Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Mar 2012 22:59 UTC
Apple And it was that time of the year again - Apple held one of its product announcements. This one focussed on the iPad mostly, and while some will call it a disappointment merely because virtually everything had already been leaked, I'm still in awe over the fact the newly announced iPad has a 2048x1536 display. My mind is blown.
Order by: Score:
missing numbers
by stabbyjones on Wed 7th Mar 2012 23:05 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

Did you notice they haven't attached a number to this one? Me thinks the furor over the 4S/5 had something to do with it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: missing numbers
by kragil on Wed 7th Mar 2012 23:22 UTC in reply to "missing numbers"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

It is just the same as with Macbook, Imac, Mac Mini etc.
Only the Iphone still has numbers.

Anyways, I don't get what all the fuzz is about. It has a 264dpi screen! Yup dee doo! Amazing, incredible, awesome, off the charts! And probably still low on memory and some old Cortex A9 dual core.

Edited 2012-03-07 23:23 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: missing numbers
by WorknMan on Thu 8th Mar 2012 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE: missing numbers"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Anyways, I don't get what all the fuzz is about. It has a 264dpi screen! Yup dee doo! Amazing, incredible, awesome, off the charts! And probably still low on memory and some old Cortex A9 dual core.


Yeah, the resolution is nice, but the Transformer I had pretty much destroys the iPad in every other area, esp with ICS running on it. Attach the keyboard dock to it and it's boss.

Unfortunately, when they released a port of Lemur for the iPad, that convinced me to sell my TF and switch camps, but wasn't happy about it ;) The iPad is nice and has some specific apps that Android doesn't (esp in the area of MIDI control and softsynths), but to say there is no tablet market other than the iPad is very shallow indeed.

Edited 2012-03-08 00:16 UTC

Reply Score: 10

v RE[3]: missing numbers
by jackeebleu on Thu 8th Mar 2012 01:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: missing numbers"
RE[4]: missing numbers
by dizzey on Thu 8th Mar 2012 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: missing numbers"
dizzey Member since:
2005-10-15

"Yeah, specially because Apple never made a keyboard dock for iPad v1, and bluetooth keyboards don't work with it, especially the ones built into those keyboard cases people love so much </sarcasm> "

Yeah keyboards dont really work with the ipad.

Sure you can use them to input text, but then you have no navigation between input fields keyboards on the ipad really suck.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: missing numbers
by mrstep on Thu 8th Mar 2012 02:43 UTC in reply to "RE: missing numbers"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

Did you also not notice a difference going from a 320x480 screen to 640x960? The legibility of text is dramatically higher with the better screen no matter how much memory and how many CPU cores you have.

Reply Score: 2

Not really Retina, is it?
by gan17 on Wed 7th Mar 2012 23:18 UTC
gan17
Member since:
2008-06-03

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Apple made a big deal out of the iPhone 4/4s having 326ppi and went to great lengths to tell everyone that the human eye was unable to discern more than 300 or so ppi. They coined the term "retina" based on pixel density alone, not perceived sharpness at different viewing distances.

And now they're saying this new iPad's "measly" 264ppi is retina display spec as well, just because you hold it further away from you?!

Yeah, I agree that it's nice to have resolution better than my 40" TV or 13" laptop LCD on a 9.7" slate, and I know viewing distance plays a big part in perceived image sharpness..... but it's still inconsistent with Apple's past claims about what a retina display is supposed to be.

Edited 2012-03-07 23:19 UTC

Reply Score: 11

RE: Not really Retina, is it?
by Laurence on Wed 7th Mar 2012 23:43 UTC in reply to "Not really Retina, is it?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Apple made a big deal out of the iPhone 4/4s having 326ppi and went to great lengths to tell everyone that the human eye was unable to discern more than 300 or so ppi. They coined the term "retina" based on pixel density alone, not perceived sharpness at different viewing distances.

And now they're saying this new iPad's "measly" 264ppi is retina display spec as well, just because you hold it further away from you?!

Yeah, I agree that it's nice to have resolution better than my 40" TV or 13" laptop LCD on a 9.7" slate, and I know viewing distance plays a big part in perceived image sharpness..... but it's still inconsistent with Apple's past claims about what a retina display is supposed to be.


I'm usually the 1st to find fault with Apple's business practices, but in fairness here, everyone makes up BS terms to sell their display-focused devices - many of who dream up far more imprecise definitions.

Whether that be "retina displays", the high def "standard" (how many resolutions are classed as "HD" these days?) or even LCD TVs that are miss-sold as "LED TVs" simply because they use LED back lights (rather than true OLED displays - which I'm guessing manufacturers are hoping consumers get muddled for). It's all just worthless jargon.

So it's really no wonder that consumers are confused when it comes to technology when the fact's that they are presented don't even hint at the true specs.

Edited 2012-03-07 23:46 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I knew this was the case in my head, but didn't quite do the math enough to figure that out.

It wouldn't be apple if they didn't claim something absurd that wasn't true.

Still, this is the first ipad that I would consider buying. I hope this really just drives displays into higher Pixel densities all around. I want more than 1080 on my desktop!

Edit: doesn't Apple still sell displays? Well, their top of the line display is 2560-by-1440 27 inch. Compared to the ipad's 2048x 1536. So it has all of 540,672 pixels more for all of the extra size. Upgrade that already, will you apple?

Edited 2012-03-07 23:55 UTC

Reply Score: 4

I want at least 5760x3600
by Kivada on Fri 9th Mar 2012 04:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Not really Retina, is it?"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Hopefully the next gen Cinema Displays will be 5760x3600 somewhere between 22-30" for 9x 1920x1200. I may not like Apple anymore, but I'd buy a display like that instantly.

Maybe a nice laptop at 3840x2400 at 15-18" for 4x 1920x1200?

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

The cinema displays are still expensive as heck, but hopefully a competitor would do it as well and drive the price down.

I would actually upgrade my display ( only third time in last fifteen years) for them.

Edited 2012-03-09 16:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

wanker90210 Member since:
2007-10-26

If you go above 1920x1080 they are not expensive as fuck compared to the alternatives. I gave the market a honest probing before buying the 27" and landed on the Apple monitor because it was a reasonable purchase.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not really Retina, is it?
by d3vi1 on Wed 7th Mar 2012 23:53 UTC in reply to "Not really Retina, is it?"
d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Apple made a big deal out of the iPhone 4/4s having 326ppi and went to great lengths to tell everyone that the human eye was unable to discern more than 300 or so ppi. They coined the term "retina" based on pixel density alone, not perceived sharpness at different viewing distances.

And now they're saying this new iPad's "measly" 264ppi is retina display spec as well, just because you hold it further away from you?!

Here's the correction you're looking for: when using an iPhone you're usually holding it closer to your head than an iPad. Apple estimates that most people will hold the iPhone at a distance of 10" (25cm for normal people) and an iPad at 15" (38cm).
I can say that I mostly agree as I usually hold my iPhone at almost 35cm and my iPad at roughly 40cm, but their point is still valid.

At 330dpi a pixel is 0.077mm wide so the width of a pixel would be 0.0176470995˚(degrees) at 25cm. At 264dpi a pixel is 0.096mm so the width of a pixel would be 0.0144747229˚(degrees) at 38cm. As such, the pixels seem even smaller on an iPad3 (if you use Apple's math). I assume they should look about the same at the distances I use. My math might be wrong, but it's been ages since I needed trigonometry.

Reply Score: 6

v RE[2]: Not really Retina, is it?
by wocowboy on Thu 8th Mar 2012 10:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Not really Retina, is it?"
RE[3]: Not really Retina, is it?
by gan17 on Thu 8th Mar 2012 10:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not really Retina, is it?"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

I wasn't finding fault with the actual product. I think it's pretty decent, for the most part, tbh.

I just wanted clarification on this "retina display" term.

Reply Score: 2

henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

I just wanted clarification on this "retina display" term.


I always thought it meant "pixels small enough not to be discernable at normal viewing distance", which would not necessarily be tied to a 300 ppi limit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not really Retina, is it?
by arpan on Thu 8th Mar 2012 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not really Retina, is it?"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

720p vs 1080p makes a massive difference especially for reading, documents & picture detail. That's 2.5 times the pixels!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not really Retina, is it?
by No it isnt on Wed 7th Mar 2012 23:56 UTC in reply to "Not really Retina, is it?"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Yes, but it's still great news. I've always wanted better resolution, and when the rest of the industry starts following, that's what we'll get. Hopefully for 22" plus desktop monitors as well. I've noticed a sharp decline in the price of IPS panels lately.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not really Retina, is it?
by kovacm on Thu 8th Mar 2012 08:36 UTC in reply to "Not really Retina, is it?"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Apple made a big deal out of the iPhone 4/4s having 326ppi and went to great lengths to tell everyone that the human eye was unable to discern more than 300 or so ppi. They coined the term "retina" based on pixel density alone, not perceived sharpness at different viewing distances.


FUD!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohMgjabfiUM 7:10

"It turns out that there’s a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch that when you hold something around 10 or 12 inches from your eyes is the limit of the human retina to differentiate… and at 326 pixels per inch we are comfortably over that limit."

Steve Jobs 14. Jun 2010 at WWDC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not really Retina, is it?
by gan17 on Thu 8th Mar 2012 10:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Not really Retina, is it?"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

So, are you saying it's me or Mr Jobs that's spreading the "FUD" ?

Thanks for the vid link, btw.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Not really Retina, is it?
by kovacm on Fri 9th Mar 2012 08:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not really Retina, is it?"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

So, are you saying it's me or Mr Jobs that's spreading the "FUD" ?

