Would the rumoured/anticipated Tablet be a full Mac OS X system?
A+
Let's begin with my desired configuration for a tablet Mac.
- A dual-core Atom running up to 2 GHz with at least 2 GB of DDR2/1066
RAM.
- A hard disk. Yes, you heard me! A hard disk. eg: 250 GB Toshiba
7mm thin drive.
- Mac OS X 10.6
- 1920x1080 screen of at least 10" diagonal
- WiFi 802.11n, Firewire 800, 2 x USB 2.0
- A 12 - 18 channel GPS receiver. Okay, a low power consumption 8
channel GPS will do.
- 8 hours battery life (I'll settle for 6).
- stereo headphone jack (or something more exotic), microphone and
grudgingly, a camera.
- not sure if Bluetooth is of any value
- Phone not needed - however, I'm sure Apps for the iPhone will appear
to link for the tablet.
Importantly, other than what is needed to make this run in the tablet
form, I want this to be a full OS X 10.6 implementation.
[It would be great for example, if VMWare Fusion could run on it, I'd
even pay for another WinXP license to have that additional
capability. With a full OS X in there, that should not be an issue,
though 'pointing' and 'keyboard' might.]
Feb 2010 @ $899 is my guess.
Jochem Huhmann
> - Mac OS X 10.6
> - 1920x1080 screen of at least 10" diagonal
You'd need a needle-sharp stylus for that. Even with a much lower
resolution and a larger screen there's no way to use plain OS X with
your fingertips. Try your fingers on a 13"-screen with 1280x800 --
everything is too small, OS X just *needs* a mouse (or a trackpad) and a
keyboard. And you can rely on Apple *never* to require a stylus for such
a tablet. No way.
> Feb 2010 @ $899 is my guess.
Maybe, but don't be surprised if what you get is an oversized iPhone
with an OS based on the iPhone OS. And I think this is the way to go.
Desktop operating systems are just wrong for such devices. This was a
major reason why tablet PCs were such a failure. What Apple is aiming at
is a media player, magazine- and ebook-reader and a game platform. Not a
Mac stuffed into a tablet, requiring the user to poke around in menus and
to herd dozens of windows with a stylus.
I expect some kind of grown-up iPhone and/or iPod touch, with an extra
section in the AppStore and deals with publishers to sell magazines,
newspapers and books in the ITMS. And the latter (the business side of
all this) will be what makes this thing special, not the hardware and
not the OS. Publishers are *craving* for such a platform and Apple has
everything they need. And what they need is not a Mac in a tablet.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Tom Harrington
wrote:
> "A+" <alan....@gmail.com> writes:
> > Feb 2010 @ $899 is my guess.
>
> Maybe, but don't be surprised if what you get is an oversized iPhone
> with an OS based on the iPhone OS. And I think this is the way to go.
> Desktop operating systems are just wrong for such devices. This was a
> major reason why tablet PCs were such a failure. What Apple is aiming at
> is a media player, magazine- and ebook-reader and a game platform. Not a
> Mac stuffed into a tablet, requiring the user to poke around in menus and
> to herd dozens of windows with a stylus.
>
> I expect some kind of grown-up iPhone and/or iPod touch, with an extra
> section in the AppStore and deals with publishers to sell magazines,
> newspapers and books in the ITMS. And the latter (the business side of
> all this) will be what makes this thing special, not the hardware and
> not the OS. Publishers are *craving* for such a platform and Apple has
> everything they need. And what they need is not a Mac in a tablet.
I think that's a pretty good analysis-- if a tablet is released, look
for it to be a sort of super iPod touch. I'm guessing they'd adapt
iWork to run on it in some fashion, probably limited compared to desktop
versions. But they could work in syncing to desktop via MobileMe, so
you could use the same documents on both platforms.
--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002
http://www.atomicbird.com/
Davoud
> Let's begin with my desired configuration for a tablet Mac.
Smart money at the moment is on a large (10-inch) iPod Touch @ $1k or
so.
Davoud
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Jochem Huhmann
> I think that's a pretty good analysis-- if a tablet is released, look
> for it to be a sort of super iPod touch. I'm guessing they'd adapt
> iWork to run on it in some fashion, probably limited compared to desktop
> versions. But they could work in syncing to desktop via MobileMe, so
> you could use the same documents on both platforms.
Yes, they would be silly to leave out a straight way to view and edit
things like text documents, spreadsheets and presentations and to sync
them around. On a 10 inch screen this would be a quite useful thing to
do when travelling and a real motivation to buy such a beast and leave
the actual computer at home or at the office.
