Journal tomhudson's Journal: iPad - Since when is 1024x768 a "High Resolution Display"? 34
So, let's see:
Multi-tasking? Nope.
High-resolution display? Nope.
User-replaceable battery? Nope.
Base storage? 16 gigs. (32 or 64 are options - 64 gig of storage will set you back $830 - and you'd better be prepared to say buh-bye to it for 3 weeks when the battery needs replacing)
Flash card support? Nope.
Flash support? Nope. (Come on, Apple, even linux has flash support).
Sure' it's thin. But I'd rather have something twice as thick that can actually run something other than just the iPhone OS. Yes, people will buy it, but obviously the only way to get decent battery life and performance out of it was to make it single-tasking and give it a crappy display resolution. It's not even wide-format. - it's stuck back in the last century with a 4:3 screen ratio.
Even the newspaper industry, which is hoping this will save them, has to lie about the specs:
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/the-apple-ipad-first-impressions/?apage=20
"a 10-inch screen surrounded by a shiny black border."
Nope - a 7.75" x 5.8" screen. It's SMALL. To put it into perspective, a DVD case is a half-inch smaller in each dimension. This is a toy.
Call me back when it can do the same as a laptop. If I wanted an iPhone, I would have bought one.
homerun? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to like to pick some asinine way to do things and then try to convince everyone else they are wrong. I didn't like it when the smug kid in class tried that shit and I don't like it now...
Re: (Score:2)
...cake? I like a nice cinnamon one with a cream cheese icing drizzle.
1024x768 (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] it's 720p.
I'm not on top of all this stuff - so maybe I'm missing something but going by that chart, it is technically hi-def.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words 1024x768 wouldn't have been anything to get excited about before the goalposts were moved.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yet now we accept "high resolution" 17inch LCDs that can't do that (I'm using one at work right now)."
With 24" 1920x1080 displays going for a tad over $200, and 1920x1200 starting under $300, wouldn't it be cost-effective for them to give you a bigger screen, in terms of better productivity (this way you can post on slashdot AND still get some work done - or even go to twin displays :-)
Re: (Score:2)
or even go to twin displays :-)
Well, what I didn't mention is that I am using twin displays - non-identical twin displays, that is. The 17" is a Dell that I picked up for free. It is the secondary monitor in my setup, my main monitor is a Samsung 24" widescreen. Although I would prefer better vertical resolution for both, really. If money were no object I'd buy two of the Samsungs and rotate them to portrait orientation, sitting next to each other (although a display with a slimmer bezel would be better suited to that).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't know a lot about this stuff. I'm not sure about the connection between the first column on the left and the second under "Native Resolution". Because that is where they list 1024x768 as XGA and it led me to believe that they consider this in some way to be fitting into what is called high def.
Re: (Score:2)
You remember seeing all those ads for big-screen tvs that were "full hi-definition-compatible"? What it meant was that they took the "full hi-def" signal (1920x1080) and down-scaled it to the native resolution (mostly 1366x768). The difference in the picture is like night and day.
So it's the same thing with watching "hi-definition" on the iPad - there's no way to cram 1920 pixels (or even 1280 pixels) into 1024 pixels without some loss. To preserve the aspect ratio (so that the pictures don't look stre
Re: (Score:2)
well hudson, I have to go with they were quoting HD in regards to the 720 #, because they forgot that HD implies 16:9. The display is HD if 16:9 isn't a requirement.
I for one intend on purchasing one of these, because I think it'll make a better toy than a netbook for what I want.
But yes, I refer to it as a toy because it's totally a luxury device. This won't be my primary device. It won't even be my secondary device. It'll be a peripheral tertiary device. And that's fine for me.
However, if MSI or someone c
Re: (Score:2)
Love it - just need to add " ... and can't make phone calls".
I'm totally with you... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense ... the problem being it's an oversized iPhone that can't make phone calls.
