Adding to this the fact that the iPad can be docked to the MBA, in my opinion, negates the whole comparison between the two.
Interesting distinction.
And it is ironic that the iPad can also be docked to the HP Slate. Does that fact, in your opinion, negate any comparison between the iPad and the Slate?
aapl, I think I recognise your style of debate. Your join date and your style makes me think you've been doing this for longer than one might first think. But that's alright, I don't mind playing the game with you. As long as I don't get too worked up, and if I have time...
I think it highly interesting that you've moulded the conversation from the HP Slate to the iPad running a "cellphone OS" with "applets" not "real software" with a "cellphone CPU".
Guys reading this, isn't this style a little too familiar?
I gotta sleep now though... y'all have fun...!
I just realised it's user appl not aapl, we shouldn't get confused by this.
And it is ironic that the iPad can also be docked to the HP Slate. Does that fact, in your opinion, negate any comparison between the iPad and the Slate?
Just to be redundant (because I already linked to the article in an earlier post), this guy agrees with nvidia.
He convinced me. Given the choice between owning a motorcycle or a bicycle, I would prefer the motorcycle. I can't imagine having only a bicycle for transporttion, but I could get by with only a motorcycle.
For a second vehicle to supplement my car, I would likewise prefer an HP Slate, errr, motorcysle.
He convinced me. Given the choice between owning a motorcycle or a bicycle, I would prefer the motorcycle. I can't imagine having only a bicycle for transporttion, but I could get by with only a motorcycle.
For a second vehicle to supplement my car, I would likewise prefer an HP Slate, errr, motorcysle.
Careful now, you're slipping further into your modus operandi.
Because he uses it as a reason why the Air is in a "higher" or "better" or "more advanced device" category than the iPad. He doesn't realize that his reasoning damns his conclusion, and positions the HP in the same category as the Air. Which it is not.
Instead, it is in the same category as the iPad, albeit with vastly greater capabilities.
Careful now, you're slipping further into your modus operandi.
What is my MO?
And besides, I've said that I'm pretty unlikely to buy the HP. None of these tablet computers float my boat compared the cheap laptops currently available.
Likely in a couple of years (or less) there will be lots and lots and lots of great choices. I'm curious for example, about the WebOS tablets that HP is rumored to be producing, as well as the upcoming Android tablets. I would also need to use a Win7 tablet to see if the interface is as bad as people say.
At this point, I see nothing that seems worth buying. But the category is in its infancy, and IMO, will quickly evolve.
I'm glad that there are some completely different approaches to tablets. I don't know if a cellphone-style OS would be satisfying long-term. I don't know if a real OS would have its own challenges on that form factor.
But my guess is that before long, there will be different devices for everyone who thinks different from the current paradigm of the tablet being a limited-use extra-large PDA.
"Don't even bother, half the people here do no research whatsoever and just post typical anti-Microsoft fluff."
Are you trying to prove his point?
What research have you done? Have you EVER used a Win7 tablet? Once?
The posting is typical anti-Microsoft fluff. And the posting is not based upon research. It is all conjecture based upon typical anti-Microsoft fluff.
I've used tablets before the iPad arrival and always considered the UI decision insane. You might think I'm all conjecture, but I am 100% sure you will agree with me when you'll first use one and compare with a touch based UI, like iOS or Android.
Regular computer applications as opposed to cellphone-style applets. Compare, for example, Chrome or IE to the iPhone's browser. I call Chrome "real software" when distinguishing its category from cellphone-style applets.
General purpose use is the stuff that lots of computer users do. Not niche stuff. Not specialty stuff. Not limited stuff constrained by a weak OS and a cellphone style CPU. Regular computer stuff. That's all I meant.
This discussion is getting confusing, so I'm gonna back up to your statement when you mentioned "real software" and "general purpose use"
Quote:
Yep. The Air seems much better compared to the iPad. It will run real software, for example.