Thanks for the vid link, btw.

no, you spreading FUD!

gan17 wrote:
They coined the term "retina" based on pixel density alone, not perceived sharpness at different viewing distances.

AND THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!

and please do not play stupid...

Steve Jobs say: "It turns out that there’s a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch that when you hold something around 10 or 12 inches from your eyes is the limit of the human retina to differentiate… and at 326 pixels per inch we are comfortably over that limit." at WWDC in 2010.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Not really Retina, is it?
by gan17 on Fri 9th Mar 2012 11:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not really Retina, is it?"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Well sorry, boo-f--k*n-hoo.

It's still non-retina if it's below 300ppi, imho.... regardless of what you say.

Edited 2012-03-09 11:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09

Well sorry, boo-f--k*n-hoo.

It's still non-retina if it's below 300ppi, imho.... regardless of what you say.


I like your, I am going to close my ears and not listen to reason attitude. :-)

Apple never defined Retina Display to be 300+ ppi. There is distance aspect to the calculation and it was mentioned in the iPad announcement with a diagram and everything.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Not really Retina, is it?
by viton on Fri 9th Mar 2012 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not really Retina, is it?"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

It's still non-retina if it's below 300ppi

Retina is a marketing name of high-res iphone/ipad display.
As you can see in the quote posted above it is 300ppi at 10" distance.
Absolute 300ppi metric has no sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Not really Retina, is it?
by mrstep on Fri 9th Mar 2012 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not really Retina, is it?"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

Shhhhhh! There's hatin' going on and you don't need to try to mess it up with facts.

Reply Score: 1

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Well sorry, boo-f--k*n-hoo.

It's still non-retina if it's below 300ppi, imho.... regardless of what you say.


What a load of pedantic nonsense. Go to an Apple Store next week, look at a new iPad, can you see any pixels? How does the display look? Report back. Let's move on. Please.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not really Retina, is it?
by bnolsen on Thu 8th Mar 2012 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Not really Retina, is it?"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

sorry 10-12 inches is way too close. More typical is likely 18 inches or more. For young kids the extra rez might matter. I personally don't notice the difference and wouldn't pick this tablet over a 1080p or even 1280x800 just for resolution.

A buddy of mine in the early 2000s had one of those tiny sony winows machines with the insane resolution. I frankly couldn't make out jack without squinting at it.

Edited 2012-03-08 22:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not really Retina, is it?
by phoenix on Thu 8th Mar 2012 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not really Retina, is it?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

That means the DPI was set incorrectly for the screen.

A 12pt font should be the same size (as in, stick a ruler up to the screen to measure) no matter what the resolution of the monitor is.

Doubling the screen resolution should not halve the size of text onscreen. If it does, someone screwed up the configuration.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not really Retina, is it?
by dsmogor on Fri 9th Mar 2012 21:37 UTC in reply to "Not really Retina, is it?"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I think this comes from observation that on usual you keep tables at longer distances that the phone.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not really Retina, is it?
by earksiinni on Sat 10th Mar 2012 18:19 UTC in reply to "Not really Retina, is it?"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

300 dpi is the golden number in the printing business, so I, too, am disappointed. The implication was that computer screens would finally be as sharp as print.

Of course, in reality I think it's not that simple. Ink dots bleed into each other but pixels will always remain discrete.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not really Retina, is it?
by phoenix on Mon 12th Mar 2012 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Not really Retina, is it?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

You're comparing a physical DPI to a relative DPI. Big difference.

Apple's "Retina Display" is a marketing term, meaning "DPI at which you can no longer see individual pixels when viewed at a "normal" distance". Look up the Trademark entry, the Patent, etc. Everything relating to the "Retina Display" term deals with relative DPI, based on the "normal" viewing distance of the device (which is different for an iPhone and an iPad).

While it would be nice to have a physical DPI over 300 on a computer screen (regardless of the screen size), it has 0 bearing on the "Retina Display" trademark.

Reply Score: 2

hmmm
by TechGeek on Thu 8th Mar 2012 00:03 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Anyone know what the ppi are for the Asus Transformer due out later this year that will be 1080p? Frankly, there is no point in having a res that large, you certainly couldn't see things if you used it all. I think this is mainly to make it easier to have applications scale smoothly between iPads and iPhones.

Reply Score: 4

RE: hmmm
by yokem55 on Thu 8th Mar 2012 00:50 UTC in reply to "hmmm"
yokem55 Member since:
2005-07-06

The Asus will bet 224ppi - so about 15% less density than the ipad, but should still be more than enough. The real question about Asus is what kind of availability the Transformer Infinity will have and when...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: hmmm
by viton on Thu 8th Mar 2012 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE: hmmm"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

I thought of getting TF700 as an upgrade to my AC100, but Tegra3 is weak even for 720. At 1080p it performance will be pathetic.

Reply Score: 2

RE: hmmm
by mrstep on Thu 8th Mar 2012 02:46 UTC in reply to "hmmm"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

You couldn't see things if you used it at all? Or maybe text would be a lot sharper. I'll let you guess which.

Reply Score: 1

RE: hmmm
by Fergy on Thu 8th Mar 2012 13:31 UTC in reply to "hmmm"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Anyone know what the ppi are for the Asus Transformer due out later this year that will be 1080p? Frankly, there is no point in having a res that large, you certainly couldn't see things if you used it all. I think this is mainly to make it easier to have applications scale smoothly between iPads and iPhones.

There are a lot of people with bad eyesight here on OSnews. And they seem to think it is normal...

Reply Score: 1

Still Crippled.
by bornagainenguin on Thu 8th Mar 2012 00:49 UTC
bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

The one thing I was looking for was the announcement that you could use the dang thing without having to plug it into a desktop. Without this it is still crippled by requiring an external computer to sync with iTunes. This makes absolutely no sense to me now that they're pushing iCloud and they have an iTunes app that runs directly on the iPad itself.

Can anyone tell me why in the world I or anyone else should want to connect to an external just to get my video podcasts to my iPad? Never mind the various mp3s and other movies I may or may not have--why can't I use the internal iTunes to get my freaking podcasts???

Despite the addition of the rest of the iLife suite, this requirement from the 90s to sync everything makes the iPad nearly worthless, because it is made deliberately not a computer by crippling it in this manner.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 6

RE: Still Crippled.
by WorknMan on Thu 8th Mar 2012 01:07 UTC in reply to "Still Crippled."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Can anyone tell me why in the world I or anyone else should want to connect to an external just to get my video podcasts to my iPad? Never mind the various mp3s and other movies I may or may not have--why can't I use the internal iTunes to get my freaking podcasts???


You can sync stuff wirelessly if you want. Plus, with some apps (like AVPlayer and GoodReader), you can set up an http and/or ftp server to beam your files over, no iTunes required. Trust me, I hate iTunes, and the syncing with iOS5 is not as horrible as I thought it would be ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still Crippled.
by bornagainenguin on Thu 8th Mar 2012 03:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Still Crippled."
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

WorknMan replied...

You can sync stuff wirelessly if you want. Plus, with some apps (like AVPlayer and GoodReader), you can set up an http and/or ftp server to beam your files over, no iTunes required.


I don't want to have to use special apps, I want to use the apps the manufacturer included and optimized for the device. I also don't want to have to use any ludicrous workarounds to use the device.

It comes with iTunes. Why can't I use the iTunes it comes with to get my podcasts? Isn't that what the app does? Isn't that how you're supposed to get podcasts in the Apple ecosystem, from within iTunes?

Why do I have to use an external iTunes to download and then copy over the podcast when the device is capable of getting it and storing it all within itself. Is the iPad a computer or not?

WorknMan posted...
Trust me, I hate iTunes, and the syncing with iOS5 is not as horrible as I thought it would be ;)


Actually I don't mind iTunes so much as I mind syncing itself. To me it just seems like a 90s era technology that made a lot of sense for PDAs, made some sense for music players, made a bit of sense for phones, but makes no sense for a tablet computer. If it is a "real" computer (and having the complete iLife suite seems to imply it is) then why do I need yet another computer to make it work?

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Still Crippled.
by WorknMan on Thu 8th Mar 2012 05:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still Crippled."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Why do I have to use an external iTunes to download and then copy over the podcast when the device is capable of getting it and storing it all within itself. Is the iPad a computer or not?


Sorry, I misunderstood you. If you want to listen to podcasts on your iPad, there are several podcasts apps available on the iPad that will download the podcasts straight to your device. You don't need to use a 'traditional' PC for that.

If it is a "real" computer (and having the complete iLife suite seems to imply it is) then why do I need yet another computer to make it work?


Well, this is not a 'real' computer in the traditional sense. It does not replace a 'traditional' PC anymore than a bicycle replaces a car (although it CAN for some people. That's not what it is designed for.

That being said, you don't NEED a computer to use this. The only time I've had to interface with my PC is for file transfers. If you want to get a file from a PC to a tablet, you're obviously going to need a PC, unless you use Dropbox or something. As for app syncing and stuff, you can do all that in the cloud if you want.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Still Crippled.
by bornagainenguin on Thu 8th Mar 2012 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still Crippled."
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

WorknMan posted...

Sorry, I misunderstood you.


It's alright--my fault entirely. I noticed when I got back to the post that I'd skipped a word and it made the rest of the post come out wonky.

WorknMan posted...
If you want to listen to podcasts on your iPad, there are several podcasts apps available on the iPad that will download the podcasts straight to your device. You don't need to use a 'traditional' PC for that.


