New Apple tablet rumor: Larger form factor running Mac OS X

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 163
    What if the touchscreen replaces the trackpad and keyboard in the bottom case of the 13" and 15" MBs? \
  • Reply 102 of 163
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post


    Why does it have to be one of the other? Making iPhone OS X read Keynote and PowerPoint and have them output to an external monitor don?t require Mac OS X.



    And you want this device with a reported 10? display to also be under a pound? The iPhone is 1/3rd that weight and it only has a 3.5? display, or about 1/8th the display size and footprint. Then you?d have more components to get this faster HW to run Mac OS X and all those ports you want, on top of the fact that a larger device will need more structural support. That just isn?t physically possible in this day and age.



    IT IS POSSIBLE. See this, just 450 g and yet a full computer:



    OQO model 2+

    http://www.oqo.com



    The key is weight and portability to carry it ALWAYS with you, on your pocket, bag or purse.
  • Reply 103 of 163
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    I'll just add, that the iPhone OS is neither "crippled" or "limited", it's merely optimized for a small device with limited memory and CPU resources.



    An OS for a a larger device need not be "full OS X" to be appropriate to that device and very powerful in its own right, as befits a machine with more screen real estate, memory and CPU resources than an iPhone.



    In fact, if by "full OS X" we mean UI and all, with tap events substituting for mouse and keyboard events, that would be terrible.



    By FULL I mean the possibility to use it for Keynote as PowerPoint presentations as you use a full computer for that. Much as the OQO can be used (see my post, above).
  • Reply 104 of 163
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    The parts of Mac OS-X that are required for all the things you say you want the tablet to do are already present in the iPhone variety of OS-X. You just don't need "full-blown" OS-X to do what you want to do.



    Yes, they exist. See my previous post about OQO.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    OS-X is OS-X. When we are talking iPhone vs. desktop versions we are just talking about the GUI, not the capabilities of the system itself. Both can open and run files and display them on screens etc. There is nothing about Keynote or PowerPoint that makes them incompatible with the iPhone variety of OS-X and "presentation software" in general does not tax the CPU or the hardware even as much as the average iPhone game does.



    The fact is that you cannot open and run a Keynote presentation from NATIVE files on an iPhone or iPod touch AND do a presentation via video-out on a videoprojector as you can do with a standard laptop or desktop computer. That is the key. There is a lot that makes Keynote and PowerPoint incimpatible here: they run on Intel, not on ARM, to start with.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    The current iPhone can already connect to a projector and can already display keynote presentations without any problem at all.



    As far as I know, that is simply not possible. I have been looking for that for years. Could you please prove me wrong, with links? Please, note that I mean FULL BLOWN Keynote Presentations with transitions, animations, etc from NATIVE ".key" and NATIVE ".ppt" files, and NOT exporting to iPhoto pictures and NOT exporting to movie stream. I want the full and total and native and complete Keynote and PowerPoint experience, as the one you get from a standard laptop or desktop, but with something that is as light as possible and as small as possible. Thanks.
  • Reply 105 of 163
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zunx View Post


    IT IS POSSIBLE. See this, just 450 g and yet a full computer:



    OQO model 2+

    http://www.oqo.com



    The key is weight and portability to carry it ALWAYS with you, on your pocket, bag or purse.



    Are you serious?! That is a 5? device and it?s already 25% more grams that the 400g that was stated should be the weight for a 10? device. Again, it?s not just weight from a display that is 4x as large as the 5? OQO, but the added weight of the larger chassis, the additional power and battery to run the larger display and everything else. On top of that, the OQO is only one pound for the standard battery; the double capacity battery to give it a half way decent running time. How much does a 9000mAh battery weigh?
  • Reply 106 of 163
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't it be both? Snow Leopard plus the ability to open multiple iPhone (or actually iPod touch) apps in separate 480x320 windows. Give it GPS and the accelerometers, unlike Macbooks. That way, it would be something unique in the Apple lineup rather than a scaled up iPhone or a scaled down Macbook. Imagine having a bigger screen but still having full access to most of the App Store library (except for the few apps that require 3G support). Not to mention being able to stack windows as we do on our desktops, so iPhone app switching is quick and easy. Plus a lot more CPU power and RAM than the iPhone has so Apple wouldn't have their excuse against multitasking with this device. After all, OS X can already run iPhone apps. That's part of what the iPhone development kit does. Just strip out the programming sections so would-be developers still have to buy the kit.



