iPad

[aqhong]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Also, if you could remove the case and replace the battery yourself, in what sense is it non-removable?
It's not removable by just turning a lock with a fingernail/coin and popping it out, as it was with older MacBooks. You have to disassemble the actual casing. In other words, it's not meant to be removed, but you can obviously do it.

 

[UnFacconable]

Originally Posted by aqhong

They do. Reread my post. All of Apple's own apps can run in the background: iPod, Mail, Safari, you name it. It's the third-party apps that can't do that. The idea that Apple wouldn't be able to just flick a switch to enable system-wide multitasking is laughable. As I'm sure you're well aware, plenty of devices do it, and you think Apple, of all companies, couldn't figure this **** out? "Hardware/software limitations"? You're talking about one of the only companies that exerts almost total control over all the hardware and software that goes into their products! It's what you people ***** about all the time! They just developed a completely proprietary CPU for the iPad fer chrissakes, and you don't think they could get this thing to multitask? LOL.
Who is "you people"? Does the iphone actually multi-task among Apple apps or just let you run apps in the background and context switch from one to another? There is a difference. While I don't necessarily need true multi-tasking on a phone (I don't have one on my bberry and it's fine) I would think it would be useful on an iPad type device. Right now as I type, I am staring at IM messages coming my way. I'm not giving that up. I'll say it again, if it's as simple as flipping a switch (which it's not) than it's insulting for them not to implement it. As for the super CPU, do you really think it's that fast? [what was I thinking, of course you do.] Are they going to start using it for laptops or desktops? Of course not. It's fast for a mobile phone processor, but let's not pretend like it would run OSX at that speed.

Originally Posted by scb

Again, you're ignoring the Steve Jobs factor. I'm sure they had plenty of ways to implement Copy and Paste, but if Steve jobs says "not elegant enough" or "not Apple enough," it's not going in the finished product. While that might be ridiculous to believe, it's not like they had 2 years os horrible sales because the thing didn't have copy and paste. They still flew off the shelves Actually, the thing that's getting the best press in the tech world is the speed of this device and its new processor. Hardware doesn't seem to be an issue. I really think it's as simple as Steve saying "don't give 3rd party devs the ability to run *********** background" because he wants to keep it simple and avoid things like: http://daringfireball.net/linked/201...ed-task-killer And it doesn't really matter if we agree with the decision or not, because the people who care enough abut multitasking to make it a dealbreaker aren't the target audience anyway In response to your typing comment, I think I can type faster on my iPhone than I can on my Blackberry. i don't think the keyboard really makes a difference
I agree with your statements. I don't have a problem with the steve jobs factor. Apple is a fabulously successful company and, like a lot of people, I enjoy using their products. I'm pretty evenhanded though, and enjoy having the choice to use the best product no matter where it's coming from. As someone who doesn't need things to be simple, the iPad isn't going to work for me. I'd prefer a super iPad that allows multitasking, doesn't need to be tethered to a real computer, and can run regular old computer applications. Basically a touchscreen keyboardless macbook would get the job done for me. A lot of people thought the iPad would be just such a device, but unfortunately Apple went in a different direction. As for typing on an iPhone vs. a blackberry, I've used an iPhone enough to know that real keys work for me so there is no comparison. I'm happy for you that you can type faster on one, but can barely get by on one. However, I can touchtype on a blackberry (which I can't imagine ever doing on a touchscreen device) and can type pretty easily with one hand on my bberry (also hard to do on an iPhone). I fully acknowledge that I may be unique in that typing on an iPhone is only about 75% accurate for me (I feel like Homer Simpson in the fat episode where the 911 operator says to just mash his palm into the keypad if his fingers are too fat for individual buttons).

 

[aqhong]

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

Who is "you people"?
I was referring to people who complain about Apple's closed hardware/software ecosystem as if their entire business model were not based on it, not necessarily you in particular. No offense intended.

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

Does the iphone actually multi-task among Apple apps or just let you run apps in the background and context switch from one to another? There is a difference. While I don't necessarily need true multi-tasking on a phone (I don't have one on my bberry and it's fine) I would think it would be useful on an iPad type device. Right now as I type, I am staring at IM messages coming my way. I'm not giving that up.
Yes, it is "true" multitasking because as scb said, you can be listening to the iPod while writing in Mail while receiving a notification from SMS. These apps have to run persistently in order for this to happen.

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

I'll say it again, if it's as simple as flipping a switch (which it's not) than it's insulting for them not to implement it.
Again, scb was spot on. It's insulting to you, sure. You're not the target market. The iPad isn't for everyone. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

As for the super CPU, do you really think it's that fast? [what was I thinking, of course you do.] Are they going to start using it for laptops or desktops? Of course not. It's fast for a mobile phone processor, but let's not pretend like it would run OSX at that speed.
Not sure what you're getting at... I never said anything about the CPU aside from the fact that Apple created it, which was to support my assertion re: Apple's control over the hardware/software in their products.

