With probably twice the processing power of an iPad, I would expect the Playbook to be faster. Processor power is purposely reduced in handheld devices to reduce power consumption. I can't see how running a multicore chip and Flash that the playbook is going to have good battery life. Unless it has more battery which increases weight and thickness. Frankly, I don't care either, I find my iPad pretty snappy so I'm not looking for a big improvement in speed. I've said this before and I'll say it again - all those pro-RIM, pro-BB, pro-PlayBook folks better be buying this when it comes out otherwise, the Apple fanboys win. Talking about it doesn't count.
RIM is effed up! They are using Apple's ipad a springboard to launch their own device. Pathetic. A web browser showdown? OMFG! To the suckers out there that must be real impressive. Meh!
Look, have you ever seen Apple show off an early prototype whatever going against something similar already in the market? HELL NO!
agreed. the rallying cry of the mediocre, the fence sitters, and those too afraid to have an opinion.
Or perhaps some people can see beyond the perimeters of the walled garden?
I'm a user of Apple products and as I believe that the Apple's superior (in a number of ways) I wouldn't consider purchasing competing products. However, that does not preclude me from being able to recognise that for some people - possibly many of people - the Apple product may not be the solution for any number of reasons.
And yes, in the end it does benefit everyone in the long run to have more than one company pushing boundaries, including users of Apple products.
it's a cop-out...a broad statement that nobody in their right mind would disagree with usually made by posters who are meek and non-confrontational. and it's annoying to hear it so frequently
Maybe some people are annoyed by the constant closing down of interesting and thoughtful discussion by tech-zealots on both sides of the fence?
I'm a digital fiction publisher and have created a cloud-based e-reading service. In short, we don't publish e-books -- we serve short stories to connected readers. So I want to see the entire tablet market grow by leaps and bounds. Our site was designed with the iPad in mind, but we want to be accessible on as many mobile devices as possible. With hight hopes, I made a trip to a local Verizon store to check out the Samsung Galaxy Tab, and my hopes were dashed. I'll have the same reservation about the RIM tablet, no matter how good it may be...
What troubles me, now that I've seen it, is the HD video screen proportion (1024 x 600?). While it may be optimal for viewing HD video, it is a pain for surfing the web. The extra 168 pixels of height provided by the iPad's 1024 x 768 resolution makes a big difference -- particularly to a media provider whose product is mostly words and images. Of course HD videos can still play at the full 1024 width.
What troubles me, now that I've seen it, is the HD video screen proportion (1024 x 600?). While it may be optimal for viewing HD video, it is a pain for surfing the web. The extra 168 pixels of height provided by the iPad's 1024 x 768 resolution makes a big difference -- particularly to a media provider whose product is mostly words and images. Of course HD videos can still play at the full 1024 width.
Wait til retina comes out on iPad. I read more on my iPhone 4 than my iPad because the retina display is unbelievably clear. I had no idea how huge that feature would be when I bought the iPhone 4. Now I can tell you it's more important to me than face time and other new features
You?ll likely be waiting at least 6 years. Even if we don?t use the iPhone 4?s ppi, but the minimum of 20/20 vision it?s a tablet you are still looking at a resolution that would exceed an iMac.
The best we could hope for is quadrupling the ppi like the iPhone 4 did over the 3GS, but even that seems unlikely at this point.
I hv used numerous amount of notebook, netbook, minicomputer, UMPC, PDA for last 15 years and I hv to say in the long run larger screen (10in) will likely earn its #1 spot.
Minicomputer/UMPC with 5 to 7 in screen always look sexy, cute, handy. But once you start to use it long hours u will start feeling that this can't be a replacement of ur computer - the screen simply isn't large to perform most of the tasks.
When I switch to iPad, I hv never thought about buying another netbook or UMPC again, the 10 inch screen together with touch interface is a haven compared to other small/sexy looking devices. Reading books or web or documents on iPAD is just "natural", you don't hv to adjust any behavior to fit the device, the device is made to fit you and the wonderful thing is that I never worry about the battery life. Of course I think Apple should always try to make the device lighter, thinner and with longer battery. Funny is my wife feel exactly the same way and bought one for herself and she never is a fan of gadget.
7/5 in tablet will always hv a market, coz it always looks and feels sexy/attractive, people always imagine they can carry it in their pocket/handbag/suitcase and do everything mobile but soon they will find out they need to adjust too many habits to use the device. Look at all the UMPCs, I don't think the reason of failure is just the interface/OS/battery life, it's the screen size that's limiting all the natural transition from desk to iPAD. The only exception is Kindle, it only serve one purpose and all the function are integrated in a perfect way, that's why it works.
I wonder why no major computer manufacturer is brave enough to hv a head to head competition with APPLE. They are just trying to find niche sector in market. I wish they can make 10 in tablet which is lighter/thinner/longer battery life and I think the world will be moving towards a more paperless/environmental friendly manner.
I wonder why no major computer manufacturer is brave enough to hv a head to head competition with APPLE.
