Your question: "If you can find a need (not a want) that is best filled by iPad-style tablets, then feel free to share."
I described what I needed in a device. Needs aren't restricted to tasks. If you meant to ask for a list of tasks for which a tablet is best suited, that would be more difficult, I would have to concede. My principal uses of my tablet are eReading, remote desktop access, web browsing, e-mail/forum/blog writing. No one of these tasks is best handled by a tablet, and while one could argue that the inclusion of eReading in the list might mark it out in some eyes as the best hybrid device to cover all those tasks, that would be open to interpretation.
But this is why, when you asked for needs, I didn't focus solely on tasks. What tasks a device can perform is only half the story; how it performs them is just as important. Factors like portability, input method, battery life, startup time, efficiency of UI and so on are what for me elevate good tablets far above netbooks or any other ultraportable. My tablet performs each of the above tasks, performs them well, and in addition meets my criteria for each of the above non-task based needs. No other device does so as well.
But that is only speaking for myself; I wouldn't dream of telling you a tablet would suit your own needs more than whatever devices you currently use. I simply ask that others extend me (and the millions of other people whose requirements led them to buy a tablet) the same courtesy.
I can't read? You're the one who completely misinterpreted my rather lucid post. Don't blame me for your shortcomings.
I really don't. I blame you for your woefully misplaced sense of superiority.
As for that other nonsense, I don't care. Though I would like to point out an error you've made:
As already demonstrated, a touchscreen netbook would not meet the orientability requirement
Which is totally untrue. Hybrids, netbooks, laptops, and desktops can all change the screen orientation.
And smartphones can run remote desktop and word processing software, but they're not very good at it. A netbook in portrait mode is a kludge. I asked for a device that was better for the task, and that ain't it, no matter how you spin it.
So, yeah, unlike you -- who apparently didn't even understand my very simple question -- I've answered yours. Which is hilarious, as you did your best job to describe a tablet with your play-pretend criteria.
Wrong on all counts. Your question was answered even if you lack the wits to understand that. You failed to come up with a device that meets my requirements better than a tablet. And nope, there's nothing play-pretend about the reasons I chose a tablet over a netbook.
Now go troll someone else. You bore me.
Children have such short attention spans these days.
Ehm no, I wasn't talking about "tasks"; you just can't read. I was talking about a tablet's job; i.e. its purpose, which is to provide a solution for a range of tasks. Because being the best device for some individual task is irrelevant to a general-purpose device, and hence a dumbass question. One could equally ask for what individual task a netbook is the best suited.
But for all that you pretend nobody's answering your questions, I note you still haven't answered mine. With all the requirements I specified, what device would do the job better than a tablet? As already demonstrated, a touchscreen netbook would not meet the orientability requirement. Want to try again, or go back to evading with puerile insults?
If you don't consider combining numerous tasks on a single device as a worthwhile job, then yours was a dumb question. Who cares whether or not a general-purpose device is the single best device for any one thing?
Call me an idiot all you like, I'm not the one who is utterly failing to understand basic principles of worth.
Do you know of a single non-tablet device which provides all these?
As a touchscreen is (inexplicably) a requirement, any touchscreen netbook. As an added bonus, it'll also make typing easier.
As you have trouble with fine motor control, I'd recommend that you learn to use keyboard shortcuts -- it'll greatly improve your productivity.
Still, you haven't addressed the question. I guess no one has an answer...
Incorrect, you merely lack the comprehension to see when your question has been answered. This is your style of argument: ask a question, then claim any answer you receive doesn't count. On the other hand, you've not answered my question; a touchscreen netbook is hopeless in portrait more, which was among my requirements.
On top of which, you dismiss (inexplicably) the need for touchscreen, and a convenient input method. Yes, I do indeed have trouble with fine motor control; many people do, and keyboard shortcuts do not replace all pointer interactions.
Wow, did you not even bother to read my comment? It is better suited than other devices for doing the job of combining those features on a single device.