JF Mezei
The size/form factor may be influenced by the target markets. Something
that is usable in a wharehouse/store environment (inventory, pricing
etc) would be different from a keyboard-less laptop you put in your
briefcase. The later would likely be letter sized. the former would be
in between letter and the iphone form factors.
Is it to be held with one hand or two hands ? Mostly for reading, or
mostly for interacting ?
Alan Browne
> "A+"<alan....@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> - Mac OS X 10.6
>> - 1920x1080 screen of at least 10" diagonal
>
> You'd need a needle-sharp stylus for that. Even with a much lower
> resolution and a larger screen there's no way to use plain OS X with
> your fingertips. Try your fingers on a 13"-screen with 1280x800 --
> everything is too small, OS X just *needs* a mouse (or a trackpad) and a
> keyboard. And you can rely on Apple *never* to require a stylus for such
> a tablet. No way.
It doesn't occur to you that to sense fingers, you don't need pixel
accurate touch sensing? If selecting a file, for example, a
contextually sensitive pointer would magnify the selections closest to
the fingers (not unlike the magnified dock on a mac OS X 10.5/6 as you
point (I have this turned off, but the notion can apply)).
>> Feb 2010 @ $899 is my guess.
>
> Maybe, but don't be surprised if what you get is an oversized iPhone
> with an OS based on the iPhone OS. And I think this is the way to go.
> Desktop operating systems are just wrong for such devices. This was a
> major reason why tablet PCs were such a failure. What Apple is aiming at
> is a media player, magazine- and ebook-reader and a game platform. Not a
> Mac stuffed into a tablet, requiring the user to poke around in menus and
> to herd dozens of windows with a stylus.
An iPhone OS would be useless to me where a tablet is concerned. A
tablet that allows me reasonable use of Word, Excel and Powerpoint (to
modify, input) while on the road would be very useful, esp. on shorter
go-lightly trips. Though an adaptor for video output may be required
for presentations, as long as this can fit in a small corner of my
briefcase, that is fine.
> I expect some kind of grown-up iPhone and/or iPod touch, with an extra
> section in the AppStore and deals with publishers to sell magazines,
> newspapers and books in the ITMS. And the latter (the business side of
> all this) will be what makes this thing special, not the hardware and
> not the OS. Publishers are *craving* for such a platform and Apple has
> everything they need. And what they need is not a Mac in a tablet.
That would be inherent in what I described and there is nothing
inherently wrong with a mac in a tablet.
Jochem Huhmann
> alan....@gmail.com:
>> Let's begin with my desired configuration for a tablet Mac.
>
> Smart money at the moment is on a large (10-inch) iPod Touch @ $1k or
> so.
I would guess at $800. It needs to be clearly cheaper than the cheapest
MacBook, but not by much to leave healthy profit margins and Apple is
good at healthy profit margins. As I said, the real value is not in the
hardware anyway but in the ecosystem and nobody else has this.
And I'm pretty sure that Amazon already has a Kindle.app for this thing
in a beta version and is sweating about what to do with the Kindle.
They'll probably sell it for $99 then...
Besides, Stanza for the iPhone and iPod touch (an ebook reader), which
was bought by Amazon earlier this year, got bumped to version 2.0 a few
days ago. I was very much expecting Amazon to starve that piece of code
after buying it. That they didn't is a clear indication that they just
don't know how to proceed and want to keep all options. Interesting
times...
Jochem Huhmann
> What would a tablet be used for ? (I ask naively !)
Everything that does not require you to type much more than you would on
a phone, a TV, a radio, a book, a magazine, a newspaper, when in a movie
theater, or on a game console. And with "not much more" please consider
a virtual keyboard like the iPhone one on a 10" screen. And then
extrapolate this to the general population and not the average writer or
programmer or geek. How much need for a real keyboard does the average
consumer have? I think that the physical keyboard is about to go the way
of the floppy disk. Writers, programmers, office clerks, yes. The
consumer, no. An on-screen keyboard on a tablet is enough for 95% of
general computer use. When the keypads of phones are enough for millions
of text messages a day, a good virtual keyboard on a large and good
touchscreen should be good enough, too.
> The size/form factor may be influenced by the target markets. Something
> that is usable in a wharehouse/store environment (inventory, pricing
> etc) would be different from a keyboard-less laptop you put in your
> briefcase. The later would likely be letter sized. the former would be
> in between letter and the iphone form factors.
