They must have dropped it quite some time after introducing Numbers, the MacBook I got in 2009 came with a iWork demo disc, and it was pre-installed
I believe it happened soon after Numbers was added. I've bought 4 Macs since then without iWork installed. The lastest was just a few weeks ago for a family member.
Of course, if it was done for legal reasons since they also dropped Office for Mac at the same time that wouldn't necessarily be the same outside the US. It would behoove Apple to have it preinstalled as a trial as many places as possible since Office is well known but not iWork.
I believe it happened soon after Numbers was added. I've bought 4 Macs since then without iWork installed. The lastest was just a few weeks ago for a family member.
Of course, if it was done for legal reasons since they also dropped Office for Mac at the same time that wouldn't necessarily be the same outside the US. It would behoove Apple to have it preinstalled as a trial as many places as possible since Office is well known but not iWork.
Numbers was added in 2007, a Macbook I got in 2008 had the demo included, and a Macbook earlyish in 2009 had it as well, they might not include it now, but they were including it well over a year after numbers was included.
Its not dandy for anyone that needs even moderate functions performed by Excel.
Well, that's not really true. I've seen some pretty sophisticated spreadsheets done in Numbers. But there's a point beyond where it can't go.
On the other hand, Pages does things in page layout that are very nice, and that Word can't come close to matching. But Word is much better for technical documents.
With Keynote, its a different story, the consensus is that Keynote is actually better than Powerpoint, which, quite frankly, is simply not that great a program.
Numbers was added in 2007, a Macbook I got in 2008 had the demo included, and a Macbook earlyish in 2009 had it as well, they might not include it now, but they were including it well over a year after numbers was included.
I think that Apple should include the full iPad version of Pages on the iPad as part of the package, and let those who need them buy Keynote or Numbers. Most people will just need Pages. Having it in the package would encourage its use, and possibly even the purchase of the keyboard dock, which would introduce more people to this as more than just a media consumption device. Since Apple is selling Pages for $9.95, it obviously isn't costing them too much; possibly just three bucks or so.
I bet that normal bulb (Incandescent light bulb/Tungsten/Wolfram filament) is better for eyes than day light lamps (Fluorescent lamp/gas-discharge lamp).
So, explain me how incandescent light bulbs were they awful?
Fluorescent lamps has only advantage that they require less energy, however, many of them have really poisonous parts (all fluorescent lamps contain a small amount of elemental mercury (Hg) - mercury vapour is a highly toxic substance, with an "extreme" rating as a poison. It is a neurotoxin that can cause kidney and brain damage).
P.S. Amounts of Mercury in each fluorescent lamp:
The amount is tiny ? about 5 milligrams, or barely enough to cover the tip of a pen ? but that is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels, extrapolated from Stanford University research on mercury. Even the latest lamps promoted as ?low-mercury? can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe levels.
Incandescent bulbs don't flicker an appreciable amount, at least not if the mains supply is well regulated - else it's a problem from your electricity supplier, not the lighting technology.
The fluorescent Hg debacle is mainly a problem in non-EU countries that don't have recycling set up properly (by the local council/inhabitants mentality)
CCFL lighting / LED lighting use in computer backlights flicker at very high (>>1kHz) rates, this is unlikely to be noticed by most of the population (I cannot counter that there may be some that are sensitive to this, but the physiology indicates it's very unlikely)
Even for hardcore Mac users iWorks can't even come close to cutting into Office for Mac.
When Office 2008 was loaded onto my Mac Pro at work, several Word for Windows or Word 2004 documents that I maintain/update, in part on a Mac (the work requires Final Cut), did not transfer properly. A font (Palatino Linotype) used in the documents was for some reason not delivered as part of the MS update, and the previously loaded copy of the font was wiped clean by the installation.
As a copy of the font was being located, several other anomalies were discovered in the 2008 conversions -- table of contents and alignment issues, mostly. On a whim, I asked for a copy of iWork 09.
iWork accepted the Office 2004 documents with no problem. Its export to Word in Windows XP worked well.
We continue to use Office on the PC, but have abandoned it on the Mac (all of them) as not worth the trouble. Even with frequent import/export between iWork and the Windows Office programs (including PowerPoint and Excel), iWork is simply more reliable.
I hit quick reply twice, go figure. I thought qr didn't quote the story
anyway, I can see color better for magazines but why don't they offer a choice so readers can turn onn black ink just like the
kindle, even while having color pix. I must say the kindle really does look like a book.
Should be lots of programs made. Another should be the perenian codec that plays everything.
c
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
IBM just released its Lotus software for the iPhone and has now turned its attention to the iPad, while a new article explores the facts and myths of LCD eye strain from reading books on devices like the iPad.
IBM planning Lotus for iPad
IBM Lotus Notes Traveler Companion was released for the iPhone and iPod touch last month. And this week at the Macworld 2010 expo in San Francisco, the company also announced Lotus Connections for social networking inside companies and Lotus Quickr for sharing documents would be coming to the iPhone.