Why not? I certainly would. Tablets are still useless for anything other than dicking-around. They're toys -- not tools.
I think I must be using mine wrong; I seem to get an awful lot of useful stuff done on it. Maybe it's broken?
If you can find a need (not a want) that is best filled by iPad-style tablets, then feel free to share. A good number of other slashdot users are legitimately interested.
I needed a single device (for portability concerns) that combines at least 2-way orientability (portrait-mode for natural eReading of academic textbooks, landscape for remote desktop work), at least 10" screen (for natural typing in landscape mode) with full screen multitouch capabilities to allow for natural input that involves neither a tiny trackpad or nipple pointer control (both of which I find unusable), and provides gesture-based control (for zooming, scrolling etc., particularly when using a remote desktop)
Do you know of a single non-tablet device which provides all these?
Easy - one such job is being a decent eReader, browser, remote desktop tool, e-mail device in a single device.
No it's not the best eReader, but the best eReader can't do all the rest of it. A device doesn't have to be best-in-class for any one single task to be considered the best tool for "the job" when "the job" involves combining a range of tasks.
I think what they're getting at is we still haven't seen anything particularly special from tablets. iPads are essentially just large iPhones with an almost identical OS and very few tablet specific features.
The difference is that the much larger screen allows for much richer applications.
I once heard it said that an iPad is just a big iPod touch in the same way that a swimming pool's just a big bath.
According to the BBC version of the story: "There are handwritten notes by Turing on them and one of them has the signature of his mother on it." which I think offer them some uniqueness.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12575029
Bridging the gap with your finger partially detunes the antenna; since your skin is not a perfect conductor, the charge carriers moving in the antenna effectively go through a "tunnelling" effect at the gap. This is probablistic in nature, meaning that a proportion of such carriers will continue to behave as though the antenna was at its normal length. What you would see by analysing the received frequencies is that the normal frequencies would be diminished but not obliterated when the gap is bridged. In low signal or with wet fingers this could be enough to kill the reception, but under normal circumstances it'll cope just fine. Thin tape will decrease the tunnelling effect, but not enough to make a qualitative difference. A bumper, or other insulator of similar thickness, reduces it to negligible levels.
As a contrary type person, I have a habit of conducting calls on my (naked) iPhone 4 (in the UK) with my finger purposely bridging this gap, just because it amuses me to prove the doomsayers wrong on a daily basis.
I can do far more on my netbook than any of those pads. Touch typing on a touch screen keyboard is crap because you cannot feel where your fingers are.
I don't find that to be a problem - probably in part because the keyboard and screen being a single unit means I can use my peripheral vision to guide me.
When you start plugging keyboards into those things then you are simply turning it into a netbook. The ideal portable computer is a netbook with a touch screen and a hardware keyboard.
I do own a wireless keyboard for my iPad, which I use mainly when running SSH sessions to my home server (Ubuntu) - mainly for the sake of maximising display area. But the distinction is that it's an optional keyboard; it stays at home, and only gets used for certain tasks. The rest of the time, it stays out the way. I don't want to tell you there's anything wrong with preferring a netbook, since it's entirely subjective, but for me the 4-way orientability of a tablet is an important feature that a netbook simply cannot realistically provide.
The Dell duo looks interesting, along with other convertible tablet/netbook-stylee devices, but of course will live or die on dimensions and weight.
What I really don't get are people who complain that the 4:3 ratio of the iPad is a problem for watching movies; what's wrong with black bars? I've seen claims that the 16:9 ratio of the Galaxy Tab makes it better for movies than the iPad; given that both play 16:9 movies at 1024x600, how is a screen 6" wide better than one 8" wide?
Genuine question, no sarcasm tag required: How do those who berate Apple's walled-garden approach feel about games consoles? It genuinely puzzles me why we don't hear nearly so many complaints about the lack of open access to consoles, while a similar (to my mind; feel free to put me right) approach to a phone is evil.
