Amazing how many people show up here with some sort of duty to correct what they feel are misstatements about other companies. As if AI was Wikipedia or an encyclopedia. Of course they're rarely seen on Apple threads that don't mention the competition.
What's even more amazing is the number of people who spend so many hours here bashing a product that they don't use and often have no experience with.
I've explained this before:
It's not uncommon for people to gather on fan sites to discuss a product that they like and use. It's normal human behavior to want to associate with people who are like you and who have similar interests.
It's not even that unusual or abnormal for people who have used a product and been disappointed to go to the sites dedicated to that product to complain about it. Again, normal human behavior.
What is strange about this whole thing is that people like you who don't use a product and often don't know anything about it go to a site to simply troll and bad-mouth the product. There are a number of Apple-haters here who proudly state that they'd never buy an Apple product and have no use for them. Yet they spend countless hours here spreading FUD and making fun of the people who like Apple products. It was common in the 90s (Macs vs Windows) and is common today (Macs vs Android). You do occasionally see it in car forums, but not as often (you will, occasionally, for example, see a Ferrari fan posting that Corvettes are junk, but it's not that common).
THAT is completely abnormal. I believe it's a variety of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. You have a group of people who have made one choice and can't tolerate the fact that someone else made a different choice, so they belittle them and spread FUD and simply muddy the waters. It's as if they can't psychologically deal with the fact that other people might make a different choice, so therefore anyone who makes a different choice than them must be wrong. Not just wrong, but evil.
I think this phenomenon would actually make an interesting psychological research project, but am pretty confident that the research would support what I've just said.
THAT is completely abnormal. I believe it's a variety of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. You have a group of people who have made one choice and can't tolerate the fact that someone else made a different choice, so they belittle them and spread FUD and simply muddy the waters. It's as if they can't psychologically deal with the fact that other people might make a different choice, so therefore anyone who makes a different choice than them must be wrong. Not just wrong, but evil.
I think this phenomenon would actually make an interesting psychological research project, but am pretty confident that the research would support what I've just said.
I would defer to you as an expert on NPD. I would imagine some doctor took whatever time was needed to explain it to you and the treatments that are available.
I would defer to you as an expert on NPD. I would imagine some doctor took whatever time was needed to explain it to you and the treatments that are available. <img alt="1rolleyes.gif" id="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1369398725704_1910" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1rolleyes.gif" style="line-height:1.231;" name="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1369398725704_1910">
Yes, we already know that there's NO topic that you know anything about, so I'm sure it amazes you when someone is knowledgable about something.
And, no, I don't have NPD, but know several people who do - and there's a striking resemblance to some of the more strident trolls here.
1) what the hell are you talking about here? Are you saying Safari is using a different "GUI" or compositingengine?
2) what the hell are you talking about again... fonts have a fixed pixel matrix pal and devs use webfonts with @font-face HTML5 feature enabled 90% of the time and CSS @media selectors for pages rendered to iOS devices
3) pathetic attempt to sound like you know WTF you're talking about but clearly you show as an average luser machead with no technical knowledge what so ever.
1) Reading is fundamental. The user interface for the Safari app is rendered at the device-native resolution - so no loss of screen "real-estate" there. The web rendering engine is a separate issue altogether, and is only relevant to the content being rendered - you don't say that you lose "screen real-estate" when your HD tv is displaying a standard-definition video source scaled up to the the display's full size, do you?
2) Fonts only have a fixed pixel matrix if they're bitmapped fonts - which on the web in the year 2013 is very, very, very few. @font-face usage (or lack thereof) is irrelevant, not to mention that a user agent (i.o.w. the browser) is at liberty to adjust any aspect of the actual font rendering to [ostensibly] suit the display it's rendered to, regardless of what the CSS hints/suggests, which for Safari on iOS means fonts always get rendered at device-native resolutions. Also, if a page specifies alternate layouts for a different device, then a comparison of that content is meaningless and your argument is meritless (as they're effectively different sets of rendering instructions). Compare a page that only has a single layout for the two devices and tell us what you see (hint: the device with more pixels will render more of the page - i.o.w. more "real-estate").
3) Yeah, that whole "luser machead" comment really validates your statements and demonstrates how technically savvy you are. Well played. Let me try:
I sense a disturbance in the force ... the fail is strong with this one.
"Does the same as Office does as well" - Seriously? Does pages now have smart art? Does numbers have flashfill and macros? Can you build an entire application on numbers?
