highest." That's no longer the case, though, and the product page for the Retina MacBooks has changed to reflect that.
As it says, it's no longer the case that it's the highest and second-highest resolution but you two seem to be saying that AI's comment that it's no longer the case is somehow incorrect when it's clearly no loner the case as it's now the highest and third-highest resolution.
Just an example. ReHat is what I use for my servers. I am certainly not knowledgeable about Chrome OS or Android. I only mentioned the apparently odd configuration of Android as being very nonstandard in the sense of Davlik VM, if it can even be considered a distro of Linux. I have no interest in splitting hairs. If it has all the same features and utilities normally found in Linux then I suppose it is Linux. I really don't give a **** about Android or Chrome.
I would never call it Linux the way I refer to Red hat and Ubuntu as Linux because it's clearly forked but it's still based on Linux. Same goes for not saying the Kindle FIre OS is Android but it's based on Android which is based on Linux. If you fork it so that you no longer fall under the purview of a particular license you lose that aspect of it but to deny it its roots seems disingenuous to me.
Just an example. Red Hat is what I use for my servers. I am certainly not knowledgeable about Chrome OS or Android. I only mentioned the apparently odd configuration of Android as being very nonstandard in the sense of Davlik VM, if it can even be considered a distro of Linux. I have no interest in splitting hairs. If it has all the same features and utilities normally found in Linux then I suppose it is Linux. I really don't give a **** about Android or Chrome.
I would never call it Linux the way I refer to Red hat and Ubuntu as Linux because it's clearly forked but it's still based on Linux. Same goes for not saying the Kindle FIre OS is Android but it's based on Android which is based on Linux. If you fork it so that you no longer fall under the purview of a particular license you lose that aspect of it but to deny it its roots seems disingenuous to me.
Might I suggest this as a reference of Linux distributions:
Sure, but neither is Chrome OS for the same reasons Android isn't included. Chromium is Google's open-source version of Chrome OS. I think only the kernel in Linux and Chrome are under GNU. That doesn't mean they aren't built off Linux, have full access to the shell, and in no way did I call Android or Chrome a Linux distro.
And I'm not sure why you'd post this link for me to look at. What did I say was a Linux distro that isn't in that list? Kindle Fire? Surely not.
Actually nobody seems to have noticed that there is already a number of ways to boot the Google Pixel into Android and Ubuntu. It is probably not going to take too much time for the Linux developers to implement a simple installation process to put full linux on the Pixel. Things like that do seem to attract the linux hackers.
Somebody please explain this bullshit will you? We were all told that the Retina display resolution was higher than the human eye can detect. Now we have a new spec war going on about pixels and resolution.If these resolutions are higher than the human eye can perceive then what on earth are we arguing about? Is this the same argument we hear from the audiophiles and videophiles about how THEY can hear and see the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps encoding, or the difference between 1080P and 4K? Is this all marketing bullshit? Were we lied to? Is Apple doomed? What? Please tell me! I'm tired of this crap.
Somebody please explain this bullshit will you? We were all told that the Retina display resolution was higher than the human eye can detect. Now we have a new spec war going on about pixels and resolution.If these resolutions are higher than the human eye can perceive then what on earth are we arguing about? Is this the same argument we hear from the audiophiles and videophiles about how THEY can hear and see the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps encoding, or the difference between 1080P and 4K? Is this all marketing bullshit? Were we lied to? Is Apple doomed? What? Please tell me! I'm tired of this crap.
You weren't lied to, you need to look past marketing designed to make a simplistic statement with the actual science. The original Retina designation in the iPhone 4 was 326 PPI with Steve Jobs says that about 300 PPI was the limit of the human eye for (for holding the device 10-12" away from the eyes and having 20/20(6/6) vision). That all true.
The RMBPs are around 220 PPI and the iPad 3/4 are 264 PPI. They are all still Retina-grade because you can say one reasonably holds them farther from the face. As for choosing 20/20, that's just common for claiming one has perfect vision but there is no such thing as perfect vision defined as the best vision a human can possibly have.
Apple claiming that it's Retina is a trademarked term that suggests that nearly all customers who use it a normal distance from their face will not be able to discern pixels. That's also true.
They put out video guides on how to do things like how to backup a Chromebook, how to setup a Chromebook but the latest ad is the most honest:
Second place in resolution to a Macbook Pro and second place in usefulness to a potato.
Wrong. In particular, if you really want, you can install linux on your chromebook, which makes it a very nice development box (and yes, ChromeOS stays on it).
GNU has nothing to do with any kernel as far as I know.
Sure it does. You can license the kernel differently than other parts of the OS. Android lists the kernel as being under the GNU GPL and the rest being Apache license.