An IBM official told Forbes that the company not only wants to reach out to the small-but-growing number of iPhone users in the enterprise, but also use the new applications as a starting point from which to build App Store software for the forthcoming iPad.
"Our customers are looking at the iPad and they're excited about it," said Alstair Rennie, IBM's manager of Lotus software. "No one quite knows its use patterns yet, but it's our intention to deliver as much of our portfolio as possible on it as fast as possible."
The applications from the corporate collaboration software will be designed specifically for use on the iPad, and are planned to see release sometime near the debut of the hardware, scheduled to arrive in late March. Rennie said IBM expects the iPad to be popular among executives who plan to use the device for both personal and business purposes.
"Peoples' lives don't segment neatly between work and home," he reportedly said. "The iPad gives people what will probably be a home device, but they're still going to want to access a full suite of business software on it."
The news follows comment from Microsoft officials who said the software giant is considering the possibility of bringing its Office suite to the iPad. Apple has already revealed multi-touch version of Numbers, Pages and Keynote -- all part of its iWork suite -- are coming to the hardware.
Sources have also told AppleInsider that Apple intends to target business users by offering added features on the iPad, including direct network printing from within applications and support for accessing shared files from a local file server.
iPad eye strain explored
While conventional thinking suggests e-ink readers like the Amazon Kindle and its black-and-white display are easier on the eyes, a new article from The New York Times suggests LCD panels, like on Apple's iPad, may be no better or worse.
Dr. Travis Meredith, chair of the opthalmology department at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said such screens are not bad for peoples' eyes, but physical fatigue can come from not blinking often enough. And while paper can offer more "physical sophistication" than a computer screen, certain types of paper -- like cheap newsprint or paper in softcover books -- is actually said to be an inferior reading experience.
The article also notes that current LCD monitors offer much better viewing angles and superior clarity to those of years ago. They are also less tiring on peoples' eyes.
The biggest problem for the iPad, the article notes, might be its reflective glass screen, which could prove to be an issue in brightly lit situations. Apple has encountered the same issue with its MacBook Pro line, where it converted to glossy screens that can be difficult to view in direct sunlight. Last August, the Mac maker began offering matte screens for $50 extra on the 15-inch MacBook Pro line.
The iPad has a 9.7-inch LED-backlit screen that employs IPS technology for its LCD display. The technology, developed by Hitachi in 1996, offers improved viewing angles over traditional LCD.
The device will mark Apple's entrance into the e-book market, with the new iBooks application and its included iBookstore offering bestselling titles from some of the top publishers in the world.
I hit quick reply twice, go figure. I thought qr didn't quote the story
anyway, I can see color better for magazines but why don't they offer a choice so readers can turn onn black ink just like the
kindle, even while having color pix. I must say the kindle really does look like a book.
Should be lots of programs made. Another should be the perenian codec that plays everything.
c
There is no need to quote the entire article.
I disagree about Kindle looking like a book. The books I read have black text on white paper, or if it's a paperback the paper is slightly grey. Kindles are darker grey text on lighter grey background. Neither one is sharp enough to replace books. You can read it better outside than an LCD, but that introduces excessive light which falls back to eye strain.
Exactly! One sometimes has to seriously wonder what mindset drives the leaders of this company .....
Well, some time last year one of MS executives mentioned possibility of MS Office for iPhone. I believe his closing comment was "Not yet, keep watching" or something like that.
If MS is developing Office for iPhone, I guess it wouldn't be much of an effort to port it to iPad... and money from Apple users is very much the same as money from HP users. Green as.
It is my belief that only thing that prevents MS from doing Office for iPhone, Android, Pre... is that they still have some hopes about Win 7 Mobile. But even that is silly, considering that there are already so many Office-compatible suites available, so the only question is if MS will take part of that cake, or let others share it.
Well, some time last year one of MS executives mentioned possibility of MS Office for iPhone. I believe his closing comment was "Not yet, keep watching" or something like that.
If MS is developing Office for iPhone, I guess it wouldn't be much of an effort to port it to iPad... and money from Apple users is very much the same as money from HP users. Green as.
It is my belief that only thing that prevents MS from doing Office for iPhone, Android, Pre... is that they still have some hopes about Win 7 Mobile. But even that is silly, considering that there are already so many Office-compatible suites available, so the only question is if MS will take part of that cake, or let others share it.
I hope they are, because it's their most profitable sector and it's still the best option for most people in business.
The only caveat is cost. They want $50 for the Office suite for Windows Mobile. That inlcuded Word, Excel and PowerPoint. That is $20 more than all three of the iWork suite apps Apple will offer for the iPad. I can understand if they make iPad apps and they are more expensive than the iwork apps but they will need to have features that iWork can't compete with, features usually only found on Office for Windows desktop.
anyway, I can see color better for magazines but why don't they offer a choice so readers can turn onn black ink just like the
kindle, even while having color pix. I must say the kindle really does look like a book.
Should be lots of programs made. Another should be the perenian codec that plays everything.
c
The Kindle doesn't have black ink it has dark grey ink. Very unlike book. It also doesn't have a while background, it has a light grey background.