>
> Is it to be held with one hand or two hands ? Mostly for reading, or
> mostly for interacting ?
I think that the iPhone is very clearly optimized for one-hand use and
such a tablet probably for use with two hands, holding it or laying on a
desk or in your lap.
Jochem Huhmann
>> I expect some kind of grown-up iPhone and/or iPod touch, with an extra
>> section in the AppStore and deals with publishers to sell magazines,
>> newspapers and books in the ITMS. And the latter (the business side of
>> all this) will be what makes this thing special, not the hardware and
>> not the OS. Publishers are *craving* for such a platform and Apple has
>> everything they need. And what they need is not a Mac in a tablet.
>
> That would be inherent in what I described and there is nothing
> inherently wrong with a mac in a tablet.
But you won't get it. It's too complicated and it sucks when used
free-handed. Can you imagine trying to hunt down a menu entry or buttons
in a window "zooming" as the Dock does it while sitting in a train or
standing in the subway? This is a nightmare and Apple isn't interested
in nightmares. Apple *has* the iPhone OS. Using OS X on a tablet would
be like repeating the same mistake as other companies did with tablet
PCs. Right for a small minority and a total failure otherwise. And
people *hate* PCs. They want to consume and to just use things by
touching here and there and having things just work. They don't want to
hunt windows and read lengthy explanations while on the go. Overlapping
windows are wrong here. You need *one* screen at a time and large
buttons and no more than a handful of choices at a time. I'm totally
stunned that nobody seems to get that. Computers are still rooted in
scientific and office and technophile environments which are just no
more relevant in the general population. Believe me, people *hate* that.
They use computers because they have to, not because they like them.
I mean, you might not like it when you're looking for a PC or a Mac in a
tablet. But I think many people aren't looking for that. They are
looking for something straight and simple which delivers what they're
after. Music, movies, photos, newspapers, magazines, documents, all of
the web, email, games, simple apps. You don't need OS X for that and
you don't need a real keyboard, a mouse, menus and windows. You get 80%
of it with an iPod touch right now and having a much larger screen and
more CPU-power and more memory would go for 95%. Adding all the
complexity of a "full" OS for the remaining 5% would be silly.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
>>> I expect some kind of grown-up iPhone and/or iPod touch, with an extra
>>> section in the AppStore and deals with publishers to sell magazines,
>>> newspapers and books in the ITMS. And the latter (the business side of
>>> all this) will be what makes this thing special, not the hardware and
>>> not the OS. Publishers are *craving* for such a platform and Apple has
>>> everything they need. And what they need is not a Mac in a tablet.
>>
>> That would be inherent in what I described and there is nothing
>> inherently wrong with a mac in a tablet.
>
> But you won't get it. It's too complicated and it sucks when used
> free-handed.
I doubt it. With all the 'gestures' the touchpad can process, the
tablet would be no different.
If I want an iPhone, I'll get one.
You're a little too vehement about what "people want" and you don't
speak for them. Or me. At all.
Tom Harrington
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
It's not about what you want. It's about what Apple thinks will sell
millions of units. It seems to me that Jochem is on target with that
one, regardless of whether you personally would choose to buy one.
Jochem Huhmann
> You're a little too vehement about what "people want" and you don't
> speak for them. Or me. At all.
OK, sorry for that. I got carried away a bit. I'm still pretty sure that
we will not see an Apple tablet running any desktop OS X, mind you.
Time will tell,
Tim McNamara
> Maybe, but don't be surprised if what you get is an oversized iPhone
> with an OS based on the iPhone OS.
I think that is probably more likely than a full OS X installation. I
want one that is 8.5 x 11" or A4 size so that I can digitize all my
music lead sheets and just take that to gigs and rehearsals instead of a
pile of fake books.
Tim McNamara
wrote:
> Davoud <st...@sky.net> writes:
>
> > alan....@gmail.com:
> >> Let's begin with my desired configuration for a tablet Mac.
> >
> > Smart money at the moment is on a large (10-inch) iPod Touch @ $1k
> > or so.
>
> I would guess at $800. It needs to be clearly cheaper than the
> cheapest MacBook, but not by much to leave healthy profit margins and
> Apple is good at healthy profit margins.
$899 at intro and $799 three months later, and then the iTouch at $599
and iTouch Pro at $799 a year later.
Plus a 3G data plan, possibly from Verizon. Or maybe Sprint, who would
be as desperate as AT&T was two years ago.