Well there are video podcasts too, so not everything is intended to be listened to. The point is there is an iTunes included with the device, why can it not do its most basic function and get my shows?

Telling me to use a workaround (yes, telling me to use other apps to duplicate the missing features qualifies as a workaround in my opinion) doesn't help--it breaks the whole Apple experience where things are supposed to just work. Worse it leaves me with a worthless app taking up space that cannot be removed from the system!

Never mind that as with all workarounds, Apple can break the functionality of those apps willy-nilly at any time.

WorknMan posted...
If it is a "real" computer (and having the complete iLife suite seems to imply it is) then why do I need yet another computer to make it work?

Well, this is not a 'real' computer in the traditional sense. It does not replace a 'traditional' PC anymore than a bicycle replaces a car (although it CAN for some people. That's not what it is designed for.


Tell that to people like my father in his late fifties, who considers the iPad to be his Personal Computer. Tell that to whomever it was that wrote Tim Cook's speech littered with references to the post-PC era. And really, in the analogy you chose, this is more akin to trying to replace a car with a motorcycle that has had the engine disabled. You get the appearance of something fast and with advantages that a car does not have--only it has been artificially prevented from being true competition to the car.

WorknMan posted...
That being said, you don't NEED a computer to use this. The only time I've had to interface with my PC is for file transfers. If you want to get a file from a PC to a tablet, you're obviously going to need a PC, unless you use Dropbox or something. As for app syncing and stuff, you can do all that in the cloud if you want.


App syncing has improved tremendously. I really like the ability to do operating system upgrades directly on the device. These are improvements I'm happy to see Apple making, I just don't think they go far enough to liberate the iPad from the PC.

WorknMan posted...
Awesome! Now tell me how do you add your podcasts to the iPad without connecting it to another computer, using only the software that came with it from Apple?

http://lifehacker.com/5855050/the-best-podcast-manager-for-iphone

That also works for iPad. Do you want to disqualify it just because it doesn't come from Apple?


When it comes to basic functionality from a company that prides itself on its "offering the whole widget" approach to computing? You're damn right I do.

This is not about the large numbers of apps in the Apple App Store--this is about basic functionality and an inability to abandon 90s era paradigms that no longer make sense. (Or if I wanted to be spiteful, I'd say this is about Apple guarding their lucrative laptop market and protecting it from being eaten away by the iPad...but I'd like to think the company a little more forward thinking than that...)

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Still Crippled.
by Neolander on Thu 8th Mar 2012 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still Crippled."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

"Well, this is not a 'real' computer in the traditional sense. It does not replace a 'traditional' PC anymore than a bicycle replaces a car (although it CAN for some people. That's not what it is designed for."

Tell that to people like my father in his late fifties, who considers the iPad to be his Personal Computer. Tell that to whomever it was that wrote Tim Cook's speech littered with references to the post-PC era. And really, in the analogy you chose, this is more akin to trying to replace a car with a motorcycle that has had the engine disabled. You get the appearance of something fast and with advantages that a car does not have--only it has been artificially prevented from being true competition to the car.

Gotta remember that analogy for later use. It's brilliant ! ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Still Crippled.
by WorknMan on Thu 8th Mar 2012 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still Crippled."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Well there are video podcasts too, so not everything is intended to be listened to. The point is there is an iTunes included with the device, why can it not do its most basic function and get my shows?

Telling me to use a workaround (yes, telling me to use other apps to duplicate the missing features qualifies as a workaround in my opinion) doesn't help--it breaks the whole Apple experience where things are supposed to just work. Worse it leaves me with a worthless app taking up space that cannot be removed from the system!


Well, if a lack of a podcatcher out of the box is a deal-breaker for you, and you refuse to use a 3rd party app, hard to argue with that, as that is your personal preference. I'm not convinced that this is 'basic functionality' though, since Android doesn't come with a podcatcher built in, and neither does Windows. I doubt WebOS does either, and Linux would probably depend on the distro. I wouldn't expect iTunes on a tablet to be on par feature-wise with the desktop counterpart, as tablet apps are usually 'light' versions of their desktop brethren. As an example, Chrome on Android does not have all of the features that the desktop version does. Again, these devices are not PCs, so stop treating them as such. If you're waiting for tablets to be on par feature-wise with PCs, you're going to be waiting awhile.

Tell that to people like my father in his late fifties, who considers the iPad to be his Personal Computer.


As I said before, tablets are not designed to be PC replacements, but they CAN be for some people. I know somebody who sold her laptop when she got an iPad, because the iPad did everything she needed. And what exactly is wrong with that? If you don't NEED a PC, why should you have one?

Tell that to whomever it was that wrote Tim Cook's speech littered with references to the post-PC era.


You need to go back and listen to Tim's speech again. He made it very clear that the 'post PC era' does NOT mean and end to PCs, but only that the PC is no longer the center of the universe, which, based on the number of people I see living on their smartphones and tablets, is true.

And really, in the analogy you chose, this is more akin to trying to replace a car with a motorcycle that has had the engine disabled. You get the appearance of something fast and with advantages that a car does not have--only it has been artificially prevented from being true competition to the car.


You make it out like people are saying that tablets are somehow superior, or replacements to PCs, but nothing could be further from the truth. They're just easier to use, and more convenient to use at times. As I stated above, they CAN be replacements in certain (limited) situations, but I myself have two PCs, and I still have a tablet, because it does things well that PCs don't. For example, I was lying in bed last night watching Youtube vids. Tablets are good for that. PCs? Not so much. If I'm going to the crapper, I'd rather bring a tablet with me instead of trying to balance a laptop on my lap ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Still Crippled.
by kristoph on Sat 10th Mar 2012 05:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still Crippled."
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Why can't I use the iTunes it comes with to get my podcasts? Isn't that what the app does?


iTunes app > More > Podcasts

Is that what your looking for? Glad to be of help. Any other issues?

]{

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Still Crippled.
by phoenix on Mon 12th Mar 2012 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still Crippled."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Does that allow you to search for, download, setup automatic series downloads, and save podcasts for later playing? All without connecting to a computer running iTunes?

That's what the OP is asking for.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Still Crippled.
by henderson101 on Thu 8th Mar 2012 02:30 UTC in reply to "Still Crippled."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Do you know when the last time I used iTunes with my iPad was? Honestly? 6 months ago, when I upgraded to iOS 5. I've never needed to attach it since then. It backs up to iCloud. I download all content. Music comes from iTunes Match.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Still Crippled.
by mrstep on Thu 8th Mar 2012 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Still Crippled."
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

And now the OS updates no longer need to be connected to iTunes either. Looks like you're going to go well past 6 months.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Still Crippled.
by henderson101 on Thu 8th Mar 2012 09:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still Crippled."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Hell yeah... One down already (5.01) and will do te 5.1 in, oh 10 minutes or so.... Just have to make sure iCloud backup is up to date. Phone updated last night, and once the update downloaded, I had to go out... So it installed on a 10 minute car journey at 70mph! No itunes touting computer involved.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still Crippled.
by bornagainenguin on Thu 8th Mar 2012 03:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Still Crippled."
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

henderson101 declared...

Do you know when the last time I used iTunes with my iPad was? Honestly? 6 months ago, when I upgraded to iOS 5. I've never needed to attach it since then. It backs up to iCloud. I download all content. Music comes from iTunes Match.


Awesome! Now tell me how do you add your podcasts to the iPad without connecting it to another computer, using only the software that came with it from Apple?

Yeah...I thought so. It's crippled.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Still Crippled.
by WorknMan on Thu 8th Mar 2012 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still Crippled."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Awesome! Now tell me how do you add your podcasts to the iPad without connecting it to another computer, using only the software that came with it from Apple?


http://lifehacker.com/5855050/the-best-podcast-manager-for-iphone

That also works for iPad. Do you want to disqualify it just because it doesn't come from Apple? There are about 500,000 apps in the app store; if you just counted what came with the tablet, that wouldn't be a very useful device. Hell, I don't think there's anything built into Windows either that will download podcasts.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Still Crippled.
by HangLoose on Thu 8th Mar 2012 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still Crippled."
HangLoose Member since:
2007-09-03

he just wants to have the same functionality on the stock app (that is supposed to manage your media) as the one in the desktop.

i understand him because it is also one of my pet peeves when i had the ipad(1). so a friend of my introduced me to doggcatcher in android. now my wife is happy with an ipad and i am happy with a transformer 2. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Still Crippled.
by bornagainenguin on Thu 8th Mar 2012 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still Crippled."
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

HangLoose posted...

he just wants to have the same functionality on the stock app (that is supposed to manage your media) as the one in the desktop.

i understand him because it is also one of my pet peeves when i had the ipad(1). so a friend of my introduced me to doggcatcher in android. now my wife is happy with an ipad and i am happy with a transformer 2. ;)


Thank you, it's nice to see someone who gets it.

I was really hoping that the release of the iPad HD would include a fully functional iTunes client as well as the rest of the iLife suite, which would push me towards getting one. Now instead I think I will probably just get a basic cheap Android tablet as "good enough" and sit out the iPad another rotation and see if the guys at Apple will allow their baby to leave the nest in the next revision. Could come sooner than later, given the rumors of an impending release of iOS 6 by summer... Maybe by then?

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Still Crippled.
by gan17 on Thu 8th Mar 2012 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Still Crippled."
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

I feel for ya, mate.