My iPhone looks much more like a book.
I can change the darkness of the font. I can change the color of the font. I can change the darkness of the background. I can change the color of the background. I can switch the background and font around.Some programs allow you to set a paper-like pattern for the background, such as parchment.
No doubt we'll see much of this on the iPad as well.
I hope they are, because it's their most profitable sector and it's still the best option for most people in business.
The only caveat is cost. They want $50 for the Office suite for Windows Mobile. That inlcuded Word, Excel and PowerPoint. That is $20 more than all three of the iWork suite apps Apple will offer for the iPad. I can understand if they make iPad apps and they are more expensive than the iwork apps but they will need to have features that iWork can't compete with, features usually only found on Office for Windows desktop.
Business people might not care about the extra cost, as it's really very little for them.
I can change the darkness of the font. I can change the color of the font. I can change the darkness of the background. I can change the color of the background. I can switch the background and font around.Some programs allow you to set a paper-like pattern for the background, such as parchment.
No doubt we'll see much of this on the iPad as well.
Personally, I very much enjoy reading on my iPhone, as I did on my Treo and my Clie.
People ask whether the small screen ruins the experience, but it doesn't for me, if I'm reading a good book. Instead of being self-aware, I'm immersed in another world, created by the author. The medium doesn't add or subtract from the experience.
That's one reason why I've never been interested in any dedicated eReader hardware. And that's one reason why I have so little interest in the 'Pad.
IMO, using the antique 4:3 aspect ratio was to make the device more suited to reading printed content. iSteve lamely exclaimed (at least twice) "It doesn't matter which way you hold it!" But the only advantage to a truncated vertical orientation seems to be for eBooks. And the aspect ratio ruins the device for video content.
Oh well. 2010 seems like it will be chockablock with tablet announcements. I hope someone comes up with something better than the 'Pad.
Glossy screens aro really bad. At least for my eyes and (some other persons). I have eye strain and headache after 2 hours of working on the screen of HP Pavilion dv7. My eyes are tired then 2 more days, and it is difficult to have everything in sharp focus.
While on the normal non-glossy panel I can work for 12-14 hours per day without any problems (only get normally tired).
I do not wear eye glasses. My sight is still very good. But I doubt it would take long to worsen it if I work on this sh&ty glossy monitor from HP. Maybe other glossy monitors would have had other effect, but I have my opinion about them based on this experience and those 20-30 monitors/notebooks which I looked on in various shops.
This differs from person to person as well. But to claim that it is a myth or not true in general is wrong. Don't judge only based on your 'non-failure' experience with glossy. It is like smoking in the same room with other person - for some one it is acceptable, for others it is an insult to their person/health. Please, do not insult me saying that it is ok, while I have health problems with it (smoking and glossy).
P.S. And it was God sent, when we replaced CRTs with LCDs. It become so much better. I do not have problems with non-glossy LCDs.
Additionally, glossy is bad for any graphical professional. Ask any of them (if they say that it is ok, they are either paid for having (Apple), or try to convince themselves not to regret the purchase, or are not very good at what they are doing).
From all glossy, Apple's makes the best glossy. But it is still worse than non-glossy overall.
I'm a "graphical professional" otherwise known as a graphic designer (I'm also a pro photographer). Most people serious about color correction, photography and design production are working in a controlled environment with low-light, no direct sunlight sources and neutral paint on the walls. I tend to prefer glossy screens because they have the best/darkest blacks and thus crisper type as well. Matt screens diffuse the light and produce a less accurate representation of these elements. The irony is that the best monitors out there aren't glossy because people don't want to deal with the reflections. It takes work to get your environment set up for optimal viewing. Apple, by the way, doesn't make the best monitors although the latest imacs have improved quite a bit.
I'm a "graphical professional" otherwise known as a graphic designer (I'm also a pro photographer). Most people serious about color correction, photography and design production are working in a controlled environment with low-light, no direct sunlight sources and neutral paint on the walls. I tend to prefer glossy screens because they have the best/darkest blacks and thus crisper type as well. Matt screens diffuse the light and produce a less accurate representation of these elements. The irony is that the best monitors out there aren't glossy because people don't want to deal with the reflections. It takes work to get your environment set up for optimal viewing. Apple, by the way, doesn't make the best monitors although the latest imacs have improved quite a bit.
Great post. This site seems to have an overabundance of posters that claim that glossy screens outright suck for everyone so I'm glad to see a "graphical professional" comment on this.
Personally, I very much enjoy reading on my iPhone, as I did on my Treo and my Clie.
People ask whether the small screen ruins the experience, but it doesn't for me, if I'm reading a good book. Instead of being self-aware, I'm immersed in another world, created by the author. The medium doesn't add or subtract from the experience.
That's one reason why I've never been interested in any dedicated eReader hardware. And that's one reason why I have so little interest in the 'Pad.
IMO, using the antique 4:3 aspect ratio was to make the device more suited to reading printed content. iSteve lamely exclaimed (at least twice) "It doesn't matter which way you hold it!" But the only advantage to a truncated vertical orientation seems to be for eBooks. And the aspect ratio ruins the device for video content.