JF Mezei
> I don't care which OS Apple's tablet will use: a modified Mac OS, a
> modified iPhone OS, or one written just for it. So long as it can do what
> I want it to do, and I can afford it, I'll buy one.
ipods/iphone have a close proprietary architecture because Apple has to
please the MAFIAA and make it hard to copy music/movies. Iphone is
further closed because mobile networks don't want customers mucking
about tghe phone with their own stuff.
If the tablet is meant as an entertainment device (watch movies on a
bigger screen than an ipod), the it would likely run the ipodtouch
version of OS-X. If it is meant as an computer more than an
entertainment device, it would run full fledged OS-X.
One also needs to consider power. Arm based OS-X would likely point to a
ipod version of OS-X. 8086 based table woudl likely point to a fill
OS-X version, just like laptops.
Apple also needs to look at whether it intends to support touchscreen
for its computer version of OS-X. While some have made arguments about
prefering mouse to work on a desk, there are other uses for a
touchscreen computer (expecially with a screen large enough to make
presentations).
commiebastard
How much will voice activation/voice interaction with the menus
etc...will play a part in the design of this device I wonder? The iPod
nano has a voice activated interface already.
commiebastard
Pardon...it wasn't the iPod nano, it was the shuffle that has the
VoiceOver. Right now VoiceOver is pretty primitive on the Shuffle, I
wonder if a more advanced version will be available on the tablet with
actual interaction to tell which menus, files to open etc...
Paul Sture
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
Ditto. I want one which displays an A4 page properly - in other words at
90� to the orientation of traditional computer screens, but for movies
still works in "landscape mode".
I actually saw this on a dumb terminal some 20 years ago. You could use it
like a normal 24 x 80 terminal but when you rotated the screen it
automatically switched to 66 x 132 for reading computer listings.
--
Paul Sture
Alan Browne
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> I don't care which OS Apple's tablet will use: a modified Mac OS, a
>> modified iPhone OS, or one written just for it. So long as it can do what
>> I want it to do, and I can afford it, I'll buy one.
>
> ipods/iphone have a close proprietary architecture because Apple has to
> please the MAFIAA and make it hard to copy music/movies. Iphone is
> further closed because mobile networks don't want customers mucking
> about tghe phone with their own stuff.
Android.
>
> If the tablet is meant as an entertainment device (watch movies on a
> bigger screen than an ipod), the it would likely run the ipodtouch
> version of OS-X. If it is meant as an computer more than an
> entertainment device, it would run full fledged OS-X.
>
> One also needs to consider power. Arm based OS-X would likely point to a
> ipod version of OS-X. 8086 based table woudl likely point to a fill
> OS-X version, just like laptops.
>
> Apple also needs to look at whether it intends to support touchscreen
> for its computer version of OS-X. While some have made arguments about
> prefering mouse to work on a desk, there are other uses for a
> touchscreen computer (expecially with a screen large enough to make
> presentations).
That is part of my wishlist in the orig. post.
sbt
Sture <paul....@sture.ch> wrote:
You're most likely thinking of the Corvus Concept. It was a pretty neat
68K-based computer that predated the Lisa and Mac.
Radius produced a portrait monitor for the Mac in the Mac II era -- I
really liked it as the second monitor on my IIcx.
--
Spenser
Doc O'Leary
wrote:
> I would guess at $800. It needs to be clearly cheaper than the cheapest
> MacBook, but not by much to leave healthy profit margins and Apple is
> good at healthy profit margins. As I said, the real value is not in the
> hardware anyway but in the ecosystem and nobody else has this.
I'm not sure why you think new technology must necessarily be cheaper
than old technology. It seems perfectly reasonable for them, if they
wanted to make tablets, to offer a parallel product line for iTouch
devices at the same price as normal notebooks.
But I maintain the same thing that I have for years: a wireless monitor
makes a lot more sense than a tablet. A larger device built on the
iTouch technology would be nice, but the size limits the portability,
and what I'd *really* pay for is the ability to just grab my work off my
desk and take it to a meeting. Make it a direct connection when it's at
my desk (possibly using MagSafe-style connectors), but it instantly
becomes a Screen Sharing WiFi thin client when I need it to. Might not
work so well with the larger monitors these days, but if Apple is doing
*anything* tablet-esque, that is what I want more than anything. It's
really the only thing that makes sense to me in the spectrum between the
existing mobile, notebook, and desktop markets.