As for the exploit that makes this jailbreaking possible, I sympathize with people who wish to jailbreak their phone, but I hope this particular exploit is closed as soon as possible. I've heard there are some unscrupulous types in tha intarweb who might consider using such a thing for less than altruistic purposes.
In order to even *use* an iPad, you're required to have some form of wi-fi or AT&T Wireless service?
No; you need 3G or wi-fi in order to use any of its network features like web-browsing, but you can use it just fine in isolation. I took mine on holiday recently, where the hotel had wi-fi available on a per-hour charge. I used it for e-book reading and watched some pre-loaded films/TV, and periodically logged into the hotel wi-fi for e-mail/news etc.
Can't say I've tried dropping mine, but it doesn't seem fragile from the use I've had of it; sometimes you can be unlucky with near any device, in terms of how it falls and if it had a manufacture defect (I had a friend manage to crack the screen on a supposedly unbreakable phone through an innocuous looking fall).
It's not a work-device, but I replaced my old knackered laptop for the iPad as I would've spent a similar amount on a new laptop, but decided I really didn't want another work-device; I spend too much of my days working with computers, and a recreational wi-fi based device fits my needs just fine. If you want a more serious device, it's probably not for you.
As for the article itself, I don't think I fall neatly into the characterizaton described, but what the hey, a statistical trend isn't the same as a rule.
I'm not the one purporting to have an experience opposite to what most people are reporting.
[...]
You didn't provide any evidence, what you provided was an anecdote which is contrary to the position of actual evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Wow - are you aware that you wrote both of those sentences in the same post? Really? And just how long did it take you to read the reports of over 1,500,000 iPhone 4 users?
To be perfectly honest, I don't care what phone you use. In fact, I don't even care much what the (phone) antenna performance on my own iPhone is, since I rarely even use it as a phone, and the wi-fi works just fine. What I do care about is science, and evidence-based conclusions. And frankly people on both sides of the argument have been kicking the crap out of the science, in favour of whatever conclusion they'd prefer to reach. Rarely, though, will you see someone so self-unaware as to preach the importance of evidence while simultaneously paying it no regard, as you managed with this post.
I mean we've even seen Techcrunch run a story from a so-called expert gave a financial justification for predicting that Apple would announce a thin non-conducting coating fix at their press conference! As though the physics of whether or not it would help was unimportant!
This is Slashdot people— we're supposed to be science-geeks; let's start acting like it!
(OK - last sentence was slightly tongue in cheek, but I meant the rest of it)
Small point of order: the article measured dBm results only. It is widely known that this is not the sole test of an antenna's performance. The iPhone may be stronger or weaker in other areas, such as signal-to-noise; the article doesn't give us enough information to deduce anything like as clearly as you claim.
Antenna design is far more complex than the "big dBm good small dBm bad" and "stick some duct tape on it" views that have been expressed by iPhone supporters and detractors alike.
At the press conference, Jobs stated that you could claim your free case, and have 30 days from that date to cancel, and when asked if AT&T would honour that he said they would. Don't know if AT&T have confirmed this, but that was the claim.
But nowhere in there have they said they will stop the offer on that date. The offer runs to at least the 30th of September. Anything else is speculation dressed up as fact. If you can't distinguish one from the other, you are in no position to judge.
Put another way, my point is valid regardless of whether I love or hate Apple. It is objectively true and based in fact. Your post is utterly steeped in biased subjectivity and supposition.
I've also read this, but I've also tested this and my mileage varied. Lots. I'm not convinced CR did test tape, I think they fell for the same mistake of thinking it obvious.
Well, a clear epoxy coating on the antenna would have fixed this poor design inexpensively. That's still within the laws of physics, isn't it?
No - that's resistance in a DC circuit that you're thinkng of. On an AC antenna it's impedance you need, and as that varies inversely with frequency, at phone frequencies you'd need a pretty specialist high impedance (low dielectric constant) coating, should a viable such exist (that I don't know; Anandtech tested with a specialist tape, and it helped---perhaps enough to bring it in line with other phones, but didn't eliminate it entirely, even wearing rubber gloves.).