Oh well. 2010 seems like it will be chockablock with tablet announcements. I hope someone comes up with something better than the 'Pad.
In the past week, I've read five books on my phone, and two from paper. This is a typical week of reading, and it doesn't include the NY Times and WSJ every day (though the WSJ isn't published on Sunday), plus numerous magazines and journals.
I read a lot!
I've never found reading on any of my phones, and that's including my old Samsung Palmphones at 160 x 160, with a narrower screen, to be a problem, and I can read for hours at a stretch, with taking a break for a minute or so every so often.
Considering that I had several eye operations several months ago with a lot of problems, and my eyes aren't yet "good". I think that's saying something.
It seems to me that people who complain about having problems reading from their phone, either have some eye sensitivity they aren't aware of, or are ignoring, or the screen is simply set incorrectly. I've always has some light sensitivity, even though my profession required me to look at monitors closely for hours at a time, while correcting photo's, video editing, mastering audio projects, working on graphics, or making layouts for publication.
My sensitivity is worse after the eye operations. Yet - I've got no problems with my computer monitor or iPhone, though it took months before I could get back using both while my eyes healed, a process that is not yet finished.
I'm happy to see that the medical and research professions are finally getting involved in this, as it is now a big issue. As expected, they fall on the side that there is nothing wrong with viewing from a monitor, as long as everything is done properly, something I've been stating for years. And according to what I've read so far, the Kindle is no better than an LCD, and can even be worse, as can paper, which is something I've seen for myself over the years. It can be painful attempting to read a bright page outside on a bright sunny day.
Nothing is prefect. Everything has its good and bad properties.
Great post. This site seems to have an overabundance of posters that claim that glossy screens outright suck for everyone so I'm glad to see a "graphical professional" comment on this.
We've had a lot of graphics professionals comment on the threads about this over time. Most go for glossy, as I prefer as well.
I'm looking to buy another monitor. I'd like a 27" hi rez hi quality model. There is now one available. The new Dell 27" Ultrasharp U2711.
This has gotten very good reviews. It only costs $1099. This is a pretty good price for a monitor of this quality, and it's got just about every input one would want, including HDMI with HDCP.
I was waiting for Apple to make the 27" available, but that seems like a waste of time, because who knows when, or even if that will Happen? In addition, I as surprised to learn that it only covers 73% of Adobe RGB, which results in the gamut of SRGB. While a number of expensive professional graphics monitors also have that problem, including my 3+ year old Eizo, I expected something more.
The Dell covers almost all 100% though, and it's not an LED backlit model.
The only thing i'm not happy about is that it doesn't come with a glossy option. But i think I'll get it anyway, despite that fault.
We've had a lot of graphics professionals comment on the threads about this over time. Most go for glossy, as I prefer as well.
I'm looking to buy another monitor. I'd like a 27" hi rez hi quality model. There is now one available. The new Dell 27" Ultrasharp U2711.
This has gotten very good reviews. It only costs $1099. This is a pretty good price for a monitor of this quality, and it's got just about every input one would want, including HDMI with HDCP.
I was waiting for Apple to make the 27" available, but that seems like a waste of time, because who knows when, or even if that will Happen? In addition, I as surprised to learn that it only covers 73% of Adobe RGB, which results in the gamut of SRGB. While a number of expensive professional graphics monitors also have that problem, including my 3+ year old Eizo, I expected something more.
The Dell covers almost all 100% though, and it's not an LED backlit model.
The only thing i'm not happy about is that it doesn't come with a glossy option. But i think I'll get it anyway, despite that fault.
I recall mostly the anti-glossy posters and the majority that feel it's a personal choice with pros and cons on both ends. I'll have to be more careful not to remember the most vocal.
I read the Anandtech review of that display. Looks nice. I'm curious how others feel about the CCFL being better for professionals and if there are any drawbacks.
I'd hope Apple's ACDs are ready for an upgrade now that the iMac is pushing 27". Is more than 30" something that would interest that market segment? Is the current ACD pixel density pale in comparison to new displays of that size and quality?
I recall mostly the anti-glossy posters and the majority that feel it's a personal choice with pros and cons on both ends. I'll have to be more careful not to remember the most vocal.
I read the Anandtech review of that display. Looks nice. I'm curious how others feel about the CCFL being better for professionals and if there are any drawbacks.
I'd hope Apple's ACDs are ready for an upgrade now that the iMac is pushing 27". Is more than 30" something that would interest that market segment? Is the current ACD pixel density pale in comparison to new displays of that size and quality?
The problem with LED backlighting, is that the majority of displays that use it, don't use it for quality of color, in other words, to expand the gamut, but to cut down on heat and power usage.
In order to really expand the gamut with current LED technology, we need RGB diodes in the backlight, as my Samsung rear projection Tv uses. But that's very expensive, and the monitor is deeper than otherwise it would be.
But, a true SRGB gamut is still better than most cheaper monitors offer.
Comments
I'm sure it's easier for the trolls to put their foot in their mouth if it isn't attached to their body.