Bonus points are, of course, that it could be a thin client *all* the
time. So instead of a business with modest needs having to buy 10
people $1500 iMac setups, and maybe forcing them to settle for cheap
Dell boxes instead, you sell them on 9 $599 thin clients that share to
one $3000 Pro. It works at the consumer level, too, where a parent
could give each child their own "Mac Protege", allowing them to maintain
control from their desktop Mac.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com,
and probably your server, too.
Fred Moore
where the FireWire 3200 port is in your specs ;) ).
But the marketer in me KNOWS that Joachem is spot on. (My complements on
your perspicuity, Joachem!) Apple built 'the computer for the rest of
us' once upon a time; they will build 'the tablet for the rest of us'
now and ignore gripes from you and I that the device is too 'dumbed
down'. Apple may be a niche player as some Dozeheads claim, but Apple
still wants to and must sell millions of units. They do this by making
complicated technology easy to use by the technologically clueless.
I think Joachem's point and his tie-in with Apple's business model is so
accurate it bears repeating:
In article <m27hsfq...@revier.com>, Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net>
wrote:
> I mean, you might not like it when you're looking for a PC or a Mac in a
> tablet. But I think many people aren't looking for that. They are
> looking for something straight and simple which delivers what they're
> after. Music, movies, photos, newspapers, magazines, documents, all of
> the web, email, games, simple apps. You don't need OS X for that and
> you don't need a real keyboard, a mouse, menus and windows. You get 80%
> of it with an iPod touch right now and having a much larger screen and
> more CPU-power and more memory would go for 95%. Adding all the
> complexity of a "full" OS for the remaining 5% would be silly.
Michelle put it even more simply:
In article <michelle-4C860F...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> I don't care which OS Apple's tablet will use: a modified Mac OS, a
> modified iPhone OS, or one written just for it. So long as it can do what
> I want it to do, and I can afford it, I'll buy one.
If Apple can do that they'll sell TENS of millions!
What you and I want is a MacBook Air that's half a millimeter thick,
weighs 5 grams, and can leap tall buildings at a single bound while
connected though every data exchange protocol in the known universe.
That's not gunna happen till the 24th century, okay maybe 2050.
An Apple tablet _will_ likely be an overgrown iPod Touch, with its
limited OS X. That's probably why I've never properly conceptualized
what an Apple tablet would be. I never 'got' the Touch. Perhaps someone
can enlighten me. Take away the phone from an iPhone and what have you
got? I don't own an MP3 player. I don't want to watch movies on a
postage stamp. I don't browse the web in coffee houses. I don't want to
compose emails with my thumbs. What's the point of a stand-alone GPS
without a phone?
But once you give me a decent-sized screen to go along with the
connectivity...it's 'Well, hello beautiful, can I take you home with
me?' That's one of the reasons I'm certain Apple will have Bluetooth in
any tablet it produces. There's too much connectivity and neat things to
do with Bluetooth.
And since it's the week before Christmas, here's a technological haha,
hoho, and heehee gift (a speculation on an Apple tablet form factor):
<http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7H0K1k54t6A>
Wes Groleau
> Desktop operating systems are just wrong for such devices. This was a
> major reason why tablet PCs were such a failure. What Apple is aiming at
Failure? Could it be that _some_ of them were a failure because
the UI sucked? Looks to me like the Motion Computing device did well.
The Modbook seems good, too, though I can't get my hands on one to be
sure of it.
--
Wes Groleau
Learning Another Language is Hard!
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1013
Wes Groleau
> What would a tablet be used for ? (I ask naively !)
Modbook (http://www.axiotron.com) is aimed at artists.
Motion Computing is aimed at health care workers and any
other profession that requires making lots of notes and
looking up things without being tied to a desk.
Either one seems like it would meet the needs of my wife,
which is to be able to use the thing with only one hand.
(opening a netbook and twisting the screen around? no thanks)
--
Wes Groleau
Methods meddling by amateurs
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=889
Wes Groleau
> what an Apple tablet would be. I never 'got' the Touch. Perhaps someone
> can enlighten me. Take away the phone from an iPhone and what have you
> got? I don't own an MP3 player. I don't want to watch movies on a
> postage stamp. I don't browse the web in coffee houses. I don't want to
> compose emails with my thumbs. What's the point of a stand-alone GPS
> without a phone?
It's big enough to be tolerable for you-tube, but not full-length movies.
Reading e-mail--not bad.
Calendar--useful.
Web-well, when out and about, if you NEED something, not bad.
Keyboard sucks but it is usable.
I needed a PDA calendar, so a used $100 iPod touch
gave me the other stuff as a bonus.