It's nothing to do with brave or not brave --- that's how the real world works.
Airbus and Boeing NEVER compete directly against each other. Airbus would have a 200 seater and Boeing would come up with a 225 seater. Airbus comes up with a 250 seater and Boeing would come up with a 275 seater. They never match up directly.
What are the technical hurdles? Can't they just make current iPhone 4 screen larger?
Cost, power/battery life for starters. Then there's the issue of apps requiring re-writing - as mentioned elsewhere many times, an iPad screen with the same dpi as an iPhone 4 would be higher resolution than the 27" iMac.
Or perhaps some people can see beyond the perimeters of the walled garden?
I'm a user of Apple products and as I believe that the Apple's superior (in a number of ways) I wouldn't consider purchasing competing products. However, that does not preclude me from being able to recognise that for some people - possibly many of people - the Apple product may not be the solution for any number of reasons.
And yes, in the end it does benefit everyone in the long run to have more than one company pushing boundaries, including users of Apple products.
True. And I don't deny that it benefits everyone.
I'm just saying. We've heard it a thousand times. In and of itself, it's not exactly a compelling or original statement anymore.
If it were being used to back up a point, it'd be different. but as a point in and of itself, it's annoying at best and a cop-out at worst.
I wonder how the QNX OS compares to Mac OS X/iOS performance wise.
QNX has been running on embedded systems for a while and more then likely is more optimized.
I'd love to compare both kernel and OS designs. I'm have a feeling that the QNX OS is better designed in many respects. It doesn't take much to beat Mac OS X's messaging system,
its pretty dog slow by design. Here are some sample tests (a bit old) but interesting nonetheless...
Kernel design really effects performance. I would love to see how QNX compares.
I like QNX's design because of its 'modularity' (best word to describe it?). However, in comparison to iOS, I don't see very many large benefits. iOS's kernel has been highly optimized to run on a mobile device with specific hardware and the same thing would have to be done with QNX in order for it to be efficient, since it requires and creates tight integration with the CPU and its "technique" can cause issues beyond the messaging system (which can cause problems in the programming stack [or pool?] or SDK development later if not maintained correctly) - At least from what I know about it, which is older knowledge; I'm not a pro.
I'd be interested to see what RIM has done behind the scenes and the performance comparison as well.
Comments
An eye for an eye, you just called the original poster spinless.
in a roundabout way, you're right, i did. my apologies.
it's still annoying.
Is it really something to tout when it's between "can" vs "can't" & "can" vs "I don't want to" wherein Apple is clearly the latter?
It's one thing for Apple to say that they don't want to --- because of performance issues.
But if RIM can launch the playbook with acceptable flash performance and acceptable battery life --- then it becomes an entire different issue.
It's one thing for Apple to say that they don't want to --- because of performance issues.
But if RIM can launch the playbook with acceptable flash performance and acceptable battery life --- then it becomes an entire different issue.
very true. it would be significant for RIM if the playbook has acceptable flash and battery life. we'll see in 2-4 months.
RIM is effed up! They are using Apple's ipad a springboard to launch their own device. Pathetic. A web browser showdown? OMFG! To the suckers out there that must be real impressive. Meh!
Look, have you ever seen Apple show off an early prototype whatever going against something similar already in the market? HELL NO!
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/16/b...ands-on-video/
agreed. the rallying cry of the mediocre, the fence sitters, and those too afraid to have an opinion.
Or perhaps some people can see beyond the perimeters of the walled garden?
I'm a user of Apple products and as I believe that the Apple's superior (in a number of ways) I wouldn't consider purchasing competing products. However, that does not preclude me from being able to recognise that for some people - possibly many of people - the Apple product may not be the solution for any number of reasons.
And yes, in the end it does benefit everyone in the long run to have more than one company pushing boundaries, including users of Apple products.
Anyone notice the shadow around the RIM device? Wonder why it's propped up on the left?
Also, until they actually get one of these in the hands of a "real" person this is just speculation.
Well, spotted. It does seem strange. Wonder what the back would look like...
it's a cop-out...a broad statement that nobody in their right mind would disagree with usually made by posters who are meek and non-confrontational. and it's annoying to hear it so frequently
Maybe some people are annoyed by the constant closing down of interesting and thoughtful discussion by tech-zealots on both sides of the fence?
What troubles me, now that I've seen it, is the HD video screen proportion (1024 x 600?). While it may be optimal for viewing HD video, it is a pain for surfing the web. The extra 168 pixels of height provided by the iPad's 1024 x 768 resolution makes a big difference -- particularly to a media provider whose product is mostly words and images. Of course HD videos can still play at the full 1024 width.
What troubles me, now that I've seen it, is the HD video screen proportion (1024 x 600?). While it may be optimal for viewing HD video, it is a pain for surfing the web. The extra 168 pixels of height provided by the iPad's 1024 x 768 resolution makes a big difference -- particularly to a media provider whose product is mostly words and images. Of course HD videos can still play at the full 1024 width.