 

[scb]

Originally Posted by holymadness

How does that work?

I've never heard of this. Also, if you could remove the case and replace the battery yourself, in what sense is it non-removable?


Which part of my question were you asking about? the iPod or macbook one?

"Non Removable" means exactly what you think it means - you can't just pop out the battery and put a new one in. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to replace the battery. My girlfriend had an iPod mini years ago that had a battery die on her. I ordered one online for 15 bucks, used a spudger to pop open the case, and replaced the battery. It was good as new. Could my mom do that? Probably not. But it's not something that only "techie" people could do. Just follow the directions that were easily found with a google search

As for the new macbooks and macbook pros, apple abandoned the traditional "removable" a year or so ago. You can no longer pop out the battery and swap in a new one on the fly. This allowed them to put larger, higher capacity batteries inside because they didn't have to deal with space for the latches and springs and connection points that go along with having an easily removable battery. The current batteries last about 2x as long as the previous ones.

But, again, that doesn't mean it's impossible to replace the battery if it dies. You just remove some screws, detach the battery, and put a new one in, just like replacing a hard drive or RAM.

 

[scb]

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

(I feel like Homer Simpson in the fat episode where the 911 operator says to just mash his palm into the keypad if his fingers are too fat for individual buttons).
Homer: I'm looking for something loose and billowy, something comfortable for my first day of work. Salesman: Work, huh? Let me guess. Computer programmer, computer magazine columnist, something with computers? Homer: Well, I use a computer. Salesman: [quietly, to self] Yeah, what's the connection? Must be the non-stop sitting and snacking. [more audibly] Well, sir, many of our clients find pants confining, so we offer a range of alternatives for the ample gentleman: ponchos, muumuus, capes, jumpsuits, unisheets, muslim body rolls, academic and judicial robes -- Homer: I don't want to look like a weirdo. I'll just go with a muumuu.

 

[aqhong]

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

I agree with your statements. I don't have a problem with the steve jobs factor. Apple is a fabulously successful company and, like a lot of people, I enjoy using their products. I'm pretty evenhanded though, and enjoy having the choice to use the best product no matter where it's coming from. As someone who doesn't need things to be simple, the iPad isn't going to work for me. I'd prefer a super iPad that allows multitasking, doesn't need to be tethered to a real computer, and can run regular old computer applications. Basically a touchscreen keyboardless macbook would get the job done for me. A lot of people thought the iPad would be just such a device, but unfortunately Apple went in a different direction.
And this is fine. Apple didn't create the device you personally hoped it would be. I'm sure many others share your sentiments. You can complain about it on the internet, or you can just go buy whatever suits your needs better. I don't see the problem. For what it's worth, I have no problem admitting I'm an Apple fanboy. That said, I've been using computers since the days of DOS, was a Windows user for ten years (every version from 3.1 to XP), and have dabbled with various distros of Linux. I like to actually use things before I pass judgment on them, and try not to talk too much **** about things I don't have first-hand experience with (which is more than can be said for some people here).

 

[UnFacconable]

Originally Posted by aqhong

Yes, it is "true" multitasking because as scb said, you can be listening to the iPod while writing in Mail while receiving a notification from SMS. These apps have to run persistently in order for this to happen.
Having apps run persistently in the background is not all that multi-tasking has to offer, it's just one element. Being able to run and interact with multiple apps at the same time is what users are accustomed to. On OSX, do you run one full-screen app 100% of the time and let other apps run in the background or do you sometimes run multiple windowed apps simultaneously?

Originally Posted by aqhong

Not sure what you're getting at... I never said anything about the CPU aside from the fact that Apple created it, which was to support my assertion re: Apple's control over the hardware/software in their products.
I understood your point to mean that if Apple wanted to implement multi-tasking, they could do it (if you re-read your statement, that's actually what you said). My counter to that was that it might not be fast enough to run a true multi-tasking OS like OSX. If you don't think multi-tasking is desirable, you wouldn't be defending its limited implementation. I get that you think limited multi-tasking is fine for your purposes, and maybe for most people's purposes. I don't disagree that it works for you, but since I've been using the real thing for years, I'm not going to go back. If they left it as a user-set option, do you really think people would choose to disable true multi-tasking? I do not.

