Don't think iPads and the like are supposed to replace desktops.
They aren't meant to replicate desktops, but they damned sure will replace them in popular usage.
For those that need, or simply want, a desktop-type computer, with all the ports and programmability and 2GB video cards and 2 foot diagonal screens, etc., the iPad can't replicate the functionality they need/want. But those people are a minority.
For everyone else, who wants to communicate and browse and work with photos and videos and watch TV, etc., the iPad is not only able to replace the desktop, but is far superior to the desktop in most cases.
There's a third group, the so-called professionals (like the person who wrote this story) who don't squarely land in the first two groups. They don't particularly want a desktop, but an iPad might be to limiting for them. This story is meant to point out that the common misconception that these people can't use iPads is pure bunk. Some can't, but some definitely can. And not just can, but can find the iPad a superior tool.
Of course not. He had to justify his purchase (to himself, I suppose). Why else would he devote a blog post to "Hey look! I can write and take pictures with an iPad!"
That, or he actually likes using his iPad for work, and decided to provide a counter-example to all the nerds who keep crying that iPads are only for consumption.
it was not a shit card dumbass, infact in raw power stats it quite often just slightly beat the geforce 3,4 and 5 series and I am not saying there is no fucking reason to upgrade you fucking thickheaded nimwit, there is just no fucking reason to upgrade every god damed year or are you too fucking stupid to understand that?
Yes, there is. Just because you don't mind gimping along doesn't mean people who want more are somehow idiots, l33t gamerz, or whatever else your dishonest mind has to conjure up.
Getting out of the cave a few times a week to hunt is enough to sustain myself. My cave and my stone weapons solve a problem to me, so why care about anything else? If ain't broken, don't fix it.
But there is no one saying you shouldn't be able to move out of your cave (stupid analogy, better would be condominium or something) if you want. But most people don't *want* to deal with all the nonsense a fully open PC provides. For these people, a walled garden is exactly what they want. Trying to do away with walled gardens is to do a disservice to these people.
And those that want more? They can buy a fully open PC. Fully open PCs will not be going away.
You're full of shit if your point is that there was no notable benefit in upgrading from a GF2 GTS long before 2007.
If your point is that you could limp along with a shit card if you ignored some games, and turned down the options on other games to the LOW settings, then sure, but that doesn't somehow magically imply that there's no fucking reason to upgrade, which is what you have been saying this whole time.
Bullshit. Major title games in 2007 were not going to run on a GeForce 2.
I don't doubt that you "played games", but you definitely weren't a standard PC gamer. The piece of the puzzle that you seem to be missing here is that people upgrade every year or two because they actually play a lot of modern games on high settings.
Exactly. You're acting surprised somehow that gamers need a new card every year or two, because a card you weren't using for gaming worked just fine.
My comment about Windows 7 was just to point out how woefully absurd the card you mentioned was. It can't even run on a modern OS, let along a modern game (and you can substitute Vista in for 7 if you want to argue about timelines, but I left out Vista to avoid sidetracking into Vista's awfulness which is irrelevant to the topic).
I never understand the video card thing, I bought a geforce2 GTS in like 2001, it was 2007 before I really HAD to upgrade it for pixel shaders
Nobody *HAS* to upgrade their video card. It's about what you want. Clearly, you were fine with a GeForce 2 (!!) all the way up to 2007. Few gamers would settle for that experience.
I mean, shit, even Windows 7, just the OS itself, can't work well with such a card. You definitely weren't playing modern games and/or using even mid-level graphics settings. But I suppose if you like playing WarCraft II and StarCraft for year after year, you're golden.
And that doesn't support your thesis that Apple would use inferior technology simply to stick it to Samsung. After all, if IGZO was so bad, they could just use IPS displays from other companies.
Their decision to go with IGZO over IPS or AMOLED is based on tradeoffs with the various technologies. The reason they are rumored to be going with IGZO is one primary reason: yield.