You can read more about it in a post on my own (hobby - I don't stand to gain from hits) blog.
More likely that it was because THIN TRANSPARENT COATING DOESN'T HELP!!!
Sellotape doesn't help. Duct tape doesn't help. Insulating tape helps a little, but not enough to bother with. Impedance != resistance, and impedance varies inversely with frequency.
Apologies for shouting, but it's time this old wives' tale went to bed.
Slashdot Mirror
Your question: "If you can find a need (not a want) that is best filled by iPad-style tablets, then feel free to share."
I described what I needed in a device. Needs aren't restricted to tasks. If you meant to ask for a list of tasks for which a tablet is best suited, that would be more difficult, I would have to concede. My principal uses of my tablet are eReading, remote desktop access, web browsing, e-mail/forum/blog writing. No one of these tasks is best handled by a tablet, and while one could argue that the inclusion of eReading in the list might mark it out in some eyes as the best hybrid device to cover all those tasks, that would be open to interpretation.
But this is why, when you asked for needs, I didn't focus solely on tasks. What tasks a device can perform is only half the story; how it performs them is just as important. Factors like portability, input method, battery life, startup time, efficiency of UI and so on are what for me elevate good tablets far above netbooks or any other ultraportable. My tablet performs each of the above tasks, performs them well, and in addition meets my criteria for each of the above non-task based needs. No other device does so as well.
But that is only speaking for myself; I wouldn't dream of telling you a tablet would suit your own needs more than whatever devices you currently use. I simply ask that others extend me (and the millions of other people whose requirements led them to buy a tablet) the same courtesy.
you just can't read.
I can't read? You're the one who completely misinterpreted my rather lucid post. Don't blame me for your shortcomings.
I really don't. I blame you for your woefully misplaced sense of superiority.
As for that other nonsense, I don't care. Though I would like to point out an error you've made:
As already demonstrated, a touchscreen netbook would not meet the orientability requirement
Which is totally untrue. Hybrids, netbooks, laptops, and desktops can all change the screen orientation.
And smartphones can run remote desktop and word processing software, but they're not very good at it. A netbook in portrait mode is a kludge. I asked for a device that was better for the task, and that ain't it, no matter how you spin it.
So, yeah, unlike you -- who apparently didn't even understand my very simple question -- I've answered yours. Which is hilarious, as you did your best job to describe a tablet with your play-pretend criteria.
Wrong on all counts. Your question was answered even if you lack the wits to understand that. You failed to come up with a device that meets my requirements better than a tablet. And nope, there's nothing play-pretend about the reasons I chose a tablet over a netbook.
Now go troll someone else. You bore me.
Children have such short attention spans these days.
Ehm no, I wasn't talking about "tasks"; you just can't read. I was talking about a tablet's job; i.e. its purpose, which is to provide a solution for a range of tasks. Because being the best device for some individual task is irrelevant to a general-purpose device, and hence a dumbass question. One could equally ask for what individual task a netbook is the best suited.
But for all that you pretend nobody's answering your questions, I note you still haven't answered mine. With all the requirements I specified, what device would do the job better than a tablet? As already demonstrated, a touchscreen netbook would not meet the orientability requirement. Want to try again, or go back to evading with puerile insults?
LMAO, so the true progression is 1. Ask a question, 2. Claim any answer doesn't count, 3. Call the other guy names when he calls you out on it.
Do let us know if you think you can counter my argument; otherwise go troll elsewhere until you get a clue.
If you don't consider combining numerous tasks on a single device as a worthwhile job, then yours was a dumb question. Who cares whether or not a general-purpose device is the single best device for any one thing?
Call me an idiot all you like, I'm not the one who is utterly failing to understand basic principles of worth.
Do you know of a single non-tablet device which provides all these?
As a touchscreen is (inexplicably) a requirement, any touchscreen netbook. As an added bonus, it'll also make typing easier.