Thing is, if Apple really don't want people playing with how the iPhone's file system, then why not create some sort of app that acts like a middle-man hub? Meaning, you activate the app, allocate a certain amount of storage space to it, say 4GB, and then plug it (or sync via bluetooth or whatever) into your non-iTunes PC. Your PC then sees your iPhone/Pad as a 4GB external storage device. Drag n drop your songs, podcasts and movies and unplug. Then the app takes over and sorts your files the "Apple Way" (whatever that is).

Should be simple enough a job for Apple to do, me thinks. We still don't get anything close to robust file management, but at least us non Win/Mac users who don't have iTunes installed can still transfer our media effortlessly.

Edited 2012-03-08 22:44 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Still Crippled.
by henderson101 on Thu 8th Mar 2012 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still Crippled."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Short answer Downcast.. http://downcastapp.com/

Long answer, I only ever listened to podcasts on my phone, and iPhone you used to just do the "more episode" / "back to music" dance. Then I found Downcast. It absolutely blew my mind. It handles RSS feeds, updates Inteligently, will sync the play found and podcast list between devices via iCloud. It's universal, and it's not expensive. If you are serious about podcasts, take a look at it, or one of the other comparable apps.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still Crippled.
by gan17 on Thu 8th Mar 2012 10:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Still Crippled."
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

I know about PC-free updates from iOS 5 onwards. but....

Most of my music I rip from CDs and encode myself. Most of the movies on my hard drive are torrented (yes, pirated)

Is there a way to transfer my music and movies to an iPhone/iPad running iOS 5.x without iTunes or any other software? I'm a Linux & BSD user, in case that matters.

Genuine question here. Last iDevice I owned was a 3G.

I don't mind using iTunes on the actual iPhone/Pad but cannot/will not install it on my computers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Still Crippled.
by calden on Sat 10th Mar 2012 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still Crippled."
calden Member since:
2012-02-02

The iPad should be the last device you should get then. Apple is closed up tighter then a Dolphins butt. Buy a Android tablet, you can get Asus Transformer next to nothing now. They play pretty much play every codec you can through at it. Transfering files is a breeze as Android has a real filemanger that can see the entire drive, and mount any network drive. You'll spend at least 80 bucks in the Apple Store to even match the Multimedia capabilities and free software that the Asus comes with. If you have a DLNA compatible tv you can just stream your movies directly to the TV. If you don't then you can buy a device for 20 bucks that will add DLNA to any tv.

As a Unix guy myself who also has questionable media files don't even look at a Apple you'll kick yourself. Android is a open source OS, Android tablets you can hack the crap out of go to XDA and download a Kernel for overlooking the Asus to 1.6 GHZ. Plus with the keyboard attached you get 15 hours of battery, a real terminal that you can install a LAMP server on, and when the tablet is plugged into any computer its mounted as a storage device, no crappy itunes problem.

The list goes on and on, Apple is bad for a hacker, Android better.

My Android tablet suggestions are:

Samsung Galaxy 8.9
Motorola Xoom 1st or 2nd both good
Asus Transformer and Transformer Prime
Asus Slider, my favorite
On the cheap Arcos G8

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Still Crippled.
by nefer on Sat 10th Mar 2012 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still Crippled."
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

As a Unix guy myself who also has questionable media files don't even look at a Apple you'll kick yourself.


Just get Plex. Makes your entire library available, without the need of having to synchronize or copy trough a wire.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Still Crippled.
by nefer on Thu 8th Mar 2012 21:31 UTC in reply to "Still Crippled."
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

Syncing with iTunes on the desktop stopped being a requirement since iOS5.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Still Crippled.
by bornagainenguin on Thu 8th Mar 2012 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Still Crippled."
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

nefer said...

Syncing with iTunes on the desktop stopped being a requirement since iOS5.


Great! Now tell me how to get iTunes on the iPad to download my podcasts without thirdparty tools or hacks and without needing to connect to a desktop with iTunes...

...

...

...yeah, I didn't think so. I'm calling it as I see it--the iPad has been deliberately crippled for no good reason.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Still Crippled.
by nefer on Thu 8th Mar 2012 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still Crippled."
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15


Great! Now tell me how to get iTunes on the iPad to download my podcasts without thirdparty tools or hacks and without needing to connect to a desktop with iTunes...


Get them on the iTunes store.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Still Crippled.
by bornagainenguin on Thu 8th Mar 2012 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still Crippled."
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

nefer replied...

Great! Now tell me how to get iTunes on the iPad to download my podcasts without thirdparty tools or hacks and without needing to connect to a desktop with iTunes...


Get them on the iTunes store.


Not trying to move the goalpost on you--honest I'm not--but while that works for one offs, where is the ability to subscribe to a podcast, the way you can do on the desktop iTunes client? The iPad version of the iTunes app only seems to allow you to download episodes one at a time. There does not seem to be a method of subscribing within its iTunes client.

In essence to taste a show you can use the iPad version of the client, but if you want to really get regular episodes to download you need to use the desktop to sync the device. The iPad is still crippled because of this dependency on a 90s era model of interacting with a mobile device. This completely curtails its functionality as a post-PC device, because ding ding ding you STILL need a PC to make it all work!

--bornagainpenguin

EDIT - fixed silly typo

Edited 2012-03-08 22:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v RE[5]: Still Crippled.
by nefer on Thu 8th Mar 2012 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still Crippled."
RE[6]: Still Crippled.
by phoenix on Thu 8th Mar 2012 23:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Still Crippled."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Until you really want to listen to that new podcast ... and don't have access to wireless/cellular so can't download it.

There has to be a balance between "download things when you want to listen" and "have it already downloaded so you can just start to listen".

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Still Crippled.
by bornagainenguin on Fri 9th Mar 2012 01:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Still Crippled."
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

nefer suggested....

This completely curtails its functionality as a post-PC device, because ding ding ding you STILL need a PC to make it all work!

I must say I disagree. Contrary to desktops, you don't have oodles of diskspace on a Post PC device. Being able to subscribe on podcasts - then forgetting about them - and have your disk consequentially filled with podcasts that you haven't listened to yet - or have forgotten about entirely - doesn't sound like a very attractive idea to me.

It makes much more sense not to subscribe them in the first place, and just get them when you want to listen to them. This way you have better control on what the storage on your post pc device gets used for.


That's the first time anyone posted a reason for this default behavior that made a lick of sense! I still think its wrongheaded, because I think I should be the one to make that determination--not Apple. And even if your reasoning is correct this issue could still be worked around, much like the DVR people handle the issue. Apple could make it a setting for the iTunes application to keep at most X episodes. Or they could make it a setting to only use XX GB to store podcasts.

But not even offering me an option to subscribe unless I'm willing to dock the iPad to a desktop, a "real" computer is for the birds. Not everyone wants a 3G\4G account with a carrier (and the stupidity that is bandwidth caps) or will be in a place that always has WiFi. It'd be nice to be able to load up on podcasts ahead of time for those situations. Regardless until this gets fixed it means the iPad is for all intents and purposes crippled.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Still Crippled.
by akrosdbay on Fri 9th Mar 2012 05:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Still Crippled."
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09


But not even offering me an option to subscribe unless I'm willing to dock the iPad to a desktop, a "real" computer is for the birds. Not everyone wants a 3G\4G account with a carrier (and the stupidity that is bandwidth caps) or will be in a place that always has WiFi. It'd be nice to be able to load up on podcasts ahead of time for those situations. Regardless until this gets fixed it means the iPad is for all intents and purposes crippled.

--bornagainpenguin


I am utterly confused.

Where are these podcasts stored and how will they get on the device without 3G/4G or Wifi? They are stored on a Computer, right?

How does being able to subscribe to podcasts from the iPad some how automagically circumvent downloading data on 3G/4G or Wifi?

Like the other poster said If you willy nilly subscribe to a bunch of podcasts on a whim on your phone or tablet a) You fill up space b) You chew that precious 3G/4G bandwidth.

I do agree that apple could improve the podcast feature and they just might sometime in the future if enough users complain. I understand it is a showstopper for you but I am completely at a loss trying to figure out what your are getting at with the above point.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Still Crippled.
by nefer on Fri 9th Mar 2012 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Still Crippled."
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

Not everyone wants a 3G\4G account with a carrier (and the stupidity that is bandwidth caps) or will be in a place that always has WiFi.


Saying you want a Post-PC device without access to a wireless network is like saying you want a Graphical desktop without a mouse. Wireless, be it 3G, 4G or mobile, is an inherent part of the Post-PC experience.

Post-PC is NOT just about a smartphone. Its about a whole set of technologies and services that are finely attuned to and complement eachother to provide the whole widget. You either go for that widget or you don't. You can't be both on the bus and not on the bus. You can't have it both ways and complain afterwards it doesn't work properly.

Edited 2012-03-09 17:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Still Crippled.
by Kivada on Fri 9th Mar 2012 04:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Still Crippled."
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Too much consumerism and hassle. I want my stuff stored and stowed in one place I can browse through at my leisure. So what if I forget about a podcast for a few months? I have a backlog, what about files that may not always be available due to being DMCAd or due to lack of enough mass popularity to always be available on some server somewhere?

Then theres the problem of post release editing, what if a news cast online gets pulled and edited and all you saw was the stream? If you don't have the file you can't compare the 2 to see if it was recut post release.

Edited 2012-03-09 04:26 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Still Crippled.
by nefer on Fri 9th Mar 2012 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Still Crippled."
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

Too much consumerism and hassle. I want my stuff stored and stowed in one place I can browse through at my leisure. So what if I forget about a podcast for a few months? I have a backlog, what about files that may not always be available due to being DMCAd or due to lack of enough mass popularity to always be available on some server somewhere?