But it still has insufficient disk space for general purpose use. If you have NAS, and don't mind cooling your heels while stuff downloads, it could be sufficient, however.
So, breaking down your comment: "It will run real software..." I assume your pronoun "it" is referring to the Air. In other words, you're saying, the Air seems much better than the iPad, because the Air will run real software.
Then you say "But it still has insufficient disk space for general purpose use..." I assume here, the pronoun "it" is still referring to the Air; in other words, you're saying the Air still has insufficient disk space for general purpose use...
But then when I asked what you meant by general purpose use, you said "General purpose use is the stuff that lots of computer users do. Not niche stuff. Not specialty stuff. Not limited stuff constrained by a weak OS and a cellphone style CPU. Regular computer stuff."
But you first mentioned "general purpose use" in reference to the Air (which has a full CPU, not a cell-phone style CPU, and runs OS X, not a "weak" OS?by which I assume you mean iOS). In your response to my inquiry about what you meant by "general purpose use", it sounds like you're talking about the iPad rather than the Air.
I'm confused.
I guess I'm a little more liberal in my definition of "real software". I think the software that parses image data from the sensor in my digital camera is no less "real" than the Firefox browser I use on my MacBook. Software is software, regardless of its function or breadth or capability in my book, and all of it is equally "real".
We can just agree that I'm right and you're wrong about that. <JOKING!!!>
He convinced me. Given the choice between owning a motorcycle or a bicycle, I would prefer the motorcycle. I can't imagine having only a bicycle for transporttion, but I could get by with only a motorcycle.
For a second vehicle to supplement my car, I would likewise prefer an HP Slate, errr, motorcysle.
I think you missed the point the author was trying to make with his analogy. The point he was making was that comparing a motorcycle and a bicycle doesn't make sense, because they belong in different categories—they serve different purposes. A motorcycle is more powerful and faster than a bicycle, and could be used as a primary means of transportation (IOW the HP Slate), whereas, a bicycle is a recreational means of transportation—it's good to get around town, it's efficient, it's fun, it's good exercise, etc. but it would not be feasible as a primary means of transportation, particularly for long distances (IOW the iPad). Both are perfectly capable for the tasks they're designed to handle. But it doesn't make sense to say that a bicycle is an underpowered motorcycle. That's what the author was saying.
Many people have bicycles, BUT, most of those people also have a more powerful, more capable means of transportation as well—in the literal, and analogous sense.
The author said that, if your main PC could be analogous to your car (your primary means of transportation), the HP Slate could be analogous to a motorcycle (a fully functional, stand-alone, self-powered means of transportation, though less capable than your car), and the iPad could be analogous to a bicycle (many capabilities, but not self-powered—i.e. doesn't have the same capabilities as a self-powered vehicle like a car or motorcycle). In other words, you can have a car and a motorcycle and a bicycle (in the literal or analogous sense) Hope this clears things up!
So, breaking down your comment: "It will run real software..." I assume your pronoun "it" is referring to the Air. In other words, you're saying, the Air seems much better than the iPad, because the Air will run real software.
Then you say "But it still has insufficient disk space for general purpose use..." I assume here, the pronoun "it" is still referring to the Air; in other words, you're saying the Air still has insufficient disk space for general purpose use...
So far, so good. One point, however, the full OS is only an example of why I made my comment about the Air. There are loads of other examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futuristic
But then when I asked what you meant by general purpose use, you said "General purpose use is the stuff that lots of computer users do. Not niche stuff. Not specialty stuff. Not limited stuff constrained by a weak OS and a cellphone style CPU. Regular computer stuff."
But you first mentioned "general purpose use" in reference to the Air (which has a full CPU, not a cell-phone style CPU, and runs OS X, not a "weak" OS?by which I assume you mean iOS). In your response to my inquiry about what you meant by "general purpose use", it sounds like you're talking about the iPad rather than the Air.