As you have trouble with fine motor control, I'd recommend that you learn to use keyboard shortcuts -- it'll greatly improve your productivity.
Still, you haven't addressed the question. I guess no one has an answer...
Incorrect, you merely lack the comprehension to see when your question has been answered. This is your style of argument: ask a question, then claim any answer you receive doesn't count. On the other hand, you've not answered my question; a touchscreen netbook is hopeless in portrait more, which was among my requirements.
On top of which, you dismiss (inexplicably) the need for touchscreen, and a convenient input method. Yes, I do indeed have trouble with fine motor control; many people do, and keyboard shortcuts do not replace all pointer interactions.
Wow, did you not even bother to read my comment? It is better suited than other devices for doing the job of combining those features on a single device.
Why not? I certainly would. Tablets are still useless for anything other than dicking-around. They're toys -- not tools.
I think I must be using mine wrong; I seem to get an awful lot of useful stuff done on it. Maybe it's broken?
If you can find a need (not a want) that is best filled by iPad-style tablets, then feel free to share. A good number of other slashdot users are legitimately interested.
I needed a single device (for portability concerns) that combines at least 2-way orientability (portrait-mode for natural eReading of academic textbooks, landscape for remote desktop work), at least 10" screen (for natural typing in landscape mode) with full screen multitouch capabilities to allow for natural input that involves neither a tiny trackpad or nipple pointer control (both of which I find unusable), and provides gesture-based control (for zooming, scrolling etc., particularly when using a remote desktop)
Do you know of a single non-tablet device which provides all these?
Easy - one such job is being a decent eReader, browser, remote desktop tool, e-mail device in a single device. No it's not the best eReader, but the best eReader can't do all the rest of it. A device doesn't have to be best-in-class for any one single task to be considered the best tool for "the job" when "the job" involves combining a range of tasks.
I think what they're getting at is we still haven't seen anything particularly special from tablets. iPads are essentially just large iPhones with an almost identical OS and very few tablet specific features.
The difference is that the much larger screen allows for much richer applications.
I once heard it said that an iPad is just a big iPod touch in the same way that a swimming pool's just a big bath.
According to the BBC version of the story: "There are handwritten notes by Turing on them and one of them has the signature of his mother on it." which I think offer them some uniqueness. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12575029
Am I alone in thinking that LOFAR has just read something hilarious?
I really wish we'd stop using extreme names for trivial to non-existent issues.
Hell yes. C.f. devices needing reboot/restore to factory default being "bricked".
Bridging the gap with your finger partially detunes the antenna; since your skin is not a perfect conductor, the charge carriers moving in the antenna effectively go through a "tunnelling" effect at the gap. This is probablistic in nature, meaning that a proportion of such carriers will continue to behave as though the antenna was at its normal length. What you would see by analysing the received frequencies is that the normal frequencies would be diminished but not obliterated when the gap is bridged. In low signal or with wet fingers this could be enough to kill the reception, but under normal circumstances it'll cope just fine. Thin tape will decrease the tunnelling effect, but not enough to make a qualitative difference. A bumper, or other insulator of similar thickness, reduces it to negligible levels.
As a contrary type person, I have a habit of conducting calls on my (naked) iPhone 4 (in the UK) with my finger purposely bridging this gap, just because it amuses me to prove the doomsayers wrong on a daily basis.
I can do far more on my netbook than any of those pads. Touch typing on a touch screen keyboard is crap because you cannot feel where your fingers are.
I don't find that to be a problem - probably in part because the keyboard and screen being a single unit means I can use my peripheral vision to guide me.
When you start plugging keyboards into those things then you are simply turning it into a netbook. The ideal portable computer is a netbook with a touch screen and a hardware keyboard.