Good job ... thanks for the chuckle.
They must have dropped it quite some time after introducing Numbers, the MacBook I got in 2009 came with a iWork demo disc, and it was pre-installed
I believe it happened soon after Numbers was added. I've bought 4 Macs since then without iWork installed. The lastest was just a few weeks ago for a family member.
Of course, if it was done for legal reasons since they also dropped Office for Mac at the same time that wouldn't necessarily be the same outside the US. It would behoove Apple to have it preinstalled as a trial as many places as possible since Office is well known but not iWork.
I believe it happened soon after Numbers was added. I've bought 4 Macs since then without iWork installed. The lastest was just a few weeks ago for a family member.
Of course, if it was done for legal reasons since they also dropped Office for Mac at the same time that wouldn't necessarily be the same outside the US. It would behoove Apple to have it preinstalled as a trial as many places as possible since Office is well known but not iWork.
Numbers was added in 2007, a Macbook I got in 2008 had the demo included, and a Macbook earlyish in 2009 had it as well, they might not include it now, but they were including it well over a year after numbers was included.
Its not dandy for anyone that needs even moderate functions performed by Excel.
Well, that's not really true. I've seen some pretty sophisticated spreadsheets done in Numbers. But there's a point beyond where it can't go.
On the other hand, Pages does things in page layout that are very nice, and that Word can't come close to matching. But Word is much better for technical documents.
With Keynote, its a different story, the consensus is that Keynote is actually better than Powerpoint, which, quite frankly, is simply not that great a program.
So it's a bit of one and a bit of another.
Numbers was added in 2007, a Macbook I got in 2008 had the demo included, and a Macbook earlyish in 2009 had it as well, they might not include it now, but they were including it well over a year after numbers was included.
I think that Apple should include the full iPad version of Pages on the iPad as part of the package, and let those who need them buy Keynote or Numbers. Most people will just need Pages. Having it in the package would encourage its use, and possibly even the purchase of the keyboard dock, which would introduce more people to this as more than just a media consumption device. Since Apple is selling Pages for $9.95, it obviously isn't costing them too much; possibly just three bucks or so.
I bet that normal bulb (Incandescent light bulb/Tungsten/Wolfram filament) is better for eyes than day light lamps (Fluorescent lamp/gas-discharge lamp).
So, explain me how incandescent light bulbs were they awful?
Fluorescent lamps has only advantage that they require less energy, however, many of them have really poisonous parts (all fluorescent lamps contain a small amount of elemental mercury (Hg) - mercury vapour is a highly toxic substance, with an "extreme" rating as a poison. It is a neurotoxin that can cause kidney and brain damage).
P.S. Amounts of Mercury in each fluorescent lamp:
The amount is tiny ? about 5 milligrams, or barely enough to cover the tip of a pen ? but that is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels, extrapolated from Stanford University research on mercury. Even the latest lamps promoted as ?low-mercury? can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe levels.
Incandescent bulbs don't flicker an appreciable amount, at least not if the mains supply is well regulated - else it's a problem from your electricity supplier, not the lighting technology.
The fluorescent Hg debacle is mainly a problem in non-EU countries that don't have recycling set up properly (by the local council/inhabitants mentality)
CCFL lighting / LED lighting use in computer backlights flicker at very high (>>1kHz) rates, this is unlikely to be noticed by most of the population (I cannot counter that there may be some that are sensitive to this, but the physiology indicates it's very unlikely)
Even for hardcore Mac users iWorks can't even come close to cutting into Office for Mac.
When Office 2008 was loaded onto my Mac Pro at work, several Word for Windows or Word 2004 documents that I maintain/update, in part on a Mac (the work requires Final Cut), did not transfer properly. A font (Palatino Linotype) used in the documents was for some reason not delivered as part of the MS update, and the previously loaded copy of the font was wiped clean by the installation.
As a copy of the font was being located, several other anomalies were discovered in the 2008 conversions -- table of contents and alignment issues, mostly. On a whim, I asked for a copy of iWork 09.
iWork accepted the Office 2004 documents with no problem. Its export to Word in Windows XP worked well.
We continue to use Office on the PC, but have abandoned it on the Mac (all of them) as not worth the trouble. Even with frequent import/export between iWork and the Windows Office programs (including PowerPoint and Excel), iWork is simply more reliable.
anyway, I can see color better for magazines but why don't they offer a choice so readers can turn onn black ink just like the
kindle, even while having color pix. I must say the kindle really does look like a book.
Should be lots of programs made. Another should be the perenian codec that plays everything.
c
IBM just released its Lotus software for the iPhone and has now turned its attention to the iPad, while a new article explores the facts and myths of LCD eye strain from reading books on devices like the iPad.
IBM planning Lotus for iPad
IBM Lotus Notes Traveler Companion was released for the iPhone and iPod touch last month. And this week at the Macworld 2010 expo in San Francisco, the company also announced Lotus Connections for social networking inside companies and Lotus Quickr for sharing documents would be coming to the iPhone.