Nope. I'm talking about the Air not having sufficient disk space for general purpose use. ISTM that it has less disk space than el-cheapo computers had many, many years ago. I am under the impression that multi-hundred gigabyte drives are pretty normal for general purpose use, as I use the term. I cannot imagine, for example, that the Air would be an optimal place to keep your vacation videos, because the drive is so small. I cannot imagine that the Air is the optimal place to keep your music, or pictures, or movies, or documents, or years' worth of archived emails, or anything that lots of folks use their computers for.
The point he was making was that comparing a motorcycle and a bicycle doesn't make sense, because they belong in different categories?they serve different purposes. A motorcycle is more powerful and faster than a bicycle, and could be used as a primary means of transportation (IOW the HP Slate), whereas, a bicycle is a recreational means of transportation?it's good to get around town, it's efficient, it's fun, it's good exercise, etc. but it would not be feasible as a primary means of transportation, particularly for long distances (IOW the iPad).
Yep. I got that.
I was running with his analogy, and demonstrating that it falls apart. Not only does it fall apart, but it paints the iPad as much less capable compared to the HP.
And BTW, a motorcycle is a great way to get around town, its efficient compared to most other modes of transportation, its fun, etc.
The analogy falls apart. It paints the iPad as an inferior device that is positively anemic and lacking in versatility compared to the HP. The defense that because it is missing the power of the HP, it is therefore in a differerent category, is specious.
And insulting to the iPad. It is like the HP, just not quite as powerful in either the hardware or the software. That's OK. No need to feel bad. No need to relegate the iPad to a lower status or a different category.
If narrowscreen monitors are better, why doesn't anybody use them? Except for one product, even Apple has shitcanned that old-fashioned stuff.
And no, I have never used a 7 inch touchscreen of any aspect ratio. I use the smaller, not-4:3 touchscreen on my iPhone though. I do not wish it to be 4:3.
And besides, many of those undoable tasks cannot be done on an Ipad anyways - it is too weak and doesn't have full software packages available for it. Even if it did, it doesn't have enough RAM or CPU to handle that sort of stuff.
So given that the hardware is insufficient for the listed tasks, how does the narrowscreen on the iPad help? I mean, aside from making it magical.
Actually, I long for the old 4:3 monitors. I really hate this stupid fad of 16:9, as if we would all be seeing movies all the time with our laptops and desktops. The screen of my laptop just feels cropped at the top.
Instead, it is in the same category as the iPad, albeit with vastly greater capabilities.
This is true, of course. The HP slate will have "vastly greater capabilities", but of course that these won't matter, for it's not important for a slate to have huge capabilities, but rather the competence to do exactly what one wants a tablet to be able to do, no more than that. The problem of putting an entire Windows 7 ecossystem inside a Tablet is that now you are dealing with another pc in your house, with folders, registers, antiviruses, a whole computer when all you wanted was to be able to read a book, watch a movie, make some cool stuff in the web or in some basic app, play a game, etc.
It's like arguing that a screen on the face of a fridge would have "vastly greater capabilities" if it would run full blown Windows 7. Why not wrist watches? That would be Gates' orgasm, I'm sure!
Without question the Atom DOES play HD video better than an iPad though. My iPad simply cannot play many video files that my HP Mini has no problems with. Frankly, I'm getting tired of the "Your iPad is probably too slow to play this file" error messages. Yes, MKVs are processor intensive, but if the HP Mini can handle it, why can't the iPad using the same app?
That's a bad software developer only querying the Ghz rating of the hardware and making a determination on that. They forgot that the memory architecture is more important that the CPU speed in many applications, and iPad's A4 is FAR superior to an Atom in that aspect.
So before you din'g the hardware, make sure the software dev actually made good assumptions.
I was running with his analogy, and demonstrating that it falls apart. Not only does it fall apart, but it paints the iPad as much less capable compared to the HP.
And BTW, a motorcycle is a great way to get around town, its efficient compared to most other modes of transportation, its fun, etc.