And it's a portable device that's not very portable - because you can't just shove it under the car seat while you go shopping in the mall - you might wreck the screen (yes - I've done that with my laptop - putting it in the trunk just screams "but my window and pop the trunk" whereas just quickly shoving it under the seat means nobody even noticed). So you need a protective case to put it in. And because it's a Apple,
Multi-tasking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you're going for compatibility with iphone apps, you could run two of them side by side rather than zoomed in to fill the screen :P
Re: (Score:2)
Also, unless I'm missing something, I highly doubt the iPhone OS won't be capable of this in a future OS update. After all, these machines are running some on some fairly serious hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
I try to post this question every chance I get in other online forums. Not worth the downmods around here.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a pretty good reason to want to be able to multitask [slashdot.org].
Then again, I have 2 computers running 3 screens right now.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, and would have said so, but the two minute posting limit bullshit makes it nigh-impossible to fully participate in discussions.
Go ahead and dislike it (Score:1)
quit yer griping (Score:1)
it's a iPad. Not a laptop or notebook or your idea of a pad computer.
if you want a nice phone, buy one. if you want a nice iPod, buy one. if you want an iPad, buy the best one that money can buy.
Geez.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy an iPad? I guess it iDepends ... :-)
The "best" iPad is over $800. By the time you add in a carrying case (because you don't want it to get scratched) and tax, you're over a grand ... A grand buys a really nice laptop that'll run linux with no problems, AND play movies in better than 1024x576, AND have more storage space, AND take flash cards and usb sticks, AND has a keyboard AND has a built-in "protective carrying case" (just close it) AND a dvd burner ... heck, for $499 I can get a laptop right n
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's your trick, you're running Linux. To put not too fine a point on it, it sucks. To 90% of the people out there, it sucks, it sucks even worse than Windows or OS X sucks.
RE: "Even the newspaper industry... has to lie..." (Score:1)
Pythagorus tells me that 7.75" x 5.8" yields a 9.68" screen. So perhaps the newspapers are only guilty of rounding, not lying. But I agree with your sentiment that it's too small. (I noticed at the Apple event that Jobs compared it side-by-side to the Kindle, not the Kindle DX.) I can only see myself using the iPad as a picture frame, and an e-book reader. And at its current price point, it is too expen
Re: (Score:2)
The real cheat in this troll was switching from diagonal measurement, used on screens for at least 25 years to horizontal and vertical. And I'll give Apple the extra half inch. Which of us around here hasn't added a half inch to a measurement when trying to puff the stats?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes you miss the mark (Score:2)
You make one or two mildly interesting points, but sometimes you are way off. The lie about the screen size (although the choice of ratio is a little odd) is a biggie. I'm also wondering where you get the three week replacement time for iPod batteries. Maybe it is different for their laptops, but I dropped mine off at an Apple store on the day after Christmas. Exactly seven days later, I was using it again, at my home, delivered by FedEx with a new motherboard, new optical drive (that I didn't even hint at
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be up to 3 weeks for the iPhone if you mailed it, but as you pointed out, they've improved it. Now they say 3 days - but your data will be wiped in the process [apple.com]. To change a battery? That's pretty customer-unfriendly.
BTW - how is linux user-unfriendly? After all, it runs a lot faster than Windows on the same hardware, and everything on my laptop works, including the webcam and the wireless - the wireless not working was my own fault for putting in the wrong password for the router.
Or are y
Re: (Score:2)
My mom and tons of others still use AOL. Random crap purchased from Wal-Mart doesn't work on Linux. There aren't brain dead videos a la Apple in the install. As long as crap like this exists, Linux ain't user friendly.
Is it better since the late 90's? Yes. Problem is, we aren't talking about chasing a stationery target.
And yes, of course I'm counter-trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Have them try the new opensuse dvd - you can, as always, run the cd w/o installing [opensuse.org]. It "just works", and you can remove all the mono crapola easily by clicking delete mono-base in the package manager, either prior to installing, or afterwards. Any el-cheapo desktop box should work okay.
Then again, if they're using AOHell, and stuck on dialup, better to just leave sleeping dogs lie ... they'll blame any problems on you or linux.
Re: (Score:2)
It's even worse than stuck on dialup. We have internet access via our cable provider, and my mother pays for that AOL bring your own connection crap.
I do not touch that computer except in an emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's something along those lines, but IIRC, AOL now has free web mail. I really have no idea. I long ago ceased trying to apply logic to the situation.