Then theres the problem of post release editing, what if a news cast online gets pulled and edited and all you saw was the stream? If you don't have the file you can't compare the 2 to see if it was recut post release.


If you hate hassle, then why are you willing to trade a small hassle for a big hassle?

Post-PC devices aren't made to be carrying a lot of data in them. If you really want to hamster all this data the way you describe, there are pretty good systems out there which allow you to, and which makes them available for streaming to your phone or any other device automagically without needing to physically store them on each of the devices you carry with you.

Edited 2012-03-09 17:40 UTC

Reply Score: 1

cool but
by fran on Thu 8th Mar 2012 03:08 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Their is a Samsung Ice Cream Sandwich tablet with 2560 x 1600 resolution on it's way this year.
The Android App store is also growing with top tier Apps.
And developers is flocking to it.

"Tablet market is the iPad market"?..RDF sorry
If it has'nt a super duper mega pixel awesome zillion pixels now it's just not a tablet player?

Edited 2012-03-08 03:11 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: cool but
by leos on Thu 8th Mar 2012 03:31 UTC in reply to "cool but"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Their is a Samsung Ice Cream Sandwich tablet with 2560 x 1600 resolution on it's way this year.


Source?

The Android App store is also growing with top tier Apps.


Growing yes, but not anywhere close to the number of good iPad apps out there.

And developers is flocking to it.


Perhaps, but they're flocking more to the iOS platforms.

If it has'nt a super duper mega pixel awesome zillion pixels now it's just not a tablet player?


It is, but just a crappier tablet. Apple has raised the bar again.

And now that the iPad 2 is available for $399 I think it will canibalize some sales from the other tablets again. That seems to be the price most of them have settled at (judging from the local Best Buy)... So if you can get an iPad for that price, why bother with the others? (and yes, I have tried them and they're pretty crappy so far. And no, I don't own an iPad or plan to buy one. Just use them at work a lot).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: cool but
by WorknMan on Thu 8th Mar 2012 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE: cool but"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

So if you can get an iPad for that price, why bother with the others? (and yes, I have tried them and they're pretty crappy so far. And no, I don't own an iPad or plan to buy one. Just use them at work a lot).


In the case of the Asus Transformer, you can get a keyboard dock that also extends the battery, and a USB port where you can plug in a mouse/gamepad/etc if you want.

You also get a USB and microSD card slot. And if you want HDMI out, you can use a $3 cable from Monoprice, instead of the $40+ dongle that Apple charges for.

As for apps, true that iOS has more, but unless your needs are very specific (like mine), the basics on Android are pretty well covered. Plus, you can run apps on it that are banned in the Apple walled garden, such as emulators. And I'm pretty sure you can run Ubuntu on it as well ;)

And if you think Android tablets are sluggish, you should try one of these with ICS installed. Plus, it has Google services nicely integrated, and the OS itself is leaps and bounds above iOS in the various ways you can configure it.

Now, don't get me wrong, the iPad is a great tablet, but certainly NOT the only game in town.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: cool but
by fran on Thu 8th Mar 2012 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE: cool but"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

It is, but just a crappier tablet. Apple has raised the bar again.

Why, are you looking for the Higgs Boson particle?
Stil many people that even prefer e-ink

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: cool but
by Neolander on Thu 8th Mar 2012 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: cool but"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Why, are you looking for the Higgs Boson particle?
Stil many people that even prefer e-ink

Actually, I think that for work-oriented PCs which do not require good refresh rates and color rendering fidelity, large e-ink screens would kick ass ;)

Edited 2012-03-08 17:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: cool but
by dsmogor on Fri 9th Mar 2012 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE: cool but"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Android tablets are mostly fed by phone apps that are layout adaptable to tablets.
Upsides - phone apps look and function way better on android tablets and enable transition devices like Galaxy Note.
Downsides - the form factor potential is less realized than in case of dedicated pad apps
Nevertheless - new iPad is the first one I'd consider buying.

Reply Score: 2

Oh Apple...
by matthewp131 on Thu 8th Mar 2012 03:38 UTC
matthewp131
Member since:
2011-09-21

A Display so hi-res I don't need it, on a tablet so hampered by iOS' incompetence I don't want it. I'll go back to caring about Windows 8 and the Cyanogen Mod for my Touchpad.

Reply Score: 1

softdrat
Member since:
2008-09-17

Let us not forget that the Nokia N770/N800/N810 series of "internet tablets" came with 225 PPI displays, just a step below what Apple is touting today, and this was 5 years ago. Still use my N810, but to be honest, my eyes can't make use of the high resolution. Any PPI over about 100 is a waste of time.

Reply Score: 2

leech Member since:
2006-01-10

You know, for many a year I had wanted one of the Nokia Internet Tablets, after I had first read about them. Finally was able to afford the N900 when it came out and you know what???

I Absolutely LOVE IT!! All the bullshit that happened afterward makes me nothing short of furious at how everything I have ever loved and appreciated technology wise always gets set up to become an underdog.

I loved the Amiga, it all but died, loved the N900, Maemo was canceled then semi-brought back with the N9 (bought one of those too), etc. If I had been old enough at the time, I probably would have loved Beta over VHS. Though I did pick right with Bluray, it's still arguable whether or not it's the better technology, though I think it is just on the massive size they can hold.

But I'll never like Apple products, and I never have. I have respect for Wozniak, but past that everything that has anything to do with Apple has been crap, especially the love they now have of patenting crap that others have long since been doing.

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/03/07/2325259/apple-wins-patent-...

Reply Score: 7

cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

To be honest the N900 was the first okis iteration of maemo, the N<=810 were really bad. Bad UI, sluggish... So good thing that you waited for the N900 ;)

Reply Score: 2

iPad
by John Blink on Thu 8th Mar 2012 04:25 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

kid: "Wow mum you got me an iPad for my birthday"
mum: "blah blah, I knew how much you wanted it"
kid: "shit!!!"
mum: "what?"
kid: "I wanted the iPad, not the iPad!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9obgyYB1IU

:):):)

Reply Score: 5

Macbook Air
by John Blink on Thu 8th Mar 2012 04:32 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

Give me a macbook air with that res and that price. Who cares about a tablet.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Macbook Air
by leech on Thu 8th Mar 2012 04:39 UTC in reply to "Macbook Air"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

That's what I was saying earlier! A 9.7" screen at that resolution is not only wasteful in usage, but wasteful in battery and GPU/CPU usage.

Stick it on a tablet or a large screen LED display!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Macbook Air
by leech on Fri 9th Mar 2012 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Macbook Air"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

Oops, I meant stick it on a Large screen display, not a tablet.

Seriously, I would die for a computer screen that is 32" or bigger with that resolution.

I think my 21" CRT would do that resolution, but only at 60hz, which made it unusable. I would love an LCD/LED that would do it. Well, change that, I want an LCD/LED that does a wide screen version. 4:3 ratio is so 1990s...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Macbook Air
by daveak on Fri 9th Mar 2012 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Macbook Air"
daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

Widescreen LCD that would do it?

27" Apple Cinema Display 2560x1440

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Macbook Air
by mrstep on Fri 9th Mar 2012 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Macbook Air"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

Yeah, what the hell are you talking about. Buy a 30" monitor that does 2560x1600 or a 27" at 2560x1440 then - that's all been out for years. Getting a tablet that is essentially (older) laser printer quality on a 9.7" screen, that's going to be fantastic for browsing and reading.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Macbook Air
by Carewolf on Sun 11th Mar 2012 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Macbook Air"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Laser printers are 1200dpi, even the very cheap ones for home use are at least 600dpi. 300dpi is the resolution of 1980s dot-matrix printers, or very early crappy inkjets.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Macbook Air
by kovacm on Mon 12th Mar 2012 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Macbook Air"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

Laser printers are 1200dpi, even the very cheap ones for home use are at least 600dpi. 300dpi is the resolution of 1980s dot-matrix printers, or very early crappy inkjets.

well... NO.

best Dot matrix printers from 80s have up to 240DPI resolution.

First laser printers (LaserWriter, Atari SLM 804, LaserJet...) have 300DPI.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Macbook Air
by Tony Swash on Thu 8th Mar 2012 10:44 UTC in reply to "Macbook Air"
RE[2]: Macbook Air
by mrstep on Fri 9th Mar 2012 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Macbook Air"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

Though I'll also upgrade my Air when they release a retina display for it. Awesome for coding...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Macbook Air
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 12th Mar 2012 21:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Macbook Air"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"Give me a macbook air with that res and that price. Who cares about a tablet.



It seems about 3.75 million people who buy an iPad every week do.
"

Wow, the appeal to popularity fallacy sure is... well, popular with Apple fanboys lately. You should probably dress it up with some convoluted justifications though, I'm sure ilovebeer would be happy to share his with you.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Macbook Air
by arpan on Thu 8th Mar 2012 13:48 UTC in reply to "Macbook Air"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Macbook Air for the same price as an iPad - not gonna happen. Intel CPU + Motherboard is a lot more expensive that the A5X, and they require a much bigger (and thus more expensive) battery as well.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Macbook Air
by John Blink on Sat 10th Mar 2012 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Macbook Air"
John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

That makes sense, but oh how I wish... ;)

Reply Score: 2

I can only hope
by shotsman on Thu 8th Mar 2012 07:07 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

That once people see this screen, they will realise how crappy most laptop screens are.
Then I hope we can start to get laptops with displays with resolutions like this.
I've just been given a new work laptop. The vert resolution is 768 pixels.
WTF?
This is so 2000.
I'd like the numpties who made this decision (the old ones had 1050 vertical) try doing decent software dev on it using the current generation of tools.
Don't even get me going on how much a waste of space the MS Office ribbon is on this size screen. What a joke.