In order to make a retina display for the iPad (what initiated their interest in IGZO), they need to go with IGZO, as it's currently the best option for high density displays at the sizes and volumes Apple needs. This is the first I've heard about it for an iPhone, but it does have the benefit of being thinner than the current display, and it further utilized the investment they've made on the iPad side, which is one of Tim Cook's trademark skills.
Can we just agree that Apple hardware articles are flamebait by default, especially the ones about the mere possibility of new Apple hardware, and stop frickin posting them?
Looks like your post is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
There was nothing incendiary about the story. So why flame it?
Why wouldn't he make a suggestion like that? First off, you're basing your reply on an assumption, which could very well be wrong, and is reason enough to bring up the point. But even if your assumption is right, the poster might not have a good phone camera, or might have a good one and not realize how useful it really is.
Sometimes it takes someone pointing out what's right in front of you before you realize it's there.
Your post is more of a list of excuses to justify your prejudices than actual reasons. Lower pixel density than eInk? Has that caused a problem for the billions of people who read web pages on their computers every day? Glossy screens? People have been viewing glossy screens for almost a century now without trouble. It's called "change the angle if there's a reflection". It's really not that difficult.
Like I said, just a bunch of excuses posted with emphatic adjectives in order to make them sound objectively unassailable. I could just as easily say the iPad is superior to a Kindle because it has a backlight (you can't read eInk in the dark... no, that's not emphatic enough. The eInk Kindle is horribly unsuitable for reading in anything but the most brilliantly lit environments. The iPad is absolutely superior for reading compared to a Kindle.).
Of course, that would be silly. You just turn on a light. With the iPad, you just re-angle it. Big fucking deal.
This one, though, takes the cake:
the iPad is not portable
What the shit?
Anyway, iPads are great reading devices. So are Kindles, and so are Kindle Fires (which share all of the same complaints you have about the iPad, btw).
And that's the opposite of what people want. You are misunderstanding what people want and need. This has led to the false assumption that people are buying tablets as some sort of yuppy faddism in order to be cool or trendy.
People do not want computers. They don't want the complexity. They don't want unwieldy devices, they don't want a bunch of connectors, adaptors, accessories. They don't want to administer the damned thing. They want simple, elegant, and fun.
The iPad is simple, elegant, and fun. Netbooks are unwieldy and complex. It's completely unsurprising that the iPad has completely decimated the rising star that was the netbook.
Unsurprising to all but the nerds who revel in complexity. Who love accessories and plugging in cables to other things in new and interesting ways. Nerds used to wear calculators on their belts. Normal people would never, ever do such a thing. Netbooks are calculators, and external DVD drives are belt holsters. Understand this, and you'll understand why your initial post misses the mark when it comes to non-nerds.
Oh no, not page turns. The end of the world. This matters not.
Yeah, it's not like you'll be doing something like that over and over again, multiple times per hour, while using the device or anything...
It doesn't justify $400 price premium.
$300, but what's being off by 33%? Given your inclination to not sweat the little things, I'm sure this matters not...
All the reviews DO say it's the first iPad competitor they've seen, and mark it highly.
I see the money you've saved on buying a Fire has allowed you to invest in rose-colored glasses. That's not what the reviews say at all. Most, in fact, say pretty much the opposite. That they had high hopes and that it really had a lot of potential, based on the launch event, but that it fails to live up to the iPad. At best, they say it's a great $200 tablet, but in no way is a proper iPad competitor. The screen isn't even the same size category!
The Fire isn't an iPad competitor, but it's a great original Kindle competitor, with some understandable compromises.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't think iPads and the like are supposed to replace desktops.
They aren't meant to replicate desktops, but they damned sure will replace them in popular usage.
For those that need, or simply want, a desktop-type computer, with all the ports and programmability and 2GB video cards and 2 foot diagonal screens, etc., the iPad can't replicate the functionality they need/want. But those people are a minority.
For everyone else, who wants to communicate and browse and work with photos and videos and watch TV, etc., the iPad is not only able to replace the desktop, but is far superior to the desktop in most cases.