An IBM official told Forbes that the company not only wants to reach out to the small-but-growing number of iPhone users in the enterprise, but also use the new applications as a starting point from which to build App Store software for the forthcoming iPad.
"Our customers are looking at the iPad and they're excited about it," said Alstair Rennie, IBM's manager of Lotus software. "No one quite knows its use patterns yet, but it's our intention to deliver as much of our portfolio as possible on it as fast as possible."
The applications from the corporate collaboration software will be designed specifically for use on the iPad, and are planned to see release sometime near the debut of the hardware, scheduled to arrive in late March. Rennie said IBM expects the iPad to be popular among executives who plan to use the device for both personal and business purposes.
"Peoples' lives don't segment neatly between work and home," he reportedly said. "The iPad gives people what will probably be a home device, but they're still going to want to access a full suite of business software on it."
The news follows comment from Microsoft officials who said the software giant is considering the possibility of bringing its Office suite to the iPad. Apple has already revealed multi-touch version of Numbers, Pages and Keynote -- all part of its iWork suite -- are coming to the hardware.
Sources have also told AppleInsider that Apple intends to target business users by offering added features on the iPad, including direct network printing from within applications and support for accessing shared files from a local file server.
iPad eye strain explored
While conventional thinking suggests e-ink readers like the Amazon Kindle and its black-and-white display are easier on the eyes, a new article from The New York Times suggests LCD panels, like on Apple's iPad, may be no better or worse.
Dr. Travis Meredith, chair of the opthalmology department at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said such screens are not bad for peoples' eyes, but physical fatigue can come from not blinking often enough. And while paper can offer more "physical sophistication" than a computer screen, certain types of paper -- like cheap newsprint or paper in softcover books -- is actually said to be an inferior reading experience.
The article also notes that current LCD monitors offer much better viewing angles and superior clarity to those of years ago. They are also less tiring on peoples' eyes.
The biggest problem for the iPad, the article notes, might be its reflective glass screen, which could prove to be an issue in brightly lit situations. Apple has encountered the same issue with its MacBook Pro line, where it converted to glossy screens that can be difficult to view in direct sunlight. Last August, the Mac maker began offering matte screens for $50 extra on the 15-inch MacBook Pro line.
The iPad has a 9.7-inch LED-backlit screen that employs IPS technology for its LCD display. The technology, developed by Hitachi in 1996, offers improved viewing angles over traditional LCD.
The device will mark Apple's entrance into the e-book market, with the new iBooks application and its included iBookstore offering bestselling titles from some of the top publishers in the world.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I hit quick reply twice, go figure. I thought qr didn't quote the story
anyway, I can see color better for magazines but why don't they offer a choice so readers can turn onn black ink just like the
kindle, even while having color pix. I must say the kindle really does look like a book.
Should be lots of programs made. Another should be the perenian codec that plays everything.
c
There is no need to quote the entire article.
I disagree about Kindle looking like a book. The books I read have black text on white paper, or if it's a paperback the paper is slightly grey. Kindles are darker grey text on lighter grey background. Neither one is sharp enough to replace books. You can read it better outside than an LCD, but that introduces excessive light which falls back to eye strain.
Exactly! One sometimes has to seriously wonder what mindset drives the leaders of this company .....
Well, some time last year one of MS executives mentioned possibility of MS Office for iPhone. I believe his closing comment was "Not yet, keep watching" or something like that.
If MS is developing Office for iPhone, I guess it wouldn't be much of an effort to port it to iPad... and money from Apple users is very much the same as money from HP users. Green as.
It is my belief that only thing that prevents MS from doing Office for iPhone, Android, Pre... is that they still have some hopes about Win 7 Mobile. But even that is silly, considering that there are already so many Office-compatible suites available, so the only question is if MS will take part of that cake, or let others share it.
Well, some time last year one of MS executives mentioned possibility of MS Office for iPhone. I believe his closing comment was "Not yet, keep watching" or something like that.
If MS is developing Office for iPhone, I guess it wouldn't be much of an effort to port it to iPad... and money from Apple users is very much the same as money from HP users. Green as.
It is my belief that only thing that prevents MS from doing Office for iPhone, Android, Pre... is that they still have some hopes about Win 7 Mobile. But even that is silly, considering that there are already so many Office-compatible suites available, so the only question is if MS will take part of that cake, or let others share it.
I hope they are, because it's their most profitable sector and it's still the best option for most people in business.
The only caveat is cost. They want $50 for the Office suite for Windows Mobile. That inlcuded Word, Excel and PowerPoint. That is $20 more than all three of the iWork suite apps Apple will offer for the iPad. I can understand if they make iPad apps and they are more expensive than the iwork apps but they will need to have features that iWork can't compete with, features usually only found on Office for Windows desktop.
anyway, I can see color better for magazines but why don't they offer a choice so readers can turn onn black ink just like the
kindle, even while having color pix. I must say the kindle really does look like a book.
Should be lots of programs made. Another should be the perenian codec that plays everything.
c
The Kindle doesn't have black ink it has dark grey ink. Very unlike book. It also doesn't have a while background, it has a light grey background.