Somebody please explain this bullshit will you? We were all told that the Retina display resolution was higher than the human eye can detect. Now we have a new spec war going on about pixels and resolution.If these resolutions are higher than the human eye can perceive then what on earth are we arguing about? Is this the same argument we hear from the audiophiles and videophiles about how THEY can hear and see the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps encoding, or the difference between 1080P and 4K? Is this all marketing bullshit? Were we lied to? Is Apple doomed? What? Please tell me! I'm tired of this crap.
Don't worry; everything is going to be all right.
Apple is, has been, and will always be doomed, so no matter how confusing the swirl of information around you is, you can always take comfort in that fact.
I consider audio to be a similar, but different, argument here. I can hear the difference between various encoding levels, and so I keep my music ALAC. *shrug* Some people can't.
As for video, it's all about distance. You can see a difference in 480 and 1080 just as you can see a difference in 1080 and 4K or SHV. But on a 4" screen at 20", the difference between the three of them becomes less noticeable (to say the least).
Here's the important takeaway: If at a given distance the pixel is equal to or smaller than the size resolvable by the human eye, no greater pixel density is necessary, as no greater quality can possibly be perceived.
Wrong. In particular, if you really want, you can install linux on your chromebook, which makes it a very nice development box (and yes, ChromeOS stays on it).
If you're going to make a Linux dev box the Chromebook seems like an expensive and foolish way to do it unless you're Montgomery Brewster.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
It looks like you're incorrect. You can do photo-editing and video creation on a Chromebook. Yeah it surprises me too!
http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/business/devices/features-learnmore.html#create
Edit: .... and there's a LOT more off-line applications than I would have expected.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/collection/offline_enabled
Have you bothered to look at those Apps? Might as well say the iPad is better than Photoshop for photo editing or Vegas/Premiere/Avid for video editing. They are nothing more than Android equivalents of iOS Apps like Snapseed or iMovie. It might seem impressive to do photo editing in your smartphone, but when compared to desktop software you quickly realize how lacking they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
Feel I should elaborate about my previous comment: I don't want Apple to move to a cloud-software system. I won't buy the Pixel. I hate cloud systems. I want an Apple-branded, simple-stupid, own-cloud-at-home-solution for server-style stuff, and standard-classic software running onmy own computer in my own home .
NO YEARLY FEE, NO UNWANTED UPGRADES.
OFFICE 360, ADOBE CLOUD? GTFO.
That's where Apple's iCloud approach is better because it gives you the choice. You still run apps natively but your data is stored and synced in the cloud. But if you don't want to use the cloud you can just save to your HD as always.
Almost as though the person you quoted is responding to my post. I don't see half the comments on the forums as I use the "Block Member" option and reporting options rather copiously compared to many members apparently. Rest assured that if someone were reported in a thread that I was likely the person to have reported the person. I probably drive the moderators to insanity.
You and matrix07 each posted of an image that says that the MBP was the highest and yet you seem to seem to say it wasn't. The reason for the change on Apple's part was that it's no longer the case that both are the highest -and- second-highest, it's now the highest and third-highest.
But I thought it was never about specs. More about "experiences" and "ease of use"?
Isnt specs "not important"?
Is it that argument used for convenience sake?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234
There is also Google Native Client
It can also be used to create 3D apps using OpenGL ES
Why mention native client and ignore the things it can't do? Like communicate with hardware. Sure it's fast, but since it's a subset of x86 using benchmarks to say how fast it runs is pointless if it can't do everything you want.
I don't see many developers bothering to use Native Client. If you're going to go through all the trouble to write in C/C++, then why not write your entire App instead of splitting off portions to run Native and portions to run in the browser.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
…and yet you seem to seem to say it wasn't.
I really don't understand what you're saying.
The article originally stated that they weren't pitching it as the "highest-resolution" anymore. The images taken directly from the site show otherwise, proving the original article wrong. Why anyone was confused in the slightest by that is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
GNU
So if it contains any software under its brand that is not wholly free per GNU, save for non-GNU kernels, you won't say its Linux even though it looks like Linux, works like Linux, acts like Linux, and does everything else a basic Linux distro does? Doesn't Red Hat Enterprise come with software that doesn't fall under GNU? Wouldn't that make it non-Linux in your eyes?
Just an example. ReHat is what I use for my servers. I am certainly not knowledgeable about Chrome OS or Android. I only mentioned the apparently odd configuration of Android as being very nonstandard in the sense of Davlik VM, if it can even be considered a distro of Linux. I have no interest in splitting hairs. If it has all the same features and utilities normally found in Linux then I suppose it is Linux. I really don't give a **** about Android or Chrome.
The article originally stated, and I quote directly from Matrix07's post that he quoted…
As it says, it's no longer the case that it's the highest and second-highest resolution but you two seem to be saying that AI's comment that it's no longer the case is somehow incorrect when it's clearly no loner the case as it's now the highest and third-highest resolution.