Originally Posted by aqhong

And this is fine. Apple didn't create the device you personally hoped it would be. I'm sure many others share your sentiments. You can complain about it on the internet, or you can just go buy whatever suits your needs better. I don't see the problem. For what it's worth, I have no problem admitting I'm an Apple fanboy. That said, I've been using computers since the days of DOS, was a Windows user for ten years (every version from 3.1 to XP), and have dabbled with various distros of Linux. I like to actually use things before I pass judgment on them, and try not to talk too much **** about things I don't have first-hand experience with (which is more than can be said for some people here).
I don't know if this is a dig at me or not, if so it is in poor taste unless you have actually used the iPad extensively. You certainly seem to be passing judgment on it. Or is that allowed because you're a fanboy? You can't change the rules as you go along. People can heap praise and criticize to their heart's content. Until the product hits the market, it's all idle chit-chat, and there's nothing wrong with it. As for buying whatever suits my needs better, that's what everyone should do.

 

[aqhong]

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

If you don't think multi-tasking is desirable, you wouldn't be defending its limited implementation. I get that you think limited multi-tasking is fine for your purposes, and maybe for most people's purposes. I don't disagree that it works for you, but since I've been using the real thing for years, I'm not going to go back. If they left it as a user-set option, do you really think people would choose to disable true multi-tasking? I do not.
I think people would enable it, and then complain about battery life and stability, lol.

I, personally, would probably enable it, but not complain. That's the difference

 

[aqhong]

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

I don't know if this is a dig at me or not, if so it is in poor taste unless you have actually used the iPad extensively. You certainly seem to be passing judgment on it. Or is that allowed because you're a fanboy?
Wasn't a dig at you. And no, I haven't touched an iPad. I don't think I've really "passed judgment" on it, but I have used the iPhone OS (which the iPad is based on), which a lot of people here apparently haven't, judging by their comments.

 

[breakz]

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

I guar-fucken-tee you that if the iPad could handle multi-tasking they would have implemented it. I don't know if it's a software limitation or a hardware limitation, but it is not a feature. You even acknowledge that the limited fake multi-tasking the iPhone offers is good enough. If you don't need multi-tasking, why would you need fake multi-tasking?
Take it for what it's worth, but Apple's public statement on no multitasking was to the effect of "we don't want people to forget they're running multiple apps and drain their batteries too fast." They could easily code multi-tasking in--Palm and WinMo both have it.

I'm excited about the Slate. I want a couch/coffee table computer and if the iPad let me run all the ******* apps I wanted and ran standard OSX, it would be perfect. I don't care about the innovative way it runs a stupid spreadsheet program or word processor. It's not for real work and I won't pretend that it is. I don't need a gatekeeper telling me what apps I can or should be using. I don't mind choosing from an a la carte computing menu basically, and right now it looks like the Slate may be the first cheap device to do what I want, other than a netbook which is less desireable from a coffee table standpoint. It's interesting to me that so many people care about the lack of a camera, I don't know anyone who video chats but maybe if I had kids in college or was a kid in college, I would get it. Seems like phones work well enough for synchronous communication plus you can talk on the run.

I have to use the cliche here: "the iPad isn't forrrrrr you." But it's really not, and it's not for me, either--I want to run whatever program I want as well. That's why I'm pumped for the HP Slate. All this talk of how the iPad should have multitasking...well, it doesn't. But there will be many, many other slates with multitasking--maybe those are better options? Vote with your wallet, and all that.

 

[haganah]

Hope you don't mind my using numbers. Your way is nicer but I'm too lazy. 1) I'm not slighted. Only because my memory is crapped out and I can't remember who I've responded to on here

2) That isn't cool. But you can in this case replace the batteries and you could with the ipods as well. There may have been foot dragging but at the end of the day, batteries were replaced. Plus third party vendors were replacing batteries for cheaper from what I remember. Either way, not sure it bears relevance here? As a "business man", I can't see how one uses business apps on this. I can't use excel on anything that's outside my comfort zone. So I would not be travelling with this for business purposes. But even if I was, business class usually offers plugs for charging your appliances. And I don't applaud it, but given the choice between better battery life along with cleaner design I would pick that over switching out batteries. Again, think about it, I don't switch batteries out for any device. I just don't. So that is where my personal interest is. Now you may do this a lot and I understand where you're coming from - but I am happy Apple chose to satisfy me over you