    And I still like that rumor AI reported on of laying it flat on your desk and making it a MultiTouch pointing device for your Mac when it's docked for charging and syncing.
  • Reply 107 of 163
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shogun View Post


    My money's on OSX.



    As someone wrote a while back, Snow Leopard has technologies that will make a tablet much nicer to use. Expose in the dock, for example. Smaller size, for example.



    A fully touch version of conputer OSX would be a smart idea. Sooner or later tablet type devices will be the future for computing.
  • Reply 108 of 163
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post


    I still think we are all missing something here. These can't just be tablet Macs. The tablet form factor is inherently non-ergonomic and inelegant. Apple has something else going on here. There has to be a "One more thing" that none of us has thought of or seen.



    A plain old tablet Mac is not going to be a money maker. A tablet Mac with that extra special Jobs sauce will. We just don't know what's in the sauce.



    It's round... kinda' like a big frisbee



    *
  • Reply 109 of 163
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    A fully touch version of conputer OSX would be a smart idea. Sooner or later tablet type devices will be the future for computing.



    Some [here] say that tablet type devices will always be the future for computing.



    I believe that the future is coming... real soon now!



    *
  • Reply 110 of 163
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    In a nutshell that is where I see the problem, that is above ten inches the devices usefulness goes down due to handling issues. There are ways to overcome this but I don't believe the technology is there yet.



    What is that tech, well AI powering some of the apps would be a good start. Along with that we need voice input strong enough to handle native speach. That voice input has to work well with both command input and data input. I just don't see the tech being ready for that especially for a 32 bit ARM based device.



    So unless the rumors of a falling out between Apple and Intel over Atom are wrong I just don't see any possibility here at all of success. Apple would need a lot of computational horse power to make such a large tablet useful. This simply due to on screen keyboards not cutting the mustard so to speak.



    There is one other possibility that might work on a 13" or larger device, that is a slide out keyboard. Now hold on because I know some are likely to go ballistic over that idea, but grab a cold one and sit back a moment and think about it. On screen keyboards suck with respect to large amounts of data entry, that is hard to deny. A slide out can allow for touch typing when it makes sense, it is not a complete replacement for the on screen keyboards. What it does offer you is the ability to create large documents while seated at a desk. Properly sized the keyboard would not take away from full tablet mode usage. Coupled with a wide viewing angle OLED screen this would work well on a desktop.







    Dave



    Dave
  • Reply 111 of 163
    pxtpxt Posts: 683member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post


    First off I'm not a programmer, but it does seem to me Apple is taking a long range approach...First you organize OSX by decreasing it's footprint with Snow Leopard (Hello MS?) and now it becomes a manageable 'core' to attack the fastest growing segment in tech, mobile computing.



    Just as there are those people who need the MacPro and MacBookPro for processing pwr one has to think the majority of computer/smartphone users do basic computing tasks, email, web browsing, photos, music, a little video, basic word processing/desktop publishing and maybe rudimentary web design and spreadsheet work. Even in the business class, I have to think the majority of the work is rudimentary.



    Therefore, do the 'heavy lifting' so to speak on your 30" iMac and do your communication/presentations from your Tablet/iPhone.



    Thoughts?



    I agree with your comments about having a heavy-lifting computer at home combined with mobile devices.