I would never call it Linux the way I refer to Red hat and Ubuntu as Linux because it's clearly forked but it's still based on Linux. Same goes for not saying the Kindle FIre OS is Android but it's based on Android which is based on Linux. If you fork it so that you no longer fall under the purview of a particular license you lose that aspect of it but to deny it its roots seems disingenuous to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Just an example. Red Hat is what I use for my servers. I am certainly not knowledgeable about Chrome OS or Android. I only mentioned the apparently odd configuration of Android as being very nonstandard in the sense of Davlik VM, if it can even be considered a distro of Linux. I have no interest in splitting hairs. If it has all the same features and utilities normally found in Linux then I suppose it is Linux. I really don't give a **** about Android or Chrome.
I would never call it Linux the way I refer to Red hat and Ubuntu as Linux because it's clearly forked but it's still based on Linux. Same goes for not saying the Kindle FIre OS is Android but it's based on Android which is based on Linux. If you fork it so that you no longer fall under the purview of a particular license you lose that aspect of it but to deny it its roots seems disingenuous to me.
Might I suggest this as a reference of Linux distributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions
Chromium is included. Android is not.
Sure, but neither is Chrome OS for the same reasons Android isn't included. Chromium is Google's open-source version of Chrome OS. I think only the kernel in Linux and Chrome are under GNU. That doesn't mean they aren't built off Linux, have full access to the shell, and in no way did I call Android or Chrome a Linux distro.
And I'm not sure why you'd post this link for me to look at. What did I say was a Linux distro that isn't in that list? Kindle Fire? Surely not.
Actually nobody seems to have noticed that there is already a number of ways to boot the Google Pixel into Android and Ubuntu. It is probably not going to take too much time for the Linux developers to implement a simple installation process to put full linux on the Pixel. Things like that do seem to attract the linux hackers.
Somebody please explain this bullshit will you? We were all told that the Retina display resolution was higher than the human eye can detect. Now we have a new spec war going on about pixels and resolution.If these resolutions are higher than the human eye can perceive then what on earth are we arguing about? Is this the same argument we hear from the audiophiles and videophiles about how THEY can hear and see the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps encoding, or the difference between 1080P and 4K? Is this all marketing bullshit? Were we lied to? Is Apple doomed? What? Please tell me! I'm tired of this crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I might suggest this as a reference of Linux distributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions
Chromium is included. Android is not.
I think only the kernel in Linux and Chrome are under GNU.
GNU has nothing to do with any kernel as far as I know.
You weren't lied to, you need to look past marketing designed to make a simplistic statement with the actual science. The original Retina designation in the iPhone 4 was 326 PPI with Steve Jobs says that about 300 PPI was the limit of the human eye for (for holding the device 10-12" away from the eyes and having 20/20(6/6) vision). That all true.
The RMBPs are around 220 PPI and the iPad 3/4 are 264 PPI. They are all still Retina-grade because you can say one reasonably holds them farther from the face. As for choosing 20/20, that's just common for claiming one has perfect vision but there is no such thing as perfect vision defined as the best vision a human can possibly have.
Apple claiming that it's Retina is a trademarked term that suggests that nearly all customers who use it a normal distance from their face will not be able to discern pixels. That's also true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They put out video guides on how to do things like how to backup a Chromebook, how to setup a Chromebook but the latest ad is the most honest:
Second place in resolution to a Macbook Pro and second place in usefulness to a potato.
Wrong. In particular, if you really want, you can install linux on your chromebook, which makes it a very nice development box (and yes, ChromeOS stays on it).
Sure it does. You can license the kernel differently than other parts of the OS. Android lists the kernel as being under the GNU GPL and the rest being Apache license.
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Somebody please explain this bullshit will you? We were all told that the Retina display resolution was higher than the human eye can detect. Now we have a new spec war going on about pixels and resolution.If these resolutions are higher than the human eye can perceive then what on earth are we arguing about? Is this the same argument we hear from the audiophiles and videophiles about how THEY can hear and see the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps encoding, or the difference between 1080P and 4K? Is this all marketing bullshit? Were we lied to? Is Apple doomed? What? Please tell me! I'm tired of this crap.
Don't worry; everything is going to be all right.
Apple is, has been, and will always be doomed, so no matter how confusing the swirl of information around you is, you can always take comfort in that fact.
I consider audio to be a similar, but different, argument here. I can hear the difference between various encoding levels, and so I keep my music ALAC. *shrug* Some people can't.
As for video, it's all about distance. You can see a difference in 480 and 1080 just as you can see a difference in 1080 and 4K or SHV. But on a 4" screen at 20", the difference between the three of them becomes less noticeable (to say the least).
Here's the important takeaway: If at a given distance the pixel is equal to or smaller than the size resolvable by the human eye, no greater pixel density is necessary, as no greater quality can possibly be perceived.
If you're going to make a Linux dev box the Chromebook seems like an expensive and foolish way to do it unless you're Montgomery Brewster.