There's a third group, the so-called professionals (like the person who wrote this story) who don't squarely land in the first two groups. They don't particularly want a desktop, but an iPad might be to limiting for them. This story is meant to point out that the common misconception that these people can't use iPads is pure bunk. Some can't, but some definitely can. And not just can, but can find the iPad a superior tool.
Of course not. He had to justify his purchase (to himself, I suppose). Why else would he devote a blog post to "Hey look! I can write and take pictures with an iPad!"
That, or he actually likes using his iPad for work, and decided to provide a counter-example to all the nerds who keep crying that iPads are only for consumption.
it was not a shit card dumbass, infact in raw power stats it quite often just slightly beat the geforce 3,4 and 5 series and I am not saying there is no fucking reason to upgrade you fucking thickheaded nimwit, there is just no fucking reason to upgrade every god damed year or are you too fucking stupid to understand that?
Yes, there is. Just because you don't mind gimping along doesn't mean people who want more are somehow idiots, l33t gamerz, or whatever else your dishonest mind has to conjure up.
In which case people stop buying products from Apple.
You keep freaking out about some boogeyman that doesn't actually exist.
Getting out of the cave a few times a week to hunt is enough to sustain myself. My cave and my stone weapons solve a problem to me, so why care about anything else? If ain't broken, don't fix it.
But there is no one saying you shouldn't be able to move out of your cave (stupid analogy, better would be condominium or something) if you want. But most people don't *want* to deal with all the nonsense a fully open PC provides. For these people, a walled garden is exactly what they want. Trying to do away with walled gardens is to do a disservice to these people.
And those that want more? They can buy a fully open PC. Fully open PCs will not be going away.
You're full of shit if your point is that there was no notable benefit in upgrading from a GF2 GTS long before 2007.
If your point is that you could limp along with a shit card if you ignored some games, and turned down the options on other games to the LOW settings, then sure, but that doesn't somehow magically imply that there's no fucking reason to upgrade, which is what you have been saying this whole time.
You're a dishonest person.
Bullshit. Major title games in 2007 were not going to run on a GeForce 2.
I don't doubt that you "played games", but you definitely weren't a standard PC gamer. The piece of the puzzle that you seem to be missing here is that people upgrade every year or two because they actually play a lot of modern games on high settings.
Exactly. You're acting surprised somehow that gamers need a new card every year or two, because a card you weren't using for gaming worked just fine.
My comment about Windows 7 was just to point out how woefully absurd the card you mentioned was. It can't even run on a modern OS, let along a modern game (and you can substitute Vista in for 7 if you want to argue about timelines, but I left out Vista to avoid sidetracking into Vista's awfulness which is irrelevant to the topic).
In other words "everyone who isn't like me is a fanboy".
I never understand the video card thing, I bought a geforce2 GTS in like 2001, it was 2007 before I really HAD to upgrade it for pixel shaders
Nobody *HAS* to upgrade their video card. It's about what you want. Clearly, you were fine with a GeForce 2 (!!) all the way up to 2007. Few gamers would settle for that experience.
I mean, shit, even Windows 7, just the OS itself, can't work well with such a card. You definitely weren't playing modern games and/or using even mid-level graphics settings. But I suppose if you like playing WarCraft II and StarCraft for year after year, you're golden.
The Senate isn't the proper body for answering that question, the Supreme Court is.
However, what makes you question the constitutionality of the law in the first place? Care to enlighten us?
This means if you own all three consoles
Most people just buy a single console.
Not in tepples' world, where everyone is a straw man.
I'd much rather sit on my couch and play a PC game than go out and buy a console.
Yes, my home PC has a couch infront of it.
Not sure if lazy, or just very nerdy. /fry
Like the rest of the web, they are moving over to HTML5.
And that doesn't support your thesis that Apple would use inferior technology simply to stick it to Samsung. After all, if IGZO was so bad, they could just use IPS displays from other companies.
Their decision to go with IGZO over IPS or AMOLED is based on tradeoffs with the various technologies. The reason they are rumored to be going with IGZO is one primary reason: yield.
