What Apple *should* have done
<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/ce.NET/evaluation/news/fromms/mira.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/ce.NET/evaluation/news/fromms/mira.asp</a>;
If Apple had made the screen on the iMac pop off, and work wirelessly as a sort of tablet, I would be pre-ordering one yesterday. Alas, they didn't.
If Apple had made the screen on the iMac pop off, and work wirelessly as a sort of tablet, I would be pre-ordering one yesterday. Alas, they didn't.
Comments
The most expensive part would be allowing the monitor to recognize touch inputs. I'd rather have that than a superdrive.
1024 width x 768 height x 24 bits x 3 colors x 60 Hz refresh is 3.477x10+9 bits to send via AirPort per second.
<strong>The Airport antenna is already integrated, it shouldn't be tough to write a very lightweight OS that could run in Flash Memory on the monitor, and all the legwork is still done by the iMac base.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't think it would be "tough" to write an OS that includes tablet/stylus support, handwriting recognition, and APIs for developers to use so their apps will actually work on this fantasy device? I happen to think it would be rather tough, and that development and manufacturing costs would drive the price of the unit well into the $3000 range. And people thought the Cube was an expensive flop ...
<hr></blockquote>
Microsoft manages it with Terminal Services. Why couldn't Apple?
[quote]You don't think it would be "tough" to write an OS that includes tablet/stylus support, handwriting recognition, and APIs for developers to use so their apps will actually work on this fantasy device? <hr></blockquote>
You can't possibly tell me they've just completely discarded their Newton OS technologies, can you?
Developers wouldn't have to do a thing. All the work would be done on the iMac, whether it's sending the display over a network or through the actual monitor connections, it should still be showing the same thing.
I would, however, be able to browse the web, check email, control music, etc, etc, etc from my couch, or outside, or wherever.
Think of it as a lightweight PDA with a very large display screen. It would need very very little storage space (enough to run the lightweight OS, and the client to connect to the desktop), and almost no horsepower.
<strong>Well let's see?
1024 width x 768 height x 24 bits x 3 colors x 60 Hz refresh is 3.477x10+9 bits to send via AirPort per second.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it's 8 bits x 3 colors, for 24 bits total.
At any rate, it's very easy to get around that worst case for everything except video and 3D games: Just relay user actions, and what's changed on screen.
I share your skepticism about this, though. You'd have to accept reduced functionality in tablet mode - in fact, you'd have to give up the very kind of functionality that Apple's pushing hardest right now. HP's 18 inch tablet would have to choose between a huge (hot, expensive, heavy) battery and miserable battery life. Overall cost is prohibitive.
These look like gee-whiz presentations to distract from the fact that there's nothing really exciting going on in the PC world right now. Apple doesn't have to roll out a tablet as soon as someone else does. They shouldn't roll one out until they can settle on a design that is actually useful and affordable. Judging by the long history of tablet computers (even ones that are "tethered" to a base), that's an elusive goal.
[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
No, it's 8 bits x 3 colors, for 24 bits total.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right you are. So divide by 3 and that ... changes nothing at all.
then...why not buy a lightweight PDA with a very large display screen? Honestly though, you've got to just pick the right machine for the job.
I don't try to make toast in the microwave, so I don't see why you'd try to make a PDA/laptop out of an iMac monitor.
[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: poor taylor ]</p>