    A number of points come to mind:



    We need an alternative to the model of having mobile computers with all our content on them. I like the iPhone model where you side-load 90% of its contents and then 'top-up' via mobile networks. The cloud should be a personal cloud that includes content served from Apple and also content served from our own wifi/internet connected hardware back at base.



    The idea of smart content, such as playlists, smart folders, should be used to intelligently decide what content gets side-loaded for use when out of the house/office. Users then tweak their rules accordingly, just like we do with smart playlists.



    The side-loading process could include some optimization to reduce data/processing load on the mobile device. The mobile loading could take this even further with MobileMe running full-scale webkit and then reformatting for minimum processing on the mobile device.



    The mobile computer then needs less power and can therefore be smaller, cheaper and have better battery life because it doesn't need super-computer processing or massive storage. ( eg: it might only need to process one video format ).



    The mobile computer then can be in a number of formats - iPhone, tablet, netbook - whichever suits the user from an ergonomic point of view. The computer back at base can then be a content server, connected to the internet like a time capsule but running OSX. Some might choose the netbook for the home, and an iphone for the road, but the model remains the same.
  • Reply 112 of 163
    cu10cu10 Posts: 294member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    ..the successful tablet computer would be:
    • ...

    • easy text entry possible without putting it down (thumb typing)

    • custom low-res interface software (not a desktop metaphor)...

    If you then look at Apple's patents this is pretty much exactly what they describe. Imagine a 6x9 device (proportions of a Steno pad), but it looks like an iPhone. ...



    Now *that* is a (possibly) successful tablet device, whereas a 13" tablet running regular desktop OS like Snow Leopard is pretty much exactly what has been tried a hundred times already and known to be a failure.



    Who knows if they are even making a tablet, but if they are, it will be more like an iPhone than it will be like a laptop.



    I think you may be right: iPhone-like interface (no desktop, lo-res, thumb type).



    HOWEVER - stylus input cannot be discounted.



    Personally I'll stick with Steno pads and paper for now, cheaper anyway and writing shorthand can be fun.
  • Reply 113 of 163
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Interesting find in Snow Leopard-- the Keyboard Viewer invoked soft keyboard has been made quite a bit larger.
  • Reply 114 of 163
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post


    Are you serious?! That is a 5? device and it?s already 25% more grams that the 400g that was stated should be the weight for a 10? device. Again, it?s not just weight from a display that is 4x as large as the 5? OQO, but the added weight of the larger chassis, the additional power and battery to run the larger display and everything else. On top of that, the OQO is only one pound for the standard battery; the double capacity battery to give it a half way decent running time. How much does a 9000mAh battery weigh?



    Maybe I did not explain properly. What I want is a Mac (tablet or clamshell or whatever) that is as light as possible and as small as possible for the Keynote and PowerPoint presentations, because even the MacBook Air is too heavy and too large. The OQO was just an example that such pocketable and light computer is possible.
  • Reply 115 of 163
    hobbithobbit Posts: 532member
    The 'problem' with the OQO was that miniaturisation has its price.

    This thing was not over-priced for the size and features it offered, but few people understood this and were willing to spend $3,000 on a tiny 'pocket gimmick PC'.

    That's why OQO went bankrupt.



    Apple wouldn't be able to solve that 'smaller components cost more' conundrum either.

    zunx, would you still buy a full-featured Mac tablet at $2,000-$2,500+?



    To make it cheaper Apple will have to cut either performance, features or battery life. Or all three. And then people will complain that it is 'underpowered' or has miserable battery life

    Just look at how big the battery in the MacBook Air is! Imagine this in a tablet. It'll be as big and heavy as the MBA - which defeats the purpose. You might as well get a MBA. And yet many people would like even longer battery life on the MBA...

    So if a Mac Tablet will ever run OS X it will likely run it worse than the lowest MacBook Air. Not good.





    But here's a thought:



    I wouldn't be surprised if some Mac tablet would be a hybrid. Able to run both iPhone OS and Mac OS X.