Wait til retina comes out on iPad. I read more on my iPhone 4 than my iPad because the retina display is unbelievably clear. I had no idea how huge that feature would be when I bought the iPhone 4. Now I can tell you it's more important to me than face time and other new features
This is a RIM Job!
That's immatu...... -_- Oh who am I kidding? Hahahaha Nice.
I know, it is sad. I lived in FW for many years.
Liar! You can?t live in FireWire.
Wait til retina comes out on iPad.
You?ll likely be waiting at least 6 years. Even if we don?t use the iPhone 4?s ppi, but the minimum of 20/20 vision it?s a tablet you are still looking at a resolution that would exceed an iMac.
The best we could hope for is quadrupling the ppi like the iPhone 4 did over the 3GS, but even that seems unlikely at this point.
Minicomputer/UMPC with 5 to 7 in screen always look sexy, cute, handy. But once you start to use it long hours u will start feeling that this can't be a replacement of ur computer - the screen simply isn't large to perform most of the tasks.
When I switch to iPad, I hv never thought about buying another netbook or UMPC again, the 10 inch screen together with touch interface is a haven compared to other small/sexy looking devices. Reading books or web or documents on iPAD is just "natural", you don't hv to adjust any behavior to fit the device, the device is made to fit you and the wonderful thing is that I never worry about the battery life. Of course I think Apple should always try to make the device lighter, thinner and with longer battery. Funny is my wife feel exactly the same way and bought one for herself and she never is a fan of gadget.
7/5 in tablet will always hv a market, coz it always looks and feels sexy/attractive, people always imagine they can carry it in their pocket/handbag/suitcase and do everything mobile but soon they will find out they need to adjust too many habits to use the device. Look at all the UMPCs, I don't think the reason of failure is just the interface/OS/battery life, it's the screen size that's limiting all the natural transition from desk to iPAD. The only exception is Kindle, it only serve one purpose and all the function are integrated in a perfect way, that's why it works.
I wonder why no major computer manufacturer is brave enough to hv a head to head competition with APPLE. They are just trying to find niche sector in market. I wish they can make 10 in tablet which is lighter/thinner/longer battery life and I think the world will be moving towards a more paperless/environmental friendly manner.
The best we could hope for is quadrupling the ppi like the iPhone 4 did over the 3GS, but even that seems unlikely at this point.
What are the technical hurdles? Can't they just make current iPhone 4 screen larger?
I wonder why no major computer manufacturer is brave enough to hv a head to head competition with APPLE.
It's nothing to do with brave or not brave --- that's how the real world works.
Airbus and Boeing NEVER compete directly against each other. Airbus would have a 200 seater and Boeing would come up with a 225 seater. Airbus comes up with a 250 seater and Boeing would come up with a 275 seater. They never match up directly.
What are the technical hurdles? Can't they just make current iPhone 4 screen larger?
Cost, power/battery life for starters. Then there's the issue of apps requiring re-writing - as mentioned elsewhere many times, an iPad screen with the same dpi as an iPhone 4 would be higher resolution than the 27" iMac.
Or perhaps some people can see beyond the perimeters of the walled garden?
I'm a user of Apple products and as I believe that the Apple's superior (in a number of ways) I wouldn't consider purchasing competing products. However, that does not preclude me from being able to recognise that for some people - possibly many of people - the Apple product may not be the solution for any number of reasons.
And yes, in the end it does benefit everyone in the long run to have more than one company pushing boundaries, including users of Apple products.
True. And I don't deny that it benefits everyone.
I'm just saying. We've heard it a thousand times. In and of itself, it's not exactly a compelling or original statement anymore.
If it were being used to back up a point, it'd be different. but as a point in and of itself, it's annoying at best and a cop-out at worst.
Maybe some people are annoyed by the constant closing down of interesting and thoughtful discussion by tech-zealots on both sides of the fence?
My opposition to the one does not necessitate support of the other.
I wonder how the QNX OS compares to Mac OS X/iOS performance wise.
QNX has been running on embedded systems for a while and more then likely is more optimized.
I'd love to compare both kernel and OS designs. I'm have a feeling that the QNX OS is better designed in many respects. It doesn't take much to beat Mac OS X's messaging system,
its pretty dog slow by design. Here are some sample tests (a bit old) but interesting nonetheless...
Kernel design really effects performance. I would love to see how QNX compares.
I like QNX's design because of its 'modularity' (best word to describe it?). However, in comparison to iOS, I don't see very many large benefits. iOS's kernel has been highly optimized to run on a mobile device with specific hardware and the same thing would have to be done with QNX in order for it to be efficient, since it requires and creates tight integration with the CPU and its "technique" can cause issues beyond the messaging system (which can cause problems in the programming stack [or pool?] or SDK development later if not maintained correctly) - At least from what I know about it, which is older knowledge; I'm not a pro.
I'd be interested to see what RIM has done behind the scenes and the performance comparison as well.