The analogy falls apart. It paints the iPad as an inferior device that is positively anemic and lacking in versatility compared to the HP. The defense that because it is missing the power of the HP, it is therefore in a differerent category, is specious.
And insulting to the iPad. It is like the HP, just not quite as powerful in either the hardware or the software. That's OK. No need to feel bad. No need to relegate the iPad to a lower status or a different category.
The analogy does not paint the iPad as less capable than the HP. It describes it as differently capable than the HP. Just like a bicycle is differently capable than, though not necessarily inferior to, a motorcycle. Neither I nor the author were suggesting that the iPad is inferior to the HP, but you are suggesting precisely that by saying, "It is like the HP, just not quite as powerful in either the hardware or the software."
And neither I nor the author are trying to be specious by saying that the iPad is missing the power of the HP. The simple fact is, the HP Slate works as a standalone PC. The iPad is not a standalone PC, neither was it ever marketed as such. In fact, with regard to the iPad's functionality, a PC/Mac is required if you want to install or update software on the iPad according to the way it was designed (I'm sure there are hacks or whatever that allow you to install software without tethering it to a computer, but that's the exception, not part of its original design or purpose). The HP on the other hand, doesn't require tethering to a host PC for software installations or updates. The iPad is not trying to be more than it is. It is an iOS device, not a full-fledged PC. It is happy with its identity. It doesn't feel insulted.
This is true, of course. The HP slate will have "vastly greater capabilities", but of course that these won't matter, for it's not important for a slate to have huge capabilities, but rather the competence to do exactly what one wants a tablet to be able to do, no more than that.
Ok. I guess I don't accept that a tablet has to be so anemic. Maybe I should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias
The problem of putting an entire Windows 7 ecossystem inside a Tablet is that now you are dealing with another pc in your house, with folders, registers, antiviruses, a whole computer when all you wanted was to be able to read a book, watch a movie, make some cool stuff in the web or in some basic app, play a game, etc.
I use my laptop for all that stuff. To watch a movie, I double-click the name of the movie. To play a game, I click on the name of the game. I have stuff in logical places in the file system, and I use shortcuts and the built-in libraries to get to the meat in seconds.
I don't worry about antivirus - it works automatically and transparently.
I don't share your view that a computer is a PITA that gets in the way of doing what you want to do. I also disagree with you that lopping off functionality in the name of simplicity is a good way to go about things.
If I had the choice between a fully-functioning device that works pretty well, or a limited-functionality device that is a little bit easier, I would choose the fully functioning device every time.
You guys have got it wrong about the stylus. This is one of the few really great things about the HP Slate. Being able to use a high-resolution pressure sensitive stylus on a device with a capacitive touchscreen is remarkable. You cannot do detailed illustration on an iPad because you cannot use a high resolution stylus. sure, you can do illustration, just not accurately enough for programs like Photoshop and accurate variable-width vector drawing. You can use a capacitive stylus like the Pogo, but its resolution is way too low for accurate illustration or handwriting.
I wish you could use a Wacom stylus on the iPad. That would be an incredible advance for artists and for handwriting recognition.
I have tried to use a 12" Wacom Cintique with my MBP for things other than artistic content creation and it absolutely SUCKS for that kind of work. I was hoping it would be a great way to mark up PDFs and do napkin style sketches but I cannot get anything out of the interface that is worthwhile. I know artists that work with them and love them, but I see them using either using wide brushes or very high zoom levels, techniques that don't work for daily business notes and document markup. If HP is using Cintique technology I don't see them overcoming that easily.
I'll fully admit those problems may be application software related, rather than hardware limitations, but I have spent enough hours hunting for both Windows and OS X software to overcome the limitations I have seen that I doubt there is a magic repository of brilliant business tablet software HP can leverage.
Comments
Fair enough. You categorize by OS, instead of the other aspects.
I suppose that is one way to do it, but I am not aware that anybody besides you considers that a valid method.