My iPhone looks much more like a book.
I can change the darkness of the font. I can change the color of the font. I can change the darkness of the background. I can change the color of the background. I can switch the background and font around.Some programs allow you to set a paper-like pattern for the background, such as parchment.
No doubt we'll see much of this on the iPad as well.
I hope they are, because it's their most profitable sector and it's still the best option for most people in business.
The only caveat is cost. They want $50 for the Office suite for Windows Mobile. That inlcuded Word, Excel and PowerPoint. That is $20 more than all three of the iWork suite apps Apple will offer for the iPad. I can understand if they make iPad apps and they are more expensive than the iwork apps but they will need to have features that iWork can't compete with, features usually only found on Office for Windows desktop.
Business people might not care about the extra cost, as it's really very little for them.
My iPhone looks much more like a book.
I can change the darkness of the font. I can change the color of the font. I can change the darkness of the background. I can change the color of the background. I can switch the background and font around.Some programs allow you to set a paper-like pattern for the background, such as parchment.
No doubt we'll see much of this on the iPad as well.
Personally, I very much enjoy reading on my iPhone, as I did on my Treo and my Clie.
People ask whether the small screen ruins the experience, but it doesn't for me, if I'm reading a good book. Instead of being self-aware, I'm immersed in another world, created by the author. The medium doesn't add or subtract from the experience.
That's one reason why I've never been interested in any dedicated eReader hardware. And that's one reason why I have so little interest in the 'Pad.
IMO, using the antique 4:3 aspect ratio was to make the device more suited to reading printed content. iSteve lamely exclaimed (at least twice) "It doesn't matter which way you hold it!" But the only advantage to a truncated vertical orientation seems to be for eBooks. And the aspect ratio ruins the device for video content.
Oh well. 2010 seems like it will be chockablock with tablet announcements. I hope someone comes up with something better than the 'Pad.
Glossy screens aro really bad. At least for my eyes and (some other persons). I have eye strain and headache after 2 hours of working on the screen of HP Pavilion dv7. My eyes are tired then 2 more days, and it is difficult to have everything in sharp focus.
While on the normal non-glossy panel I can work for 12-14 hours per day without any problems (only get normally tired).
I do not wear eye glasses. My sight is still very good. But I doubt it would take long to worsen it if I work on this sh&ty glossy monitor from HP. Maybe other glossy monitors would have had other effect, but I have my opinion about them based on this experience and those 20-30 monitors/notebooks which I looked on in various shops.
This differs from person to person as well. But to claim that it is a myth or not true in general is wrong. Don't judge only based on your 'non-failure' experience with glossy. It is like smoking in the same room with other person - for some one it is acceptable, for others it is an insult to their person/health. Please, do not insult me saying that it is ok, while I have health problems with it (smoking and glossy).
P.S. And it was God sent, when we replaced CRTs with LCDs. It become so much better. I do not have problems with non-glossy LCDs.
Additionally, glossy is bad for any graphical professional. Ask any of them (if they say that it is ok, they are either paid for having (Apple), or try to convince themselves not to regret the purchase, or are not very good at what they are doing).
From all glossy, Apple's makes the best glossy. But it is still worse than non-glossy overall.
I'm a "graphical professional" otherwise known as a graphic designer (I'm also a pro photographer). Most people serious about color correction, photography and design production are working in a controlled environment with low-light, no direct sunlight sources and neutral paint on the walls. I tend to prefer glossy screens because they have the best/darkest blacks and thus crisper type as well. Matt screens diffuse the light and produce a less accurate representation of these elements. The irony is that the best monitors out there aren't glossy because people don't want to deal with the reflections. It takes work to get your environment set up for optimal viewing. Apple, by the way, doesn't make the best monitors although the latest imacs have improved quite a bit.
I'm a "graphical professional" otherwise known as a graphic designer (I'm also a pro photographer). Most people serious about color correction, photography and design production are working in a controlled environment with low-light, no direct sunlight sources and neutral paint on the walls. I tend to prefer glossy screens because they have the best/darkest blacks and thus crisper type as well. Matt screens diffuse the light and produce a less accurate representation of these elements. The irony is that the best monitors out there aren't glossy because people don't want to deal with the reflections. It takes work to get your environment set up for optimal viewing. Apple, by the way, doesn't make the best monitors although the latest imacs have improved quite a bit.
Great post. This site seems to have an overabundance of posters that claim that glossy screens outright suck for everyone so I'm glad to see a "graphical professional" comment on this.
Personally, I very much enjoy reading on my iPhone, as I did on my Treo and my Clie.
People ask whether the small screen ruins the experience, but it doesn't for me, if I'm reading a good book. Instead of being self-aware, I'm immersed in another world, created by the author. The medium doesn't add or subtract from the experience.
That's one reason why I've never been interested in any dedicated eReader hardware. And that's one reason why I have so little interest in the 'Pad.
IMO, using the antique 4:3 aspect ratio was to make the device more suited to reading printed content. iSteve lamely exclaimed (at least twice) "It doesn't matter which way you hold it!" But the only advantage to a truncated vertical orientation seems to be for eBooks. And the aspect ratio ruins the device for video content.