I think you mean does the same as Office does as well, assuming you are a 14 year old child doing some homework and just want to change the font and spell check.
Because everyone uses macros and build excel apps. If you ask 100 people on the street, I bet you the vast majority don't use Excel macros or know what they are.
One detail Microsoft doesn't mention: the current iPad has sported a Retina Display with a resolution of 2048 by 1536 for years now, while the new Asus Windows tablet has an "HD" resolution of just 1366 x768, more comparable to the original iPad from three years ago.
...
"..for years now" ... Don't you mean for a year now??
You're right the actual usable space is smaller with Windows full 8 on it and a backup partition - which ipad doesn't have.
So what they did was just compare hardware used - regardless of space used features.
I went to www.windows.com/compare and captured the image of the 2 tablets. I captured the image of the 2 tablets in this article. I adjusted the scale of the smaller to fit the larger. They are identical. Got anything else to jabber about?
The disclaimer at the bottom says the images are not to scale. If there was text saying "actual size for comparison", then you guys would have something to gripe about.
Yes, at the bottom, THREE pages down (on my screen anyway). There is something to gripe about; hardly anyone would see that.
And why NOT have them represented to scale? Answer: Because it would tend to not support Microsoft's claims.
Because people can read emails and watch videos on the same screen at the same time. What, your left eye is reading the email an your right eye is watching the video? MS could have come up with a better/more realistic mutitask there.
This illustrates that Microsoft is still stuck in the corporate use-case realm...
* At work, I use multiple open windows at work to view emails or notes so that I can refer to them when, say, monkeying around in vSphere or an SSH session in another window.
* At home, I really don't give a crap - unless I'm working on some sort of coding or CG project, I usually full-screen whatever it is that's occupying my eyeballs at the moment. Hell, if I'm watching a movie, I definitely have that full-screened.
That sort-of explains why the Microsofties are all foamy about multi-screen bits.
Mind you, I'm talking laptop usage in my above example. Tablets? No frickin' way I'd bother with multiple windows.
Speaking of truth in advertising, I think you should have named your account "badtroll" instead… I mean c'mon.
How about an actual rebuttal with a little maturity? Have you worked in advertising? Any experience in how fast these things are put together and rushed in front of the consumer? Look at the first Siri commercial. Would you call that lying, or just advertising?
And by the way, in the US, there is very little to truth in advertising... We can call products "Industrial Strength", when they are not used by any industry but in consumers households. Tools can be labeled "Professional", or "Heavy Duty", when they are far from. The product can have "Carbon" in its name and a carbon fiber pattern printed on it,, when it is not made out of carbon fiber. Unless it specifically states that it has something that it doesn't, there's no lie. Since there are no standards for what really makes something industrial strength, but yet can be sold to the public in local stores, to anyone, it can be called that. No standard for what actually makes a tool professional or heavy duty, it can be called that. And having a name including carbon, does not mean it is made out of a carbon composite, so it can be named that.
And in this instance, no where does it state the images are to scale So assuming so is just consumer stupidity or blind patriotism to another product, rushing in to defend it over the stupidest thing and making a scandal out of nothing. If you go to the link, you'd see by clicking through every one of the comparison products, that 3 of the 4 were scaled up to the same size, while each one being a different length x width total dimensions. If you think that they are misleading you by making 3 products the same size, and the forth, being actually the largest (the HP), into the smallest, then you really need to set your pad down, walk outside, and take a deep breath and chill out.
Wow! Ignorance must be bliss! Since when, when you say mine is 10.1 and yours is only 9.7, with no footnote indicated, not a size comparison? The heading clearly says "display size" and clearly gives a number that is bigger. It does not take a genius to figure out how purposefully misleading this is when in fact the "display size" is significantly SMALLER. This has nothing to do with the footnote at the bottom that says images are not to scale. And by the way, why would you not give them to scale when your heading is "compare tablets" and you've indicated that size is one of the criteria?