I'd certainly pay a small premium (not the current arm and two legs) for a Laptop with a decent screen with at least 1200 vertical resolution.

Reply Score: 6

RE: I can only hope
by talaf on Thu 8th Mar 2012 08:16 UTC in reply to "I can only hope"
talaf Member since:
2008-11-19

When I'll have to change my 4:3 thinkpad for one of those "built for entertainment" business computer and their 16:9 screens, it's gonna be a sad day indeed...

Reply Score: 1

RE: I can only hope
by John Blink on Sat 10th Mar 2012 23:15 UTC in reply to "I can only hope"
John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

Totally agree.

You look at the specs of some of these laptops, and say good specs good specs, then you see the resolution and say shit!

I think that is the only thing keeping price down.

I need that resolution, but I know having dealt with the elderly they need bigger writing on the screen instead. So there is a market for both, and therefore I think they shouldn't stick a premium on high res.

Reply Score: 2

4g lol
by zhulien on Thu 8th Mar 2012 08:17 UTC
zhulien
Member since:
2006-12-06

hmm, almost exactly the same as the previous ipad but with a better display - surely they could have done better than that... at least have faster connectivity than the previous would have been good in Australia!!! I guess apple will advertise 4G and people here will think apple's incompatible 4G is faster on our 3G network

Reply Score: 1

Comment by lemur2
by lemur2 on Thu 8th Mar 2012 09:04 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

FTA:

At a mere €479 (NL)/$499. For once, I'm in full agreement with the Grubers and Sieglers of this world: there is no tablet market. There's only an iPad market.


Actually, there is a tablet market.

http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/07/ipad-tablet-market/

Apparently in ONE year, Android stole 37% of the TABLET market from Apple.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Comment by lemur2
by pandronic on Thu 8th Mar 2012 10:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by lemur2"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Finally, I agree with you on something ;)

- posted from my Asus Transformer

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by lemur2
by cyrilleberger on Thu 8th Mar 2012 15:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by lemur2"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Obviously, you don't understand Gruber's logic. There are two markets, one for android tablet and one for iPads, and in the iPad market, Apple is unchallenged leader.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by lemur2
by broken_symlink on Thu 8th Mar 2012 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lemur2"
broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

i thought samsung was challenging apple in the ipad market. isn't that what those lawsuits were about?

Reply Score: 5

display developed by Apple
by puenktchen on Thu 8th Mar 2012 09:05 UTC
puenktchen
Member since:
2007-07-27

@ Thom:

and sure, this display has probably been developed by LG or whatever

Apple did claim they developed the technology themselves. They say the same on their webpage:

In order to create a display with four times the pixels, we had to design it in a completely new way.

And for the Iphone 4:

By developing pixels a mere 78 micrometers wide, Apple engineers were able to pack four times the number of pixels into the 3.5-inch (diagonal) screen found on iPhone 4S and iPhone 4.

Apple has also filed several lcd patents, so they really seem to do their own research.

edit: http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/08/apple-patents-p...

Edited 2012-03-08 09:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: display developed by Apple
by puenktchen on Thu 8th Mar 2012 12:44 UTC in reply to "display developed by Apple"
puenktchen Member since:
2007-07-27

I'd really love to know why I get modded down - anything wrong with my post? Or is at least Apple lying?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: display developed by Apple
by alexz on Thu 8th Mar 2012 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE: display developed by Apple"
alexz Member since:
2012-02-25

Not sure if they designed these ones, but on the first two ipads they had two manufacturers with visible difference between screens. If it was a single design, they would be identical. There's no such thing as "artistic" difference among manufacturers that could explain the difference when it comes to making a product following defined specs.

Reply Score: 2

puenktchen Member since:
2007-07-27

They didn't claim to design the displays user in iPad 1 & 2. And I guess their their ideas could still be combined with different production processes of different manufacturers. But at least the display of the iPhone 4 seems to be produced by LG exclusively.

OK, "Apple engineers helped developing" "or added some ideas" would probably be closer to the truth.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: display developed by Apple
by nefer on Thu 8th Mar 2012 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE: display developed by Apple"
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

The sentiment on this board is that if you don't manufacture things yourself, you're basically a rip off of other peoples technology. Or at least you are if your company name is Apple.

What most so-called pundits fail to realize here though is that Apple often makes significant investments in putting together assembly lines at other companies to run these assembly lines for them - with technology they engineered.

Reply Score: 0

RE: display developed by Apple
by smashIt on Thu 8th Mar 2012 15:21 UTC in reply to "display developed by Apple"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

By developing pixels a mere 78 micrometers wide, Apple engineers were able to pack four times the number of pixels into the 3.5-inch (diagonal) screen found on iPhone 4S and iPhone 4.


does anyone know how small the pixels in an lcd-beamer are?

Reply Score: 3

RE: display developed by Apple
by zima on Wed 14th Mar 2012 23:38 UTC in reply to "display developed by Apple"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Keep in mind, especially with a public-facing webpage, how it's not only from a company very focused on marketing ...but also on a marketing of not always the best integrity.

They also had, a decade ago, whole pages devoted to PowerPC "supercomputer on a chip" G4, based on few hand-optimised, hand-picked edge scenarios of SIMD benchmarks (few Photoshop filters and such) - all the while what was available on the PC side generally basically destroyed them, performance-wise.

Such dubious, at best, PR is in their blood since the earliest years... for example http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/3 (considering, apparently, some hardships at the time mentioned in that article, it's even remotely conceivable that the company would fold a long time ago, without such lies... emphasis mine)

Apple's response to being in third place involved the genius of Regis McKenna, the former Intel PR executive who had spearheaded "Operation Crush," the predecessor of the "Intel Inside" campaign. McKenna decided that what the company needed was great marketing, so all advertising for the Apple ][ was glossy and rich, and some ads even claimed that the Apple ][ was the "best-selling personal computer." It had nowhere near such status at the time.


Or consider how frighteningly large proportion of OSX users seems to believe they are immune from online threats ...basically because Apple says them so (while their OS doesn't have very impressive record on some annual hacking contests; while iOS has, from time to time, a "jailbreak in a browser" - really, a root exploit for any random webpage)


This here with displays might as well be largely a marketspeak for people who don't even know anyway that, say, Apple doesn't strictly build any of their stuff.

Reply Score: 2

Not interesting
by pandronic on Thu 8th Mar 2012 10:34 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

Whoopty-fucking-doo, so Apple crammed 3145728 pixels in a 10" screen. Now I feel myself caring less that their product is so locked down that I can't even have a stupid file manager and that every application needs to have their own fucking copy of the files. Oh, and also, I've totally forgotten that Apple constantly tries to kill all competition by claiming to have invented the rounded-corner rectangle. And it totally slipped my mind that Apple promoted this whole crappy walled garden concept, that will make computing as exciting as programming your washing machine.

And what's this fetish with high-resolution? It's not like there is a perceivable difference, between 1280x800 and 2048x1536 on a freaking 10" display. You resolution snobs are really as bad as audiophiles. I've heard that there's a nice gold plated, pure-silver, high-definition, super-retina clarity, dynamic filtering power cable that will triple the count of useless pixels on your iPad's screen.

Actually, if I think about it, it's pretty crappy that Apple's UI isn't truly scalable and every time they want to enlarge the resolution, they need to double it, so it doesn't look like crap.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Not interesting
by righard on Thu 8th Mar 2012 10:56 UTC in reply to "Not interesting"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

I didn't notice much difference between 1280x800 and 2048x1536 either. But after I re-downloaded all my video's with my new ethernet cable (http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6P...) I can almost taste the image.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Not interesting
by alexz on Thu 8th Mar 2012 13:38 UTC in reply to "Not interesting"
alexz Member since:
2012-02-25

There is little to no difference when consuming multimedia or playing games.

There is a hell of difference when reading text. It's not because you do not use a tablet to read text that no one does. Let me tell you that when you read for hours on a lcd, sharpness counts.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not interesting
by pandronic on Thu 8th Mar 2012 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Not interesting"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

I've read quite a few books on my Asus Transformer and, in fact, since I got it, my Kindle and my physical books have been gathering dust. I don't feel any eyestrain and never have I stopped reading because my eyes felt tired. Have you read any books on the iPad 3, to be able to make the comparison?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not interesting
by mrstep on Fri 9th Mar 2012 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not interesting"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

Regarding the 3 million pixels - did you know that an old 72 DPI dot matrix printer is just as high resolution as a 1200 DPI laser printer output held 2 feet from you if you hold the dot matrix sheet just 33 feet away from you when you read? Makes you wonder why anyone wanted something better when what we really needed was just bigger paper, right?

I'm guessing most people haven't had a chance to compare the iPad 2 screen to the iPad 3, but many have compared the iPhone 3gs (or earlier) screen to iPhone 4(s). Have you not?

Never let any facts get in the way of an anti-Apple rant, huh?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Not interesting
by nefer on Fri 9th Mar 2012 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not interesting"
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

Regarding the 3 million pixels - did you know that an old 72 DPI dot matrix printer is just as high resolution as a 1200 DPI laser printer output held 2 feet from you if you hold the dot matrix sheet just 33 feet away from you when you read? Makes you wonder why anyone wanted something better when what we really needed was just bigger paper, right?


Billboards are printed in very rough rasters, just for that reason. The viewing distance is so large, dotsize doesn't really matter all that much.