And how did I ever live without the app that makes
lightsaber sounds when I wave it? :-)
--
Wes Groleau
Rant on using folk wisdom in the classroom
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1015
David Fritzinger
I know Radius made a monitor for Macs that did the same thing, sometime
back in the late '80s or early '90s, I think.
Davoud
> > I actually saw this on a dumb terminal some 20 years ago. You could use it
> > like a normal 24 x 80 terminal but when you rotated the screen it
> > automatically switched to 66 x 132 for reading computer listings.
David Fritzinger:
> I know Radius made a monitor for Macs that did the same thing, sometime
> back in the late '80s or early '90s, I think.
The Radius Pivot. I bought one with my Mac IIci in 1991. It seemed like
magic at the time. Weighed 11,000 metric tons.
Davoud
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Fred Moore
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <fmoore-DAA319....@feeder.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> > I never 'got' the Touch. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Take away the
> > phone from an iPhone and what have you got? I don't own an MP3 player. I
> > don't want to watch movies on a postage stamp. I don't browse the web in
> > coffee houses. I don't want to compose emails with my thumbs. What's the
> > point of a stand-alone GPS without a phone?
>
>
> Seriously, aside from its phone, I use my iPhone to send email; not lengthy
> messages like I type on my home computer, mostly short messages to friends
> and relatives while I'm out of the house. And of course, to receive email.
> But mostly, I do browse the web with it, usually as a result of receiving
> email with links. I also watch movies and/or TV shows while on airplanes.
> At that hand-held distance, the size of the screen doesn't matter all that
> much.
>
> The biggest downside to a tablet for me is the same as for a laptop: the
> inconvenience of carrying it around.
Thanks for responding, Michelle. I do now get a little better idea of
why a Touch could could be useful. The email might be handy, though my
preference would be to phone someone. I still tend to favor paper and
voice for many functions, Luddite that I am.
Fred Moore
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> Fred Moore wrote:
> > what an Apple tablet would be. I never 'got' the Touch. Perhaps someone
> > can enlighten me. Take away the phone from an iPhone and what have you
> > got? I don't own an MP3 player. I don't want to watch movies on a
> > postage stamp. I don't browse the web in coffee houses. I don't want to
> > compose emails with my thumbs. What's the point of a stand-alone GPS
> > without a phone?
>
> It's big enough to be tolerable for you-tube, but not full-length movies.
> Reading e-mail--not bad.
> Calendar--useful.
> Web-well, when out and about, if you NEED something, not bad.
> Keyboard sucks but it is usable.
>
> I needed a PDA calendar, so a used $100 iPod touch
> gave me the other stuff as a bonus.
As I mentioned to Michelle, I'm still into paper for a lot of this sort
of thing. "Those damn pesky 'lectrons is jus UNSTABLE! Never know when
they're gunna head for the border. Gimme a Day Timer so I can feel the
crisp solidity of wood fiber between my fingers and a Bic pen that
writes in REAL ink."
> And how did I ever live without the app that makes
> lightsaber sounds when I wave it? :-)
Well, now you have the ultimate argument to which I have no rebuttal. A
100,000 apps is damn impressive. And so many of them are not only
exquisite time wasters, they're FREE!
Fred Moore
OLPC XO-3: An impossible $75 fantasy tab
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10421017-1.html>
Doc O'Leary
David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
Essentially every Mac should do this now; look at the Displays
preference for a Rotate menu. A common prank is to set someone's screen
to 180 degrees when they're away.
Wes Groleau
> preference for a Rotate menu. A common prank is to set someone's screen
> to 180 degrees when they're away.
A common prank in the 1980's in shops where people used X-windows and
didn't secure their X-servers was to screen-shot their display and
redisplay the image offset so they were clicking the wrong spot.
Another was to make the display look like stuff on it was melting.
--
Wes Groleau
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/
Wes Groleau
> Jochem Huhmann wrote:
>> Desktop operating systems are just wrong for such devices. This was a
>> major reason why tablet PCs were such a failure. What Apple is aiming at
>
> Failure? Could it be that _some_ of them were a failure because
> the UI sucked? Looks to me like the Motion Computing device did well.
>
> The Modbook seems good, too, though I can't get my hands on one to be
> sure of it.
I borrowed a Classmate Companion for my wife to try.
Looked good in the reviews, but in real-life, the
user interface sucks. On top of that, it is Windows.
--
Wes Groleau
What if not everyone uses an expression? What then?
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1552
Wes Groleau
> they're gunna head for the border. Gimme a Day Timer so I can feel the
> crisp solidity of wood fiber between my fingers and a Bic pen that
> writes in REAL ink."