    Initially it might be as simple as the iPhone OS allowing to launch one Mac OS X application. This could be Photoshop, Word or PowerPoint, e.g. something that's not too taxing.

    The device would still need an ARM and Intel chip but a single core Intel chip might be good enough to run one Mac application on the side.



    Alternatively:

    Now that Snow Leopard no longer has dual binaries (PowerPC and Intel) there's a spare slot for a new binary type... How about ARM chips?

    If Snow Leopard gets compiled for ARM other Mac applications could follow allowing to run dual binary (ARM and Intel) Mac applications on either an Intel Mac or an ARM based tablet Mac.



    The AppStore could take care of getting those new dual binary Mac apps to the tablet users.
  • Reply 116 of 163
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PXT View Post


    I agree with your comments about having a heavy-lifting computer at home combined with mobile devices.



    The current iPhone comes real near to handling all that light weight stuff but a couple of Apple decisions make what could be an ideal device a little short on usability.

    Quote:



    A number of points come to mind:



    We need an alternative to the model of having mobile computers with all our content on them. I like the iPhone model where you side-load 90% of its contents and then 'top-up' via mobile networks. The cloud should be a personal cloud that includes content served from Apple and also content served from our own wifi/internet connected hardware back at base.



    This I disagree with completely. One of the biggest short comings with iPhone is the inability to store stuff on board for easy access when you can't get a network connection. I don't care if that is a 3G or Wifi connection, the lack of easy access to the devices file system is a huge negative when it comes to professional uses. I currently have both the iDisk and the Evernote app installed and neither one of them really solve the problem.



    As to space, demand there will only grow, in fact I can see people becoming more demanding of Apple not less.

    Quote:



    The idea of smart content, such as playlists, smart folders, should be used to intelligently decide what content gets side-loaded for use when out of the house/office. Users then tweak their rules accordingly, just like we do with smart playlists.



    That is fine for media and such but what if you have a whole hierarchy of business data you want to transfer over and maintain structure? Or for that matter pics you don't want to have shrunk because somebody at Apple thinks it is a good idea? The problem is there are lots of examples where canned functions don't work.



    What would make a huge difference is if one could simply designate a directory structure for transfer and have that accessible to apps. It would make iPhone/Touch one hell of a lot more useful for business use and even for the storage of personal data such as photos.



    Personally I don't know what Apple was thinking with respect to shrinking photos before transfer to the Touch devices. I mean really you don't expect your Mac to shrink photos due to the screen size there.

    Quote:



    The side-loading process could include some optimization to reduce data/processing load on the mobile device. The mobile loading could take this even further with MobileMe running full-scale webkit and then reformatting for minimum processing on the mobile device.



    I'm not sure what you mean by that. In any event what could be easier than simply transferring the data you have nicely set up on your Mac over to the Touch device. It shouldn't be anymore difficult than a right click and a menu selection.

    Quote:

    The mobile computer then needs less power and can therefore be smaller, cheaper and have better battery life because it doesn't need super-computer processing or massive storage. ( eg: it might only need to process one video format ).



    I have a whole bunch of smaller and cheaper devices, PDAs and such, that I never really used. The reason is clear the extra power on the iPhone and the much better interface makes for a finer experience.



    Its funny that this should come up but I was cleaning out my desk yesterday and found two of those devices that I never really adopted. They can be held up as perfect examples of what Apple shouldn't do. If anything the iPhone/Touch need to be more powerfully and more user accessible. That includes not just more on board flash be all around improvements.

    Quote:



    The mobile computer then can be in a number of formats - iPhone, tablet, netbook - whichever suits the user from an ergonomic point of view. The computer back at base can then be a content server, connected to the internet like a time capsule but running OSX. Some might choose the netbook for the home, and an iphone for the road, but the model remains the same.