The images are just a visualization. If it was to be to scale, then the other manufacturers should be mad as well, since the HP is displayed as the smallest of the bunch, and the Surface is displayed to not have the larger screen compared to the Asus or the Dell. Giving the diagonal dimension is not lying. That is how both 4:3 and 16:9 displays are measured. You think there's a giant conspiracy when that's how you measure both screens? And I don't know how much you brain can comprehend, but how is 3.5% "significantly SMALLER"? Exaggerate much? Each ratio has its advantages for certain tasks. Viewing web pages is more convenient on a 4:3, as you get more comfortable paragraph spacing and sizing. And so is gaming, since many touch based games are now designed to that ratio.. But something like an instrument simulator (like the piano keys, or guitar tabs) or HD movie will be larger on the 16:9. Or viewing two programs split screen work better on 16:9. Maybe because the numbers and screen ratios confused you, that you assume it is false advertising and they must somehow pay when there would be no legal grounds to claim such. Seriously, when I see a real case of false advertising, I will agree with it. But in this case, you are crying for no comprehendible reason other than to defend what you use.
The images are just a visualization. If it was to be to scale, then the other manufacturers should be mad as well, since the HP is displayed as the smallest of the bunch, and the Surface is displayed to not have the larger screen compared to the Asus or the Dell. Giving the diagonal dimension is not lying. That is how both 4:3 and 16:9 displays are measured. You think there's a giant conspiracy when that's how you measure both screens? And I don't know how much you brain can comprehend, but how is 3.5% "significantly SMALLER"? Exaggerate much? Each ratio has its advantages for certain tasks. Viewing web pages is more convenient on a 4:3, as you get more comfortable paragraph spacing and sizing. And so is gaming, since many touch based games are now designed to that ratio.. But something like an instrument simulator (like the piano keys, or guitar tabs) or HD movie will be larger on the 16:9. Or viewing two programs split screen work better on 16:9. Maybe because the numbers and screen ratios confused you, that you assume it is false advertising and they must somehow pay when there would be no legal grounds to claim such. Seriously, when I see a real case of false advertising, I will agree with it. But in this case, you are crying for no comprehendible reason other than to defend what you use.
Images are one thing, but they actually said that the iPad screen was smaller - which is false.
3. MS says that iPad will only do one thing at a time. Clearly false.
It won't be long before Apple's lawyers go after them.
Not so much false as using a questionable definition. They consider 'two or more things at the same time' as 'having windows do two or more apps open on the screen at the same time' just like they considered 'creating on a tablet' or 'using a tablet for business' as 'running Microsoft Office on a tablet'
Not so much false as using a questionable definition. They consider 'two or more things at the same time' as 'having windows do two or more apps open on the screen at the same time' just like they considered 'creating on a tablet' or 'using a tablet for business' as 'running Microsoft Office on a tablet'
We techies dissect these things too much.
I think almost all normal viewers would understand the ad as meaning that the USER can do more than one thing at the same time.
It's the whole point of having multiple windows on the screen, after all. Every computer user these days understands the concept, and the ad was showing two user activities at the same time, which pretty much makes it obvious what they were talking about.
Because people can read emails and watch videos on the same screen at the same time. What, your left eye is reading the email an your right eye is watching the video? MS could have come up with a better/more realistic mutitask there.
They wanted to the point and interesting, yes in a Samsung add running a PowerPoint and a notes app made more sense.
Comments
What's even more amazing is the number of people who spend so many hours here bashing a product that they don't use and often have no experience with.
I've explained this before:
It's not uncommon for people to gather on fan sites to discuss a product that they like and use. It's normal human behavior to want to associate with people who are like you and who have similar interests.
It's not even that unusual or abnormal for people who have used a product and been disappointed to go to the sites dedicated to that product to complain about it. Again, normal human behavior.
What is strange about this whole thing is that people like you who don't use a product and often don't know anything about it go to a site to simply troll and bad-mouth the product. There are a number of Apple-haters here who proudly state that they'd never buy an Apple product and have no use for them. Yet they spend countless hours here spreading FUD and making fun of the people who like Apple products. It was common in the 90s (Macs vs Windows) and is common today (Macs vs Android). You do occasionally see it in car forums, but not as often (you will, occasionally, for example, see a Ferrari fan posting that Corvettes are junk, but it's not that common).
THAT is completely abnormal. I believe it's a variety of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. You have a group of people who have made one choice and can't tolerate the fact that someone else made a different choice, so they belittle them and spread FUD and simply muddy the waters. It's as if they can't psychologically deal with the fact that other people might make a different choice, so therefore anyone who makes a different choice than them must be wrong. Not just wrong, but evil.