I tried unsuccessfully for at least a decade to use
a Franklin Day Planner. I learned that such tools
only help people who are already organized.
Electronic versions have the exact same flaw as the
paper ones--if you forget an appointment or task,
something you don't remember to look at will not help.
BUT, the electronic ones have a slight advantage--they
make noise to help you remember to look at them.
(Assuming you remembered to write in the appointment
or task)
> Well, now you have the ultimate argument to which I have no rebuttal. A
> 100,000 apps is damn impressive. And so many of them are not only
> exquisite time wasters, they're FREE!
But even if you have the four hundred dollar model (32 GB) you can't
possibly FIT ten percent of those apps into it. Then again, you
don't need 75 apps that do the same thing--unless of course you're
fourteen years old and that "thing" is making fart sounds. [1]
[1] 75 is a guess. I couldn't be bothered to count them
even if it were easy to do.
--
Wes Groleau
Hostility to TPRS
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1596
nospam
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > Well, now you have the ultimate argument to which I have no rebuttal. A
> > 100,000 apps is damn impressive. And so many of them are not only
> > exquisite time wasters, they're FREE!
>
> But even if you have the four hundred dollar model (32 GB) you can't
> possibly FIT ten percent of those apps into it.
a substantial number of apps are around 1 meg (or less), which means
you could fit about 30,000 apps on a 32 gig device, or roughly 25% of
all of the apps. if you select smaller apps you can load quite a bit
more. good luck with remembering the names of all the apps you
installed :)
> Then again, you
> don't need 75 apps that do the same thing--unless of course you're
> fourteen years old and that "thing" is making fart sounds. [1]
>
> [1] 75 is a guess. I couldn't be bothered to count them
> even if it were easy to do.
appshopper.com returns 559 hits for a search on 'fart'. that may seem
like a lot, but it's only 0.41% based on appshopper's 137516 approved
apps.
a search for 'battery' returns 1000 (i suspect that's the limit of the
search). now that apps on the 3.x firmware can read the battery level,
everyone is writing a battery application. some are pretty good and
some are horrible.
Wes Groleau
Get more detail at
<http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/22/tablet-computer-negroponte-technology-cio-network-olpc.html>
I'd pay $100. $150 if it ran something better than Windows.
--
Wes Groleau
Review of the article The Overwhelmed Generation in FL Annals
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1313
Mark Doppelblum
> But mostly, I do browse the web with it
Same here. I read the New York Times and the WSJ with my iPhone every
morning while I commute to work. It's great! Try it:
Fred Moore
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <fmoore-969294....@feeder.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for responding, Michelle. I do now get a little better idea of
> > why a Touch could could be useful. The email might be handy, though my
> > preference would be to phone someone.
>
> I find that I'm using email instead of txt messages and MMS messages when I
> know the recipient can receive email on her (or his) phone. I opted not to
> have the txt message package add-on to my iPhone plan with AT&T.
Yeh, I originally had texting turned on on my LG phone using Sprint just
in case I wanted to text someone (I never did use that function). Then I
started getting spam text messages for which I was being charged, so I
have now blocked texting entirely.
> It's also easier to email a URL than to tell someone the URL on the phone.
Hard to argue with that!
Alan Browne
> Essentially every Mac should do this now; look at the Displays
> preference for a Rotate menu. A common prank is to set someone's screen
> to 180 degrees when they're away.
Reversing the deflection coil leads on the CRT was amusing as well.
Wes Groleau
As was seeing you dance if you weren't careful.
--
Wes Groleau
Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana!
http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/
Paul Sture
wrote:
> Paul Sture:
> > > I actually saw this on a dumb terminal some 20 years ago. You could use it
> > > like a normal 24 x 80 terminal but when you rotated the screen it
> > > automatically switched to 66 x 132 for reading computer listings.
>
> David Fritzinger:
> > I know Radius made a monitor for Macs that did the same thing, sometime
> > back in the late '80s or early '90s, I think.
>
> The Radius Pivot. I bought one with my Mac IIci in 1991. It seemed like
> magic at the time. Weighed 11,000 metric tons.
>
That's the right time frame. I've a feeling the one I saw could do
Arabic.
--
Paul Sture
Wes Groleau
> That's the right time frame. I've a feeling the one I saw could do
> Arabic.
Since the iPod touch does handwriting recognition very accurately for
Chinese, I suspect it would be trivial for Apple to do any other script.