This being said, you do hold a tablet at a greater distance than a smartphone. Simple reason number one : the screen is bigger. I can often find myself staring at my smartphone screen at just a couple of inches. I don't see this happening with a tablet. Hence the reason why too fine of a pixel technology would be overkill anyway just like a 150 lpi raster would be on a billboard. More pixels = more processing power required to drive them. If it goes to waste anyway because of the viewing distance, why bother.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not interesting
by nefer on Thu 8th Mar 2012 21:44 UTC in reply to "Not interesting"
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

Now I feel myself caring less that their product is so locked down that I can't even have a stupid file manager


The sixties called. They want the file manager back.

Whoopty-fucking-doo, so Apple crammed 3145728 pixels in a 10" screen. Now I feel myself caring less that their product is so locked down that I can't even have a stupid file manager and that every application needs to have their own fucking copy of the files. Oh, and also, I've totally forgotten that Apple constantly tries to kill all competition by claiming to have invented the rounded-corner rectangle. And it totally slipped my mind that Apple promoted this whole crappy walled garden concept, that will make computing as exciting as programming your washing machine.

[q]
And what's this fetish with high-resolution? It's not like there is a perceivable difference, between 1280x800 and 2048x1536 on a freaking 10" display.


Try reading large amounts of text. Its much better as an e-reader. No need for blurry anti-aliasing anymore, things can be crisp.

Actually, if I think about it, it's pretty crappy that Apple's UI isn't truly scalable and every time they want to enlarge the resolution, they need to double it, so it doesn't look like crap.


Its a choice, not a software limitation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not interesting
by pandronic on Thu 8th Mar 2012 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Not interesting"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

The sixties called. They want the file manager back.


What does this even mean?

Try reading large amounts of text. Its much better as an e-reader. No need for blurry anti-aliasing anymore, things can be crisp.


Been there, done that. 1280x800 is good enough ... hell, even the iPad 2's resolution is good enough ...

Its a choice, not a software limitation.


Yeah, sure, Apple can do no wrong ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not interesting
by nefer on Thu 8th Mar 2012 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not interesting"
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15


What does this even mean?


It means that after half a century, its time to let go of the old crippled ways of handling things.

Been there, done that. 1280x800 is good enough ... hell, even the iPad 2's resolution is good enough ...


I've been waiting especially for the new iPad to get the high resolution display. I've been reading text on screens for decades, and do a lot of reading on my laptop screen. Even with the best anti aliasing in a modern OS to make text look good on normal resolution displays, its still basically a band aid. Text doesn't look as crisp as it could be. It doesn't come near the crispness of text in a book. With high resolution displays, text on these devices is actually sharper than books in print.

Its like HD resolution. Once you get used to the sharpness, everything regular looks muddy.

Yeah, sure, Apple can do no wrong ...


I'm not throwing any sentiment around, I was just stating a fact. Vector based UI features have been found in OSX for as far back as 10.4.

Edited 2012-03-08 22:07 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Not interesting
by gan17 on Thu 8th Mar 2012 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not interesting"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

"
What does this even mean?


It means that after half a century, its time to let go of the old crippled ways of handling things.
"

Having the ability to manage your files yourself is vital for people who use the iPad as a creative tool. Try using Adobe's Photoshop Touch or something. As you create multiple variants of the same piece, you'll definitely miss the ability to sort them in folders and sub-folders.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Not interesting
by nefer on Thu 8th Mar 2012 22:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not interesting"
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

Having the ability to manage your files yourself is vital for people who use the iPad as a creative tool.


Traditional file managers are inherently flawed with todays data volumes. They're so broken beyond repair its not even funny. It was fine up until we had disks which were measured in megabytes. It crossed the line of manageability when we had disks with more than a gigabyte of space. Do you know ANY system around you that don't have junk hierarchical file structures of somesort with accumulated cruft that nobody has bothered to check in ages because they don't know what resides in them and they don't really care to weed them out to begin with? Do you use the file manager to retrieve date from them? For both questions, the answer will be almost always no.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Not interesting
by gan17 on Thu 8th Mar 2012 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not interesting"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

That still doesn't mean squat to someone who wants to sort his files his bloody way.

You can spend millions in R&D creating a foolproof filesystem that thinks it does an optimal job, but at the end of the day people who create stuff will still want to sort their work the best way they see fit.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Not interesting
by marcus0263 on Sun 11th Mar 2012 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not interesting"
marcus0263 Member since:
2007-06-02

That still doesn't mean squat to someone who wants to sort his files his bloody way.

You can spend millions in R&D creating a foolproof filesystem that thinks it does an optimal job, but at the end of the day people who create stuff will still want to sort their work the best way they see fit.


Exactly, one of the many things I dislike about Apple. The attitude of you're doing it wrong if you're not doing it the Apple way.

As I've said numerous times, the tool needs to adapt to the work and not adapt the work around the tool.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Not interesting
by nefer on Mon 12th Mar 2012 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not interesting"
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

That still doesn't mean squat to someone who wants to sort his files his bloody way.

You can spend millions in R&D creating a foolproof filesystem that thinks it does an optimal job, but at the end of the day people who create stuff will still want to sort their work the best way they see fit.


Nobody forces you to buy Apple products. If you want to use old paradigms on new computers, there are a range of alternatives to choose from.

I'm sure you can find a tablet to run COBOL if you would need to. Most people, however, will move on with the times and leave filesystems for what they are.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Not interesting
by phoenix on Thu 8th Mar 2012 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not interesting"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

IOW, since (some) people can't be bothered to organise their files, we should remove all capabilities to organise files? How backward is that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Not interesting
by galvanash on Fri 9th Mar 2012 05:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Not interesting"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

IOW, since (some) people can't be bothered to organise their files, we should remove all capabilities to organise files? How backward is that.


I know I'll get modded down, but what the hell...

There are historically two common interface paradigms in GUI design - document centric and application centric. In document centric systems centralized file management is not only desirable, but pretty much mandatory - you need some kind of generalized file management UI.

Almost all GUIs in common use combine both systems at the same time. iOS on the other hand is completely application centric - it was designed to work that way.

Whether you like it or not, adding file management to an application centric UI corrodes it - the whole point is to avoid it entirely. It is a trade-off. It simplifies things for the user dramatically because, if done right, file management simply becomes unnecessary.

Is iOS done right? it certainly has its flaws... But at this point if Apple breaks down and implements a "Finder" on iOS, they may as well admit defeat. I'm not saying there aren't things that need to be fixed to improve usability, but adding file management is the last thing they should be doing. That's like adding a steering wheel to a train - once you do it you no longer have a train...

I'm just saying, it's not backwards - its simply different. You may not think it is better, but some people at least think it can be better if done right.

Reply Score: 6

I know it was only ickle..
by mistersoft on Thu 8th Mar 2012 13:17 UTC
mistersoft
Member since:
2011-01-05

but my Nokia N90 had a 259 PPI display 7 years ago..!

at 2.1 inches, twas small relative to a iPhone let alone this new tablet

so I get it's still a relatively big thing, but still, just saying

Reply Score: 4

CPU
by vivainio on Thu 8th Mar 2012 21:11 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

Apple are great at marketing:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57392624-64/new-ipad-why-quad-cor...

They don't talk about dual core CPU (because that's where they are behind), they talk about quad core gpu (which doesn't mean anything to anyone). Random (semi-savvy) consumer will just see that "ok, this android tablet is quad core, but so is the new ipad".

Reply Score: 4

RE: CPU
by nefer on Thu 8th Mar 2012 21:53 UTC in reply to "CPU"
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

I think quad core graphics are much more useful than quad core cpus on tablets.

Even on desktops, quad core CPUs are seldomly used to their full extent and more than often the extra cores are left twiddling their thumbs.

It makes much more sense using that SoC real estate to things that DO make a difference, such as graphical performance on a display which is now four times bigger.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: CPU
by Morgan on Fri 9th Mar 2012 07:59 UTC in reply to "RE: CPU"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I think quad core graphics are much more useful than quad core cpus on tablets.


I'd say that is generally true, modern tablets use the GPU to draw everything you see on the screen, whereas the CPU usually just handles the background stuff. This is especially obvious on older tablets and e-readers that don't have an accelerated GPU.

Even on desktops, quad core CPUs are seldomly used to their full extent and more than often the extra cores are left twiddling their thumbs.


At my part time job, I use a quad core i5 machine and it's definitely overkill. Though I have had to run a compiler occasionally, I'm not a programmer by trade and I just use Dev-C++ which (to my knowledge) is not optimised for quad cores. On my dual-core AMD at home, however, I get a lot of use out of both cores as I tend to do a lot of movie transcoding and game playing.

It makes much more sense using that SoC real estate to things that DO make a difference, such as graphical performance on a display which is now four times bigger.


I think that alone is why Apple chose to move to a quad core GPU; it may seem like overkill but at least they have the horsepower to push all those pixels and then some. I can imagine the train wreck of trying to support such a resolution on a dual core mobile GPU, given that my Nvidia desktop board at home struggles with 1600x900 in some games.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: CPU
by vivainio on Fri 9th Mar 2012 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE: CPU"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

I think quad core graphics are much more useful than quad core cpus on tablets.


But quad core graphics doesn't mean anything generally.

Do I have 480 core graphics since I have gf gtx 480?

I agree that fast graphics is important, but "quad core graphics" does not mean fast graphics (while quad core cpu generally does mean fast cpu). Does anyone outside Apple talk about quad core graphics?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: CPU
by akrosdbay on Fri 9th Mar 2012 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: CPU"
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09



But quad core graphics doesn't mean anything generally.