Just to be redundant (because I already linked to the article in an earlier post), this guy agrees with nvidia.
Adding to this the fact that the iPad can be docked to the MBA, in my opinion, negates the whole comparison between the two.
Interesting distinction.
And it is ironic that the iPad can also be docked to the HP Slate. Does that fact, in your opinion, negate any comparison between the iPad and the Slate?
If not, why not?
I think it highly interesting that you've moulded the conversation from the HP Slate to the iPad running a "cellphone OS" with "applets" not "real software" with a "cellphone CPU".
Guys reading this, isn't this style a little too familiar?
I gotta sleep now though... y'all have fun...!
I just realised it's user appl not aapl, we shouldn't get confused by this.
Interesting distinction.
And it is ironic that the iPad can also be docked to the HP Slate. Does that fact, in your opinion, negate any comparison between the iPad and the Slate?
If not, why not?
How is it "ironic" ?
Just to be redundant (because I already linked to the article in an earlier post), this guy agrees with nvidia.
He convinced me. Given the choice between owning a motorcycle or a bicycle, I would prefer the motorcycle. I can't imagine having only a bicycle for transporttion, but I could get by with only a motorcycle.
For a second vehicle to supplement my car, I would likewise prefer an HP Slate, errr, motorcysle.
He convinced me. Given the choice between owning a motorcycle or a bicycle, I would prefer the motorcycle. I can't imagine having only a bicycle for transporttion, but I could get by with only a motorcycle.
For a second vehicle to supplement my car, I would likewise prefer an HP Slate, errr, motorcysle.
Careful now, you're slipping further into your modus operandi.
aapl, I think I recognise your style of debate.
Let's stick to the topic at hand.
How is it "ironic" ?
Because he uses it as a reason why the Air is in a "higher" or "better" or "more advanced device" category than the iPad. He doesn't realize that his reasoning damns his conclusion, and positions the HP in the same category as the Air. Which it is not.
Instead, it is in the same category as the iPad, albeit with vastly greater capabilities.
Careful now, you're slipping further into your modus operandi.
What is my MO?
And besides, I've said that I'm pretty unlikely to buy the HP. None of these tablet computers float my boat compared the cheap laptops currently available.
Likely in a couple of years (or less) there will be lots and lots and lots of great choices. I'm curious for example, about the WebOS tablets that HP is rumored to be producing, as well as the upcoming Android tablets. I would also need to use a Win7 tablet to see if the interface is as bad as people say.
At this point, I see nothing that seems worth buying. But the category is in its infancy, and IMO, will quickly evolve.
I'm glad that there are some completely different approaches to tablets. I don't know if a cellphone-style OS would be satisfying long-term. I don't know if a real OS would have its own challenges on that form factor.
But my guess is that before long, there will be different devices for everyone who thinks different from the current paradigm of the tablet being a limited-use extra-large PDA.
"Don't even bother, half the people here do no research whatsoever and just post typical anti-Microsoft fluff."
Are you trying to prove his point?
What research have you done? Have you EVER used a Win7 tablet? Once?
The posting is typical anti-Microsoft fluff. And the posting is not based upon research. It is all conjecture based upon typical anti-Microsoft fluff.
I've used tablets before the iPad arrival and always considered the UI decision insane. You might think I'm all conjecture, but I am 100% sure you will agree with me when you'll first use one and compare with a touch based UI, like iOS or Android.
Regular computer applications as opposed to cellphone-style applets. Compare, for example, Chrome or IE to the iPhone's browser. I call Chrome "real software" when distinguishing its category from cellphone-style applets.
General purpose use is the stuff that lots of computer users do. Not niche stuff. Not specialty stuff. Not limited stuff constrained by a weak OS and a cellphone style CPU. Regular computer stuff. That's all I meant.
This discussion is getting confusing, so I'm gonna back up to your statement when you mentioned "real software" and "general purpose use"
Yep. The Air seems much better compared to the iPad. It will run real software, for example.