I think this phenomenon would actually make an interesting psychological research project, but am pretty confident that the research would support what I've just said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
THAT is completely abnormal. I believe it's a variety of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. You have a group of people who have made one choice and can't tolerate the fact that someone else made a different choice, so they belittle them and spread FUD and simply muddy the waters. It's as if they can't psychologically deal with the fact that other people might make a different choice, so therefore anyone who makes a different choice than them must be wrong. Not just wrong, but evil.
I think this phenomenon would actually make an interesting psychological research project, but am pretty confident that the research would support what I've just said.
I would defer to you as an expert on NPD. I would imagine some doctor took whatever time was needed to explain it to you and the treatments that are available.
Yes, we already know that there's NO topic that you know anything about, so I'm sure it amazes you when someone is knowledgable about something.
And, no, I don't have NPD, but know several people who do - and there's a striking resemblance to some of the more strident trolls here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiroPro
1) what the hell are you talking about here? Are you saying Safari is using a different "GUI" or compositing engine?
2) what the hell are you talking about again... fonts have a fixed pixel matrix pal and devs use webfonts with @font-face HTML5 feature enabled 90% of the time and CSS @media selectors for pages rendered to iOS devices
3) pathetic attempt to sound like you know WTF you're talking about but clearly you show as an average luser machead with no technical knowledge what so ever.
1) Reading is fundamental. The user interface for the Safari app is rendered at the device-native resolution - so no loss of screen "real-estate" there. The web rendering engine is a separate issue altogether, and is only relevant to the content being rendered - you don't say that you lose "screen real-estate" when your HD tv is displaying a standard-definition video source scaled up to the the display's full size, do you?
2) Fonts only have a fixed pixel matrix if they're bitmapped fonts - which on the web in the year 2013 is very, very, very few. @font-face usage (or lack thereof) is irrelevant, not to mention that a user agent (i.o.w. the browser) is at liberty to adjust any aspect of the actual font rendering to [ostensibly] suit the display it's rendered to, regardless of what the CSS hints/suggests, which for Safari on iOS means fonts always get rendered at device-native resolutions. Also, if a page specifies alternate layouts for a different device, then a comparison of that content is meaningless and your argument is meritless (as they're effectively different sets of rendering instructions). Compare a page that only has a single layout for the two devices and tell us what you see (hint: the device with more pixels will render more of the page - i.o.w. more "real-estate").
3) Yeah, that whole "luser machead" comment really validates your statements and demonstrates how technically savvy you are. Well played.
I sense a disturbance in the force ... the fail is strong with this one.
Because everyone uses macros and build excel apps. If you ask 100 people on the street, I bet you the vast majority don't use Excel macros or know what they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
...
One detail Microsoft doesn't mention: the current iPad has sported a Retina Display with a resolution of 2048 by 1536 for years now, while the new Asus Windows tablet has an "HD" resolution of just 1366 x768, more comparable to the original iPad from three years ago.
...
"..for years now" ... Don't you mean for a year now??
Quote:
Originally Posted by jabberwolf
Um the only one lying is the one who wrote this article.
They cropped the picture to make the Asus look bigger
and then complain about it.
The actual video is real to size :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86JMcy5OqZA
You're right the actual usable space is smaller with Windows full 8 on it and a backup partition - which ipad doesn't have.
So what they did was just compare hardware used - regardless of space used features.
I went to www.windows.com/compare and captured the image of the 2 tablets. I captured the image of the 2 tablets in this article. I adjusted the scale of the smaller to fit the larger. They are identical. Got anything else to jabber about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbullet
The disclaimer at the bottom says the images are not to scale. If there was text saying "actual size for comparison", then you guys would have something to gripe about.
Yes, at the bottom, THREE pages down (on my screen anyway). There is something to gripe about; hardly anyone would see that.
And why NOT have them represented to scale? Answer: Because it would tend to not support Microsoft's claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Because people can read emails and watch videos on the same screen at the same time. What, your left eye is reading the email an your right eye is watching the video? MS could have come up with a better/more realistic mutitask there.
This illustrates that Microsoft is still stuck in the corporate use-case realm...
* At work, I use multiple open windows at work to view emails or notes so that I can refer to them when, say, monkeying around in vSphere or an SSH session in another window.
* At home, I really don't give a crap - unless I'm working on some sort of coding or CG project, I usually full-screen whatever it is that's occupying my eyeballs at the moment. Hell, if I'm watching a movie, I definitely have that full-screened.
That sort-of explains why the Microsofties are all foamy about multi-screen bits.