Oh well. 2010 seems like it will be chockablock with tablet announcements. I hope someone comes up with something better than the 'Pad.
In the past week, I've read five books on my phone, and two from paper. This is a typical week of reading, and it doesn't include the NY Times and WSJ every day (though the WSJ isn't published on Sunday), plus numerous magazines and journals.
I read a lot!
I've never found reading on any of my phones, and that's including my old Samsung Palmphones at 160 x 160, with a narrower screen, to be a problem, and I can read for hours at a stretch, with taking a break for a minute or so every so often.
Considering that I had several eye operations several months ago with a lot of problems, and my eyes aren't yet "good". I think that's saying something.
It seems to me that people who complain about having problems reading from their phone, either have some eye sensitivity they aren't aware of, or are ignoring, or the screen is simply set incorrectly. I've always has some light sensitivity, even though my profession required me to look at monitors closely for hours at a time, while correcting photo's, video editing, mastering audio projects, working on graphics, or making layouts for publication.
My sensitivity is worse after the eye operations. Yet - I've got no problems with my computer monitor or iPhone, though it took months before I could get back using both while my eyes healed, a process that is not yet finished.
I'm happy to see that the medical and research professions are finally getting involved in this, as it is now a big issue. As expected, they fall on the side that there is nothing wrong with viewing from a monitor, as long as everything is done properly, something I've been stating for years. And according to what I've read so far, the Kindle is no better than an LCD, and can even be worse, as can paper, which is something I've seen for myself over the years. It can be painful attempting to read a bright page outside on a bright sunny day.
Nothing is prefect. Everything has its good and bad properties.
Great post. This site seems to have an overabundance of posters that claim that glossy screens outright suck for everyone so I'm glad to see a "graphical professional" comment on this.
We've had a lot of graphics professionals comment on the threads about this over time. Most go for glossy, as I prefer as well.
I'm looking to buy another monitor. I'd like a 27" hi rez hi quality model. There is now one available. The new Dell 27" Ultrasharp U2711.
This has gotten very good reviews. It only costs $1099. This is a pretty good price for a monitor of this quality, and it's got just about every input one would want, including HDMI with HDCP.
I was waiting for Apple to make the 27" available, but that seems like a waste of time, because who knows when, or even if that will Happen? In addition, I as surprised to learn that it only covers 73% of Adobe RGB, which results in the gamut of SRGB. While a number of expensive professional graphics monitors also have that problem, including my 3+ year old Eizo, I expected something more.
The Dell covers almost all 100% though, and it's not an LED backlit model.
The only thing i'm not happy about is that it doesn't come with a glossy option. But i think I'll get it anyway, despite that fault.
We've had a lot of graphics professionals comment on the threads about this over time. Most go for glossy, as I prefer as well.
I'm looking to buy another monitor. I'd like a 27" hi rez hi quality model. There is now one available. The new Dell 27" Ultrasharp U2711.
This has gotten very good reviews. It only costs $1099. This is a pretty good price for a monitor of this quality, and it's got just about every input one would want, including HDMI with HDCP.
I was waiting for Apple to make the 27" available, but that seems like a waste of time, because who knows when, or even if that will Happen? In addition, I as surprised to learn that it only covers 73% of Adobe RGB, which results in the gamut of SRGB. While a number of expensive professional graphics monitors also have that problem, including my 3+ year old Eizo, I expected something more.
The Dell covers almost all 100% though, and it's not an LED backlit model.
The only thing i'm not happy about is that it doesn't come with a glossy option. But i think I'll get it anyway, despite that fault.
I recall mostly the anti-glossy posters and the majority that feel it's a personal choice with pros and cons on both ends. I'll have to be more careful not to remember the most vocal.
I read the Anandtech review of that display. Looks nice. I'm curious how others feel about the CCFL being better for professionals and if there are any drawbacks.
I'd hope Apple's ACDs are ready for an upgrade now that the iMac is pushing 27". Is more than 30" something that would interest that market segment? Is the current ACD pixel density pale in comparison to new displays of that size and quality?
I recall mostly the anti-glossy posters and the majority that feel it's a personal choice with pros and cons on both ends. I'll have to be more careful not to remember the most vocal.
I read the Anandtech review of that display. Looks nice. I'm curious how others feel about the CCFL being better for professionals and if there are any drawbacks.
I'd hope Apple's ACDs are ready for an upgrade now that the iMac is pushing 27". Is more than 30" something that would interest that market segment? Is the current ACD pixel density pale in comparison to new displays of that size and quality?
The problem with LED backlighting, is that the majority of displays that use it, don't use it for quality of color, in other words, to expand the gamut, but to cut down on heat and power usage.
In order to really expand the gamut with current LED technology, we need RGB diodes in the backlight, as my Samsung rear projection Tv uses. But that's very expensive, and the monitor is deeper than otherwise it would be.
But, a true SRGB gamut is still better than most cheaper monitors offer.