But it still has insufficient disk space for general purpose use. If you have NAS, and don't mind cooling your heels while stuff downloads, it could be sufficient, however.
So, breaking down your comment: "It will run real software..." I assume your pronoun "it" is referring to the Air. In other words, you're saying, the Air seems much better than the iPad, because the Air will run real software.
Then you say "But it still has insufficient disk space for general purpose use..." I assume here, the pronoun "it" is still referring to the Air; in other words, you're saying the Air still has insufficient disk space for general purpose use...
But then when I asked what you meant by general purpose use, you said "General purpose use is the stuff that lots of computer users do. Not niche stuff. Not specialty stuff. Not limited stuff constrained by a weak OS and a cellphone style CPU. Regular computer stuff."
But you first mentioned "general purpose use" in reference to the Air (which has a full CPU, not a cell-phone style CPU, and runs OS X, not a "weak" OS?by which I assume you mean iOS). In your response to my inquiry about what you meant by "general purpose use", it sounds like you're talking about the iPad rather than the Air.
I'm confused.
I guess I'm a little more liberal in my definition of "real software". I think the software that parses image data from the sensor in my digital camera is no less "real" than the Firefox browser I use on my MacBook. Software is software, regardless of its function or breadth or capability in my book, and all of it is equally "real".
We can just agree that I'm right and you're wrong about that. <JOKING!!!>
He convinced me. Given the choice between owning a motorcycle or a bicycle, I would prefer the motorcycle. I can't imagine having only a bicycle for transporttion, but I could get by with only a motorcycle.
For a second vehicle to supplement my car, I would likewise prefer an HP Slate, errr, motorcysle.
I think you missed the point the author was trying to make with his analogy. The point he was making was that comparing a motorcycle and a bicycle doesn't make sense, because they belong in different categories—they serve different purposes. A motorcycle is more powerful and faster than a bicycle, and could be used as a primary means of transportation (IOW the HP Slate), whereas, a bicycle is a recreational means of transportation—it's good to get around town, it's efficient, it's fun, it's good exercise, etc. but it would not be feasible as a primary means of transportation, particularly for long distances (IOW the iPad). Both are perfectly capable for the tasks they're designed to handle. But it doesn't make sense to say that a bicycle is an underpowered motorcycle. That's what the author was saying.
Many people have bicycles, BUT, most of those people also have a more powerful, more capable means of transportation as well—in the literal, and analogous sense.
The author said that, if your main PC could be analogous to your car (your primary means of transportation), the HP Slate could be analogous to a motorcycle (a fully functional, stand-alone, self-powered means of transportation, though less capable than your car), and the iPad could be analogous to a bicycle (many capabilities, but not self-powered—i.e. doesn't have the same capabilities as a self-powered vehicle like a car or motorcycle). In other words, you can have a car and a motorcycle and a bicycle (in the literal or analogous sense) Hope this clears things up!
So, breaking down your comment: "It will run real software..." I assume your pronoun "it" is referring to the Air. In other words, you're saying, the Air seems much better than the iPad, because the Air will run real software.
Then you say "But it still has insufficient disk space for general purpose use..." I assume here, the pronoun "it" is still referring to the Air; in other words, you're saying the Air still has insufficient disk space for general purpose use...
So far, so good. One point, however, the full OS is only an example of why I made my comment about the Air. There are loads of other examples.
But then when I asked what you meant by general purpose use, you said "General purpose use is the stuff that lots of computer users do. Not niche stuff. Not specialty stuff. Not limited stuff constrained by a weak OS and a cellphone style CPU. Regular computer stuff."
But you first mentioned "general purpose use" in reference to the Air (which has a full CPU, not a cell-phone style CPU, and runs OS X, not a "weak" OS?by which I assume you mean iOS). In your response to my inquiry about what you meant by "general purpose use", it sounds like you're talking about the iPad rather than the Air.