    I bought my laptop before iPhone and can honestly say it has changed my opinion about the need for a laptop. I'm not sure what side of the fence I sit on right now but if Apple added the ability for Safari to save files locally and gave me better access to the file system, including the ability to store full size pictures it wold very much tip the scales in favor of getting rid of the laptop. The thing is right now I can't use the iPhone to back up my Camera on a trip or even to save the camera images to the net. I/m sure an app could be written for that but there is an issue of a lack of ports.



    In a nutshell iPhone needs to be more powerful and accessible to do those sorts of things. At that point the need for a laptop really starts to dwindle.







    Dave
  • Reply 117 of 163
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post


    The 'problem' with the OQO was that miniaturisation has its price.

    This thing was not over-priced for the size and features it offered, but few people understood this and were willing to spend $3,000 on a tiny 'pocket gimmick PC'.

    That's why OQO went bankrupt.



    We really don't know the specifics of that. A company shouldn't go bankrupt because one item fails in the marketplace. OQO had a couple of products from what I understand.

    Quote:

    Apple wouldn't be able to solve that 'smaller components cost more' conundrum either.

    zunx, would you still buy a full-featured Mac tablet at $2,000-$2,500+?



    Now this I can disagree on because they do have an opportunity here to actually pack a lot of power into their tablet at a low cost. That depends very much upon a high integration SoC ARM based controller from PA Semi. Realistically they should be able to integrate all the major silicon on to one die and have only storage devices outside of that chip. There would likely be a few analog components too, but all of this can be stuffed easily on to a Touch sized PC board.



    Or just look at the Touch as an example of Apple putting an entire printed circuit (pc) into a handheld package. I'd be shocked to find the pc board there costing them more than $100.

    Quote:



    To make it cheaper Apple will have to cut either performance, features or battery life. Or all three. And then people will complain that it is 'underpowered' or has miserable battery life

    Just look at how big the battery in the MacBook Air is! Imagine this in a tablet. It'll be as big and heavy as the MBA - which defeats the purpose.



    Lets not look at that as Mac Book Air was an extreme failure. In any event this goes to what you expect out of an Apple tablet. If you expect an i86 and Mac OS/X then yeah you will be disappointed with all three things you touched upon. However if you are interested in an ARM based device none of those issues will be a problem. Apple purchased PA Semi for a reason and I would have to think tablets are the area where they could be really impressive.

    Quote:

    You might as well get a MBA. And yet many people would like even longer battery life on the MBA...

    So if a Mac Tablet will ever run OS X it will likely run it worse than the lowest MacBook Air. Not good.



    True. That is why I think it will be ARM based and run a modified version of Touch.

    Quote:

    But here's a thought:



    I wouldn't be surprised if some Mac tablet would be a hybrid. Able to run both iPhone OS and Mac OS X.

    Initially it might be as simple as the iPhone OS allowing to launch one Mac OS X application. This could be Photoshop, Word or PowerPoint, e.g. something that's not too taxing.

    The device would still need an ARM and Intel chip but a single core Intel chip might be good enough to run one Mac application on the side.



    Sounds good but it would fail on power usage plus it is a design kludge.

    Quote:

    Alternatively:

    Now that Snow Leopard no longer has dual binaries (PowerPC and Intel) there's a spare slot for a new binary type... How about ARM chips?

    If Snow Leopard gets compiled for ARM other Mac applications could follow allowing to run dual binary (ARM and Intel) Mac applications on either an Intel Mac or an ARM based tablet Mac.



    The AppStore could take care of getting those new dual binary Mac apps to the tablet users.



    The last thing Apple needs is dual binaries again. Keep the ARM devices on a separate API and there will be no problem.





    Dave
  • Reply 118 of 163
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member
    The best approach is a four-product matrix:



    Mac OS X (Mac).

    Mac OS X touch (Mac Tablet).

    OS X (iPhone and iPod touch).

    iPod OS (standard iPod).