I don't understand why they didn't, considering that keyboard sucks,
and (I've heard) "Ink" is very good.
--
Wes Groleau
Learning to see the forest instead of the trees.
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=75
Wes Groleau
--
Wes Groleau
Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which
the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.
-- unknown
JF Mezei
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple-tablet31-2009dec31,0,5542993.story
BBC has also jumped into the fray, mentioning that Apple's stock has
risen in part because of an imminent tablet release.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8435257.stm
At this point in time, if Apple isn't ready for a prototype tablet, it
has no choice buty to start to design/produce one ASAP and unleash it in
mid january.
But since those rumours are so rampant and Apple has done nothing to
kill them, one has to conclude that it does have a table device up its
sleeve, all shiny and ready to be unveiled.
January 26th is the runoured date.
Wes Groleau
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> But since those rumours are so rampant and Apple has done nothing to
>> kill them, one has to conclude that it does have a table device up its
>> sleeve, all shiny and ready to be unveiled.
>
> logically invalid, even if it turns out to be true.
True. The rumors raised their stock price, something they
wouldn't want to put a stop to.
--
Wes Groleau
A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.
JF Mezei
> True. The rumors raised their stock price, something they
> wouldn't want to put a stop to.
No. Because if the rumours turn out false, the AAPL price will thumble
to much lower levels due to disapointment.
It has fiduciary duty to prevent false hopes.
What Apple has done is create buzz around its rumoured tablet. And
while rumours of a tablet have been going on for some time, this time
around, the level of detail/speculation is beyond the point of no return.
TO me, the only big question is whether this will be a glorified iPhone,
or a thin iMac.
Tom Harrington
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
I've seen a lot of people and organizations creating buzz about a
rumored tablet, but Apple has not been among them, even a little.
--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002
http://www.atomicbird.com/
JF Mezei
> I've seen a lot of people and organizations creating buzz about a
> rumored tablet, but Apple has not been among them, even a little.
Of course not. It wouldn't be a "rumour" if it officially came from
Apple. But it doesn't mean that Apple didn't find some way to leak
information via informal channels.
When companies need to leak information (for whatever reason), they how
how to do this, and to whom the information should be given to get the
rumour going.
Apple marketing then looks at the reaction from the public, and
financial analysts to fine tune the product and once it has a good grasp
of what the expectations are, it can release a product that meets/beats
expectations.
Paul Sture
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> BBC has also jumped into the fray, mentioning that Apple's stock has
> risen in part because of an imminent tablet release.
Sorry to disillusion you JF, but the BBC isn't the trusted news source
it once was.
--
Paul Sture
Davoud
> > BBC has also jumped into the fray, mentioning that Apple's stock has
> > risen in part because of an imminent tablet release.
Paul Sture:
> Sorry to disillusion you JF, but the BBC isn't the trusted news source
> it once was.
In fact, the BBC reported that Apple's stock had risen because of
_expectations_ of a tablet announcement. This report was 100% correct.
Davoud
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Paul Sture
sbt <dogb...@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <paul.nospam-A5BC...@pbook.sture.ch>, Paul
> Sture <paul....@sture.ch> wrote:
>
> > In article <timmcn-450039....@news-2.mpls.iphouse.net>,
> > Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <m2ws0gp...@revier.com>, Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Maybe, but don't be surprised if what you get is an oversized iPhone
> > > > with an OS based on the iPhone OS.
> > >
> > > I think that is probably more likely than a full OS X installation. I
> > > want one that is 8.5 x 11" or A4 size so that I can digitize all my
> > > music lead sheets and just take that to gigs and rehearsals instead of a
> > > pile of fake books.
> >
> > Ditto. I want one which displays an A4 page properly - in other words at
> > 90� to the orientation of traditional computer screens, but for movies
> > still works in "landscape mode".
> >
> > I actually saw this on a dumb terminal some 20 years ago. You could use it
> > like a normal 24 x 80 terminal but when you rotated the screen it
> > automatically switched to 66 x 132 for reading computer listings.
>
> You're most likely thinking of the Corvus Concept. It was a pretty neat
> 68K-based computer that predated the Lisa and Mac.
The Corvus Concept:
<http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=653>
(be patient; it's slow to load)
> Radius produced a portrait monitor for the Mac in the Mac II era -- I
> really liked it as the second monitor on my IIcx.
I can imagine. The one I used was paired with the worst keyboard I've
ever come across (measured by the number of typos I made), but maybe
because it was a special that was designed for Arabic use.
--
Paul Sture