Mind you, I'm talking laptop usage in my above example. Tablets? No frickin' way I'd bother with multiple windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
Wow. Rationalize much?
Speaking of truth in advertising, I think you should have named your account "badtroll" instead… I mean c'mon.
How about an actual rebuttal with a little maturity? Have you worked in advertising? Any experience in how fast these things are put together and rushed in front of the consumer? Look at the first Siri commercial. Would you call that lying, or just advertising?
And by the way, in the US, there is very little to truth in advertising... We can call products "Industrial Strength", when they are not used by any industry but in consumers households. Tools can be labeled "Professional", or "Heavy Duty", when they are far from. The product can have "Carbon" in its name and a carbon fiber pattern printed on it,, when it is not made out of carbon fiber. Unless it specifically states that it has something that it doesn't, there's no lie. Since there are no standards for what really makes something industrial strength, but yet can be sold to the public in local stores, to anyone, it can be called that. No standard for what actually makes a tool professional or heavy duty, it can be called that. And having a name including carbon, does not mean it is made out of a carbon composite, so it can be named that.
And in this instance, no where does it state the images are to scale So assuming so is just consumer stupidity or blind patriotism to another product, rushing in to defend it over the stupidest thing and making a scandal out of nothing. If you go to the link, you'd see by clicking through every one of the comparison products, that 3 of the 4 were scaled up to the same size, while each one being a different length x width total dimensions. If you think that they are misleading you by making 3 products the same size, and the forth, being actually the largest (the HP), into the smallest, then you really need to set your pad down, walk outside, and take a deep breath and chill out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
Wow! Ignorance must be bliss! Since when, when you say mine is 10.1 and yours is only 9.7, with no footnote indicated, not a size comparison? The heading clearly says "display size" and clearly gives a number that is bigger. It does not take a genius to figure out how purposefully misleading this is when in fact the "display size" is significantly SMALLER. This has nothing to do with the footnote at the bottom that says images are not to scale. And by the way, why would you not give them to scale when your heading is "compare tablets" and you've indicated that size is one of the criteria?
The images are just a visualization. If it was to be to scale, then the other manufacturers should be mad as well, since the HP is displayed as the smallest of the bunch, and the Surface is displayed to not have the larger screen compared to the Asus or the Dell. Giving the diagonal dimension is not lying. That is how both 4:3 and 16:9 displays are measured. You think there's a giant conspiracy when that's how you measure both screens? And I don't know how much you brain can comprehend, but how is 3.5% "significantly SMALLER"? Exaggerate much? Each ratio has its advantages for certain tasks. Viewing web pages is more convenient on a 4:3, as you get more comfortable paragraph spacing and sizing. And so is gaming, since many touch based games are now designed to that ratio.. But something like an instrument simulator (like the piano keys, or guitar tabs) or HD movie will be larger on the 16:9. Or viewing two programs split screen work better on 16:9. Maybe because the numbers and screen ratios confused you, that you assume it is false advertising and they must somehow pay when there would be no legal grounds to claim such. Seriously, when I see a real case of false advertising, I will agree with it. But in this case, you are crying for no comprehendible reason other than to defend what you use.
Images are one thing, but they actually said that the iPad screen was smaller - which is false.
Looks like the spell checking paid off, because now CNN is linking to AppleInsider:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/24/apple-ipad-microsoft-advertising/
Either that, or CNN is sinking to a new low. Or newer low.
Quote:
Interesting, Microsoft states that iPads can only print to AirPrint printers, wrong I use Netgear genie to print to any printer on my network.
There are Apps for that
It doesn't matter. iPad just can't do it by itself.
Not so much false as using a questionable definition. They consider 'two or more things at the same time' as 'having windows do two or more apps open on the screen at the same time' just like they considered 'creating on a tablet' or 'using a tablet for business' as 'running Microsoft Office on a tablet'
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Not so much false as using a questionable definition. They consider 'two or more things at the same time' as 'having windows do two or more apps open on the screen at the same time' just like they considered 'creating on a tablet' or 'using a tablet for business' as 'running Microsoft Office on a tablet'
We techies dissect these things too much.
I think almost all normal viewers would understand the ad as meaning that the USER can do more than one thing at the same time.
It's the whole point of having multiple windows on the screen, after all. Every computer user these days understands the concept, and the ad was showing two user activities at the same time, which pretty much makes it obvious what they were talking about.