    The tablet runs Mac applications, on a touch-tuned Mac OS X, thus the new Intel Atom "Pineview" can do it nicely:



    The TDP has been dropped from 16W to 7W, while the average power consumption has been halved to 2W.

    http://techwoo.com/intel-atom-pineview-chip-photo



    Or wait for Intel Atom Medfield by 2010 to conquer mobile market which is used to be powered by ARM processors:

    http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/1...cessor-by-2010



    There are going to be two versions of Medfield, one intended for netbooks, and one intended for smartbooks/smartphones i.e. MIDs [Mobile Internet Devices]. But what is interesting is development of Tunnel Creek, a "preview for Medfield". Tunnel Creek is a 45nm CPU targeting a TDP of mere 3W. Intel already sampled this CPU to its valuable partners (Apple Mac Tablet?). One thing is certain: expect a true mobile revolution coming in the second half of 2010:

    http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...idias-ion.aspx



    That is!
  • Reply 119 of 163
    physguyphysguy Posts: 920member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post


    Alternatively:

    Now that Snow Leopard no longer has dual binaries (PowerPC and Intel) there's a spare slot for a new binary type... How about ARM chips?

    If Snow Leopard gets compiled for ARM other Mac applications could follow allowing to run dual binary (ARM and Intel) Mac applications on either an Intel Mac or an ARM based tablet Mac.



    The AppStore could take care of getting those new dual binary Mac apps to the tablet users.



    Just to clarify two points here



    1) Snow Leopard still has PPC binaries for Rosetta, which is still supported. Just go to any system framework, for example, and do 'file CoreFoundataion' for example and you get...



    CoreFoundation (for architecture x86_64)tMach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64

    CoreFoundation (for architecture i386)tMach-O dynamically linked shared library i386

    CoreFoundation (for architecture ppc7400)tMach-O dynamically linked shared library ppc





    2) Fat Binaries are not restricted to two architectures as shown above. You had multiple architectures stitched together if that makes sense for your distribution. Above you have PPC, i386 (32 bit) and x86_64 (64 bit).
  • Reply 120 of 163
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post


    I still think we are all missing something here. These can't just be tablet Macs. The tablet form factor is inherently non-ergonomic and inelegant. Apple has something else going on here. There has to be a "One more thing" that none of us has thought of or seen.



    A plain old tablet Mac is not going to be a money maker. A tablet Mac with that extra special Jobs sauce will. We just don't know what's in the sauce.



    I'm not so sure about that. Talk of a 10" screen and the use of the dreaded word tablet has clouded the discussion. If the talk was that Apple was planning to take the next step in the evolution of the company's handheld line-up, there be less concern over Apple releasing a Touch with a bigger screen.



    The way I see it, the current Touch is a compromise. It's cost-effective to have developed the Touch as a companion to the iPhone. But let's face it, for many of the applications that the Touch is used, the current form factor is poorly suited. Watching video would be better, playing games, reading, surfing, etc. if only the screen were larger.



    The point is that while a larger version of the Touch would not be a form factor that would translate well to the iPhone, it is a no-brainer upgrade that Apple, surely, intends to carry out. It/'s simple, really. Build an iPod Touch only based around a larger screen, though not larger as in so much larger that the resulting device is a whole other device.



    Right now in the U.S., the Touch line ranges in price from $229 to $399. Wouldn't it be logical to offer two additional models sporting larger screens priced at say $499 and $599? Lots of people would take that leap and as such, Apple would be crazy to not offer that product. The entry-level Touch Jumbo, or whatever, could sport the same memory as the top-end regular Touch. Today that's at 32GB. In a few days that will undoubtedly go up. Is there a market for a $499 Touch with let's say 64GB and a 7" screen? I would argue many would be thrilled with such a device.



    To me the question isn't, would Apple make such a device, the question is, why wouldn't they?
Sign In or Register to comment.