In order to make a retina display for the iPad (what initiated their interest in IGZO), they need to go with IGZO, as it's currently the best option for high density displays at the sizes and volumes Apple needs. This is the first I've heard about it for an iPhone, but it does have the benefit of being thinner than the current display, and it further utilized the investment they've made on the iPad side, which is one of Tim Cook's trademark skills.
Except that OLED screens are relatively shit in terms of image quality.
Apple still buys plenty of components from Samsung.
Can we just agree that Apple hardware articles are flamebait by default, especially the ones about the mere possibility of new Apple hardware, and stop frickin posting them?
Looks like your post is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
There was nothing incendiary about the story. So why flame it?
How exactly is it a waste of money?
Why wouldn't he make a suggestion like that? First off, you're basing your reply on an assumption, which could very well be wrong, and is reason enough to bring up the point. But even if your assumption is right, the poster might not have a good phone camera, or might have a good one and not realize how useful it really is.
Sometimes it takes someone pointing out what's right in front of you before you realize it's there.
I see facts are irrelevant to a troll.
Um, no. That's exactly the case.
Apple announced earlier this week that they will be having a black friday sale, but they did not list the actual sales.
Fair enough, but it would be reasonable to stop confusing your point of view as being common or otherwise normal.
Your post is more of a list of excuses to justify your prejudices than actual reasons. Lower pixel density than eInk? Has that caused a problem for the billions of people who read web pages on their computers every day? Glossy screens? People have been viewing glossy screens for almost a century now without trouble. It's called "change the angle if there's a reflection". It's really not that difficult.
Like I said, just a bunch of excuses posted with emphatic adjectives in order to make them sound objectively unassailable. I could just as easily say the iPad is superior to a Kindle because it has a backlight (you can't read eInk in the dark... no, that's not emphatic enough. The eInk Kindle is horribly unsuitable for reading in anything but the most brilliantly lit environments. The iPad is absolutely superior for reading compared to a Kindle.).
Of course, that would be silly. You just turn on a light. With the iPad, you just re-angle it. Big fucking deal.
This one, though, takes the cake:
the iPad is not portable
What the shit?
Anyway, iPads are great reading devices. So are Kindles, and so are Kindle Fires (which share all of the same complaints you have about the iPad, btw).
And that's the opposite of what people want. You are misunderstanding what people want and need. This has led to the false assumption that people are buying tablets as some sort of yuppy faddism in order to be cool or trendy.
People do not want computers. They don't want the complexity. They don't want unwieldy devices, they don't want a bunch of connectors, adaptors, accessories. They don't want to administer the damned thing. They want simple, elegant, and fun.
The iPad is simple, elegant, and fun. Netbooks are unwieldy and complex. It's completely unsurprising that the iPad has completely decimated the rising star that was the netbook.
Unsurprising to all but the nerds who revel in complexity. Who love accessories and plugging in cables to other things in new and interesting ways. Nerds used to wear calculators on their belts. Normal people would never, ever do such a thing. Netbooks are calculators, and external DVD drives are belt holsters. Understand this, and you'll understand why your initial post misses the mark when it comes to non-nerds.
Oh no, not page turns. The end of the world. This matters not.
Yeah, it's not like you'll be doing something like that over and over again, multiple times per hour, while using the device or anything...
It doesn't justify $400 price premium.
$300, but what's being off by 33%? Given your inclination to not sweat the little things, I'm sure this matters not...
All the reviews DO say it's the first iPad competitor they've seen, and mark it highly.
I see the money you've saved on buying a Fire has allowed you to invest in rose-colored glasses. That's not what the reviews say at all. Most, in fact, say pretty much the opposite. That they had high hopes and that it really had a lot of potential, based on the launch event, but that it fails to live up to the iPad. At best, they say it's a great $200 tablet, but in no way is a proper iPad competitor. The screen isn't even the same size category!
The Fire isn't an iPad competitor, but it's a great original Kindle competitor, with some understandable compromises.