Nope. I'm talking about the Air not having sufficient disk space for general purpose use. ISTM that it has less disk space than el-cheapo computers had many, many years ago. I am under the impression that multi-hundred gigabyte drives are pretty normal for general purpose use, as I use the term. I cannot imagine, for example, that the Air would be an optimal place to keep your vacation videos, because the drive is so small. I cannot imagine that the Air is the optimal place to keep your music, or pictures, or movies, or documents, or years' worth of archived emails, or anything that lots of folks use their computers for.
The point he was making was that comparing a motorcycle and a bicycle doesn't make sense, because they belong in different categories?they serve different purposes. A motorcycle is more powerful and faster than a bicycle, and could be used as a primary means of transportation (IOW the HP Slate), whereas, a bicycle is a recreational means of transportation?it's good to get around town, it's efficient, it's fun, it's good exercise, etc. but it would not be feasible as a primary means of transportation, particularly for long distances (IOW the iPad).
Yep. I got that.
I was running with his analogy, and demonstrating that it falls apart. Not only does it fall apart, but it paints the iPad as much less capable compared to the HP.
And BTW, a motorcycle is a great way to get around town, its efficient compared to most other modes of transportation, its fun, etc.
The analogy falls apart. It paints the iPad as an inferior device that is positively anemic and lacking in versatility compared to the HP. The defense that because it is missing the power of the HP, it is therefore in a differerent category, is specious.
And insulting to the iPad. It is like the HP, just not quite as powerful in either the hardware or the software. That's OK. No need to feel bad. No need to relegate the iPad to a lower status or a different category.
If narrowscreen monitors are better, why doesn't anybody use them? Except for one product, even Apple has shitcanned that old-fashioned stuff.
And no, I have never used a 7 inch touchscreen of any aspect ratio. I use the smaller, not-4:3 touchscreen on my iPhone though. I do not wish it to be 4:3.
And besides, many of those undoable tasks cannot be done on an Ipad anyways - it is too weak and doesn't have full software packages available for it. Even if it did, it doesn't have enough RAM or CPU to handle that sort of stuff.
So given that the hardware is insufficient for the listed tasks, how does the narrowscreen on the iPad help? I mean, aside from making it magical.
Actually, I long for the old 4:3 monitors. I really hate this stupid fad of 16:9, as if we would all be seeing movies all the time with our laptops and desktops. The screen of my laptop just feels cropped at the top.
Instead, it is in the same category as the iPad, albeit with vastly greater capabilities.
This is true, of course. The HP slate will have "vastly greater capabilities", but of course that these won't matter, for it's not important for a slate to have huge capabilities, but rather the competence to do exactly what one wants a tablet to be able to do, no more than that. The problem of putting an entire Windows 7 ecossystem inside a Tablet is that now you are dealing with another pc in your house, with folders, registers, antiviruses, a whole computer when all you wanted was to be able to read a book, watch a movie, make some cool stuff in the web or in some basic app, play a game, etc.
It's like arguing that a screen on the face of a fridge would have "vastly greater capabilities" if it would run full blown Windows 7. Why not wrist watches? That would be Gates' orgasm, I'm sure!
Without question the Atom DOES play HD video better than an iPad though. My iPad simply cannot play many video files that my HP Mini has no problems with. Frankly, I'm getting tired of the "Your iPad is probably too slow to play this file" error messages. Yes, MKVs are processor intensive, but if the HP Mini can handle it, why can't the iPad using the same app?
That's a bad software developer only querying the Ghz rating of the hardware and making a determination on that. They forgot that the memory architecture is more important that the CPU speed in many applications, and iPad's A4 is FAR superior to an Atom in that aspect.
So before you din'g the hardware, make sure the software dev actually made good assumptions.
Yep. I got that.
I was running with his analogy, and demonstrating that it falls apart. Not only does it fall apart, but it paints the iPad as much less capable compared to the HP.