3) I just don't see it being used on a desk. If you are doing that, I don't get why you don't have a desktop or a laptop or even a netbook to be honest. And I guess apple could have included a kickstand and increased the price, but there's a saying "six in one hand, half dozen in the other". I purchased a desktop from HP for my parents in December - I was given multiple optional accessories to include. If I hadn't bought them then, I'd buy them later. Same cost, regardless. 4) Kids really bring laptops to school? I can't be that old. I have seen some people using them, but I didn't think it was such a large trend. Much of my liberal arts classes were discussion based so using a computer would have detracted from participation. Either way, if that is the case, wouldn't typing be faster than using handwriting? What if someone creates an app for handwriting recognition btw? 5) Amazon wasn't forcing it to adapt to the new reality at all. What it did was create multiple new questions and really drain publishers of revenue they should have been receiving for decades of work they put in. What you posted was a quick blog post with 3 lines of calculations in it - not really something I'd consider reputable. 6) There is something wrong with a person that uses this for excel. Seriously wrong.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Hi haganah. I have the impression I didn't respond to an earlier post of yours but I have no idea where it is. I hope you were not slighted. First point: I was alluding to something rather specific. I'm not sure if you recall, but several years ago there was an outpouring of complaints because the original ipod's batteries had started to degrade and would only hold a charge for 2-3 hours. After months of foot-dragging, Apple finally agreed to replace the defective units' batteries, but only if you actually sent your ipod to California to be serviced. Not cool. Second point: let's say I am a travelling businessman flying from Seattle to Dubai. Ouch. Well, at least I have my iPad (weight: 1.5lb.). In a perfect world, I'd also have my spare battery (weight: much less than that; size: much smaller than the pad) so I could work during the entire flight. But the real question is: why would you defend this decision by Apple? Why would you applaud your own inability to swap out a battery if yours broke or if you ran out of juice and couldn't recharge? I imagined the pod on his desk, propped up with a kickstand. Seems fairly realistic to me. Come on, just because Steve-o used it while reclining in a leather armchair doesn't mean you're restricted to that. The keyboard attachment implies that it's meant to be used like a traditional computer while sitting at a desk. That being so, they should either have built a kickstand into the device, or else included the screen protector/kickstand in the purchase price. I find what Apple's done here to be in bad faith and quite cynical. Let's say it drains the batteries. So what? Why do I not have the right, on my property which I paid for, to use it the way I like? If I'm plugged into the outlet at my desk, battery life isn't an issue. And if I want to use it a certain way while reclining on the couch, I shouldn't be forbidden by Steve Jobs because he thinks it makes his device look bad. No idea. Honestly, I think e-ink is dead so I'm not going to belabour the point. Either projection screens will get easier on our eyes or we will all go blind. You should visit a university campus sometime.

At least half of my students brought laptops to class. I've read stories of some degrees where a laptop is mandatory. Print media is stuck in the same limbo as the music industry: halfway between adapting to the future and clinging to the past. Here's some food for thought: did you know that it would be 50% less expensive for the NYTimes to buy every single one of its subscribers a kindle than to continue printing newspapers for one year? Print media is haemorrhaging money for a lot of reasons, a large and overlooked one of which is its inefficiency. If pricing schemes like Amazon's force it to adapt to the realities of the new century, I'm all for it. He demonstrated the iPod's version of the iWork suite. He filled some spreadsheets and made a powerpoint presentation. It was thrilling.

 

[UnFacconable]

Originally Posted by breakz

Take it for what it's worth, but Apple's public statement on no multitasking was to the effect of "we don't want people to forget they're running multiple apps and drain their batteries too fast." They could easily code multi-tasking in--Palm and WinMo both have it.



I have to use the cliche here: "the iPad isn't forrrrrr you." But it's really not, and it's not for me, either--I want to run whatever program I want as well. That's why I'm pumped for the HP Slate.

All this talk of how the iPad should have multitasking...well, it doesn't. But there will be many, many other slates with multitasking--maybe those are better options? Vote with your wallet, and all that.

Sounds about right. There's a decent chance someone gets linux up and running on this thing in a reasonable time frame and it becomes exactly what I'm looking for. I don't mind the hardware shortcomings at all, I just want something I can check the internet on while watching TV, while keeping IM windows open and I don't want to spend $1k to get it. It's not out of the realm of possibility that this thing will be good enough to get the job done. If not, the HP Slate sounds like it is. I've been hesitant to replace an aging laptop which I currently use for this purpose and now know that when I finally do make the move, it will likely be to a touchscreen tablet device.

 

[breakz]

Agreed, my Macbook is almost 5 years old now. By the time I replace it (2-3 years, hopefully), I can do so with some great, multitasking tablet.

 

[aqhong]

^ You can run on one computer for 7-8 years? That's pretty crazy, haha.

Mine is the same age, I think (did you buy the first one too?), and is just not cutting it anymore, despite the maxed-out RAM and hard disk. Then again, I guess I could probably get by if I didn't have to use Adobe apps, lol.

 

[milosz]

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

Having apps run persistently in the background is not all that multi-tasking has to offer, it's just one element. Being able to run and interact with multiple apps at the same time is what users are accustomed to. On OSX, do you run one full-screen app 100% of the time and let other apps run in the background or do you sometimes run multiple windowed apps simultaneously?

I don't think this is true. Switching between apps that are either full-screen or mostly so has been the way most people use computers since Win 3.1.

Tabs for internet browsers changed this somewhat, but Safari already has that...