Do I have 480 core graphics since I have gf gtx 480?

I agree that fast graphics is important, but "quad core graphics" does not mean fast graphics (while quad core cpu generally does mean fast cpu). Does anyone outside Apple talk about quad core graphics?


Quad core CPU doesn't mean fast cpu either. It means more throughput not faster. For carrying cargo a truck has more throughput than a ferrari.

Apple markets the quad core gpu as means to drive the massive pixels in the new high res display. The new GPU was linked to the retina display announcement. 4x the number of pixels means you need the horsepower and throughput to put them on screen.

Edited 2012-03-09 15:50 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: CPU
by vivainio on Fri 9th Mar 2012 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: CPU"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Quad core CPU doesn't mean fast cpu either.


Well, it sort of does in practice.

Slow quad core cpu doesn't make sense, since 4 cores is the "high end". It's cheaper to make a dual core cpu that runs at a faster rate than quad core cpu, so if you have a slow quad core cpu, nobody's going to use it.


Apple markets the quad core gpu as means to drive the massive pixels in the new high res display.


Yes, again, fast GPU is important.

Quick, can you name a devite with single core gpu? Or dual core GPU? How many GPU cores does a random ATI radeon have? Or Galaxy S 2?.

It's just marketing. And apparently it's fooling people even here ;-).

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: CPU
by akrosdbay on Sat 10th Mar 2012 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: CPU"
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09


It's just marketing. And apparently it's fooling people even here ;-).


No but some people are taking it way out of context just for he sake of arguing and being anti-apple.

Apple just says "Hey we put this really high-res display on this device, if we didn't bump up the processing power you would get laggy performance, which would be so unlike the iPad experience. So we increased graphics performance by adding more GPU performance to our already fast chip"

From the Apple site :"
The A5X chip with quad-core graphics drives four times the pixels of iPad 2 yet it delivers the same smoothness and fluidity iPad is known for. "

Every single mention of the A5x is coupled with the Retina Display feature.

It appears you have utterly misunderstood basic english or are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing or both.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: CPU
by phoenix on Mon 12th Mar 2012 06:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: CPU"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Quick, can you name a devite with single core gpu?


Every single ARM-based cell phone, except those using an MP2/MP4 variant of a PowerVR GPU. The Qualcomm Adreno series are single-core. The TI OMAP CPUs use single-core GPUs. The current-gen ARM-Mali GPUs are single-core (there are multi-core variants of the T-series of Mali GPUs coming down the pipe).

You need to stop thinking in terms of the PC architecture. Everything is different when it comes to ARM.

A GPU "core" is literally an entire GPU. Thus, an SoC with a "multi-core" GPU physically has multiple complete GPUs inside.

Or dual core GPU?


The Apple iPhone 4S and the Apple iPad2 (both using the A5 SoC) have dual-core GPUs, the PowerVR SGX543MP2 (the MP2 part means it has 2 complete copies of the SGX543 GPU onboard).

How many GPU cores does a random ATI radeon have?


Most only have 1. There are a couple of super high-end cards that have 2 complete GPUs on the PCB, configured with CrossFire internally to act as a single GPU. "Stream processors", "shaders", etc are not "cores". There's only 1 GPU core in a standard Radeon GPU. Same with nVidia GPUs.

Or Galaxy S 2?


1 GPU, thus only 1 GPU core.

Edited 2012-03-12 06:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: CPU
by nefer on Fri 9th Mar 2012 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: CPU"
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

But quad core graphics doesn't mean anything generally.


*chokes*

You aware that graphics are massively parallelizable, right?


but "quad core graphics" does not mean fast graphics (while quad core cpu generally does mean fast cpu)


You have it the other way around. Graphics are much more parallelizable than general purpose computing. Hence the reason why you'll find a multitude of processing cores on modern graphic processors.

Edited 2012-03-09 17:19 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: CPU
by vivainio on Fri 9th Mar 2012 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: CPU"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

You aware that graphics are massively parallelizable, right?


Yes. And "4 cores" does not mean anything in this light.

My gf gtx 480 has 480 processing units. How many does ipad have?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: CPU
by nefer on Fri 9th Mar 2012 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: CPU"
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

Yes. And "4 cores" does not mean anything in this light.


It does. When using the same cores, a quad core GPU will offer better bang for buck than a quad core CPU because graphics processing is very easily parallelizable.

My gf gtx 480 has 480 processing units. How many does ipad have?


Good luck lugging your GTX 480-equipped tablet around.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: CPU
by vivainio on Fri 9th Mar 2012 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: CPU"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


It does. When using the same cores, a quad core GPU will offer better bang for buck than a quad core CPU because graphics processing is very easily parallelizable.


Gpu's are not at all like general purpose cpus.

Let's end this thread right here

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: CPU
by phoenix on Fri 9th Mar 2012 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: CPU"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

In the realm of ARM, "quad-core" graphics literally means "4 GPUs". Especially when it comes to the PowerVR GPUs. An SGX543 has 1 GPU "core" (ie, 1 GPU). An SGX543MP2 has 2 GPU "cores" (ie, 2 GPUs). And, an SGX543MP4 has 4 GPU "cores" (ie, 4 GPUs).

In the ARM GPU sphere, "multi-core" means "multi-GPU". Think of it in terms of nVidia's SLI and Ati's CrossFire. Not in terms of processing units inside the individual GPUs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: CPU
by vivainio on Sat 10th Mar 2012 07:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: CPU"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

In the realm of ARM, "quad-core" graphics literally means "4 GPUs". Especially when it comes to the PowerVR GPUs. An SGX543 has 1 GPU "core" (ie, 1 GPU). An SGX543MP2 has 2 GPU "cores" (ie, 2 GPUs). And, an SGX543MP4 has 4 GPU "cores" (ie, 4 GPUs).


Now we are on to something.

People that know about this PowerVR convention are not the ones being targeted by the Apple marketing speak in the launch comms. Apple is using it to steer the eye away from the fact that they only have a dual core CPU.

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: CPU
by phoenix on Mon 12th Mar 2012 06:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: CPU"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

People that know about this PowerVR convention are not the ones being targeted by the Apple marketing speak in the launch comms. Apple is using it to steer the eye away from the fact that they only have a dual core CPU.


What's wrong with "only having a dual-core CPU"? It's not like there's a heavy demand/need for multi-tasking on a tablet. Especially considering the lack of "true" multi-tasking in iOS. The biggest "need" in a tablet with this high of a resolution is graphics hardware. And that's what the A5X comes with: the ability to pump pixels faster than just about any other ARM GPU out there right now (things will change with the Adreno 300-series and the ARM Mali-T-series).

Anandtech has some blog posts about demonstrations by ... someone (TI?) with 4 videos playing at once, and not being able to stress the quad-core CPU inside.

Fast, power-efficient dual-core CPU with uber-fast GPU with all kinds of hardware decode capabilities is where it's at for tablets (and, most likely, cell phones).

Will be interesting to see how ARM's big.LITTLE architecture plays out near the end of this year/beginning of next year. High-frequency, dual-core Cortex-A15 matched with low-frequency Cortex-A7 (with some kind of next-gen GPU) should pretty much be nirvana for any mobile task. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: CPU
by zima on Wed 14th Mar 2012 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: CPU"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

But it still isn't much of a differentiator - graphics are inherently parallel, also internally for GPUs, so one GPU might as well be faster than collection of four (heck, one can be as fast as, say, a thousand using the same amount of silicon; or it might very well end up faster, overheads and all)

It is, at most, an easy & digestible number to differentiate from the previous Apple SoC ...so, yeah, marketing.

Edited 2012-03-14 23:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

screen
by Mellin on Thu 8th Mar 2012 22:49 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

4:3 screen and all movies are in 16:9

Reply Score: 3

RE: screen
by phoenix on Thu 8th Mar 2012 23:20 UTC in reply to "screen"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Black bars are good enough for everyone!

Reply Score: 1

RE: screen
by pandronic on Fri 9th Mar 2012 07:00 UTC in reply to "screen"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

That's a really good point, and a lot of wasted screen estate for a 10" device.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: screen
by galvanash on Fri 9th Mar 2012 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE: screen"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

That's a really good point, and a lot of wasted screen estate for a 10" device.


I actual prefer the 4:3 Aspect Ratio.

The one and only thing that makes 16:9 desirable for a Tablet AR is video viewing, something I do occasionally but not often enough to care.

16:9 on a 7 inch screen feels ok to me (I have played with BB Playbooks for example), but on a 10 inch screen it is very uncomfortable to hold in portrait orientation - it is very top heavy. And in landscape it is too short vertically, I prefer the extra vertical real estate.

Anyone, to each his own. I get the argument, but I guess I am one of the few who like it the way it is.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: screen
by zima on Wed 14th Mar 2012 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: screen"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

it is very uncomfortable to hold in portrait orientation - it is very top heavy

You might try holding it by the side next time, that's what wide-ish bezels of tablets are for, in a form-follows-function way... (nvm Apple would like to claim it's their design patent or smth)

Reply Score: 2

RE: screen
by Kivada on Sat 10th Mar 2012 06:28 UTC in reply to "screen"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

2048x1280 would make for 16:10 at 241PPI at 10", 2560x1600 would break 300PPI at 10" for 16:10.

Reply Score: 2

great one
by TeresaSwan on Sat 10th Mar 2012 06:55 UTC
TeresaSwan
Member since:
2012-03-10
Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 11th Mar 2012 16:31 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

64GB a waste? What a silly concept. There is no such thing as too much storage, especially in a portable platform.

Reply Score: 2