And BTW, a motorcycle is a great way to get around town, its efficient compared to most other modes of transportation, its fun, etc.
The analogy falls apart. It paints the iPad as an inferior device that is positively anemic and lacking in versatility compared to the HP. The defense that because it is missing the power of the HP, it is therefore in a differerent category, is specious.
And insulting to the iPad. It is like the HP, just not quite as powerful in either the hardware or the software. That's OK. No need to feel bad. No need to relegate the iPad to a lower status or a different category.
The analogy does not paint the iPad as less capable than the HP. It describes it as differently capable than the HP. Just like a bicycle is differently capable than, though not necessarily inferior to, a motorcycle. Neither I nor the author were suggesting that the iPad is inferior to the HP, but you are suggesting precisely that by saying, "It is like the HP, just not quite as powerful in either the hardware or the software."
And neither I nor the author are trying to be specious by saying that the iPad is missing the power of the HP. The simple fact is, the HP Slate works as a standalone PC. The iPad is not a standalone PC, neither was it ever marketed as such. In fact, with regard to the iPad's functionality, a PC/Mac is required if you want to install or update software on the iPad according to the way it was designed (I'm sure there are hacks or whatever that allow you to install software without tethering it to a computer, but that's the exception, not part of its original design or purpose). The HP on the other hand, doesn't require tethering to a host PC for software installations or updates. The iPad is not trying to be more than it is. It is an iOS device, not a full-fledged PC. It is happy with its identity. It doesn't feel insulted.
This is true, of course. The HP slate will have "vastly greater capabilities", but of course that these won't matter, for it's not important for a slate to have huge capabilities, but rather the competence to do exactly what one wants a tablet to be able to do, no more than that.
Ok. I guess I don't accept that a tablet has to be so anemic. Maybe I should.
The problem of putting an entire Windows 7 ecossystem inside a Tablet is that now you are dealing with another pc in your house, with folders, registers, antiviruses, a whole computer when all you wanted was to be able to read a book, watch a movie, make some cool stuff in the web or in some basic app, play a game, etc.
I use my laptop for all that stuff. To watch a movie, I double-click the name of the movie. To play a game, I click on the name of the game. I have stuff in logical places in the file system, and I use shortcuts and the built-in libraries to get to the meat in seconds.
I don't worry about antivirus - it works automatically and transparently.
I don't share your view that a computer is a PITA that gets in the way of doing what you want to do. I also disagree with you that lopping off functionality in the name of simplicity is a good way to go about things.
If I had the choice between a fully-functioning device that works pretty well, or a limited-functionality device that is a little bit easier, I would choose the fully functioning device every time.
But I seem to think different.
You guys have got it wrong about the stylus. This is one of the few really great things about the HP Slate. Being able to use a high-resolution pressure sensitive stylus on a device with a capacitive touchscreen is remarkable. You cannot do detailed illustration on an iPad because you cannot use a high resolution stylus. sure, you can do illustration, just not accurately enough for programs like Photoshop and accurate variable-width vector drawing. You can use a capacitive stylus like the Pogo, but its resolution is way too low for accurate illustration or handwriting.
I wish you could use a Wacom stylus on the iPad. That would be an incredible advance for artists and for handwriting recognition.
I have tried to use a 12" Wacom Cintique with my MBP for things other than artistic content creation and it absolutely SUCKS for that kind of work. I was hoping it would be a great way to mark up PDFs and do napkin style sketches but I cannot get anything out of the interface that is worthwhile. I know artists that work with them and love them, but I see them using either using wide brushes or very high zoom levels, techniques that don't work for daily business notes and document markup. If HP is using Cintique technology I don't see them overcoming that easily.
I'll fully admit those problems may be application software related, rather than hardware limitations, but I have spent enough hours hunting for both Windows and OS X software to overcome the limitations I have seen that I doubt there is a magic repository of brilliant business tablet software HP can leverage.