I do own a wireless keyboard for my iPad, which I use mainly when running SSH sessions to my home server (Ubuntu) - mainly for the sake of maximising display area. But the distinction is that it's an optional keyboard; it stays at home, and only gets used for certain tasks. The rest of the time, it stays out the way. I don't want to tell you there's anything wrong with preferring a netbook, since it's entirely subjective, but for me the 4-way orientability of a tablet is an important feature that a netbook simply cannot realistically provide.
The Dell duo looks interesting, along with other convertible tablet/netbook-stylee devices, but of course will live or die on dimensions and weight.
What I really don't get are people who complain that the 4:3 ratio of the iPad is a problem for watching movies; what's wrong with black bars? I've seen claims that the 16:9 ratio of the Galaxy Tab makes it better for movies than the iPad; given that both play 16:9 movies at 1024x600, how is a screen 6" wide better than one 8" wide?
I believe there is a patch to shore up PDF code on a jailbroken phone. Which does exhibit that oh so tangy bite of irony.
Genuine question, no sarcasm tag required: How do those who berate Apple's walled-garden approach feel about games consoles? It genuinely puzzles me why we don't hear nearly so many complaints about the lack of open access to consoles, while a similar (to my mind; feel free to put me right) approach to a phone is evil.
As for the exploit that makes this jailbreaking possible, I sympathize with people who wish to jailbreak their phone, but I hope this particular exploit is closed as soon as possible. I've heard there are some unscrupulous types in tha intarweb who might consider using such a thing for less than altruistic purposes.
OK, maybe a touch of sarcasm after all.
So..let me get this straight,
In order to even *use* an iPad, you're required to have some form of wi-fi or AT&T Wireless service?
No; you need 3G or wi-fi in order to use any of its network features like web-browsing, but you can use it just fine in isolation. I took mine on holiday recently, where the hotel had wi-fi available on a per-hour charge. I used it for e-book reading and watched some pre-loaded films/TV, and periodically logged into the hotel wi-fi for e-mail/news etc. Can't say I've tried dropping mine, but it doesn't seem fragile from the use I've had of it; sometimes you can be unlucky with near any device, in terms of how it falls and if it had a manufacture defect (I had a friend manage to crack the screen on a supposedly unbreakable phone through an innocuous looking fall). It's not a work-device, but I replaced my old knackered laptop for the iPad as I would've spent a similar amount on a new laptop, but decided I really didn't want another work-device; I spend too much of my days working with computers, and a recreational wi-fi based device fits my needs just fine. If you want a more serious device, it's probably not for you. As for the article itself, I don't think I fall neatly into the characterizaton described, but what the hey, a statistical trend isn't the same as a rule.
[...]
I'm not the one purporting to have an experience opposite to what most people are reporting.
[...]
You didn't provide any evidence, what you provided was an anecdote which is contrary to the position of actual evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Wow - are you aware that you wrote both of those sentences in the same post? Really? And just how long did it take you to read the reports of over 1,500,000 iPhone 4 users?
To be perfectly honest, I don't care what phone you use. In fact, I don't even care much what the (phone) antenna performance on my own iPhone is, since I rarely even use it as a phone, and the wi-fi works just fine. What I do care about is science, and evidence-based conclusions. And frankly people on both sides of the argument have been kicking the crap out of the science, in favour of whatever conclusion they'd prefer to reach. Rarely, though, will you see someone so self-unaware as to preach the importance of evidence while simultaneously paying it no regard, as you managed with this post.
I mean we've even seen Techcrunch run a story from a so-called expert gave a financial justification for predicting that Apple would announce a thin non-conducting coating fix at their press conference! As though the physics of whether or not it would help was unimportant!
This is Slashdot people— we're supposed to be science-geeks; let's start acting like it!
(OK - last sentence was slightly tongue in cheek, but I meant the rest of it)
Small point of order: the article measured dBm results only. It is widely known that this is not the sole test of an antenna's performance. The iPhone may be stronger or weaker in other areas, such as signal-to-noise; the article doesn't give us enough information to deduce anything like as clearly as you claim. Antenna design is far more complex than the "big dBm good small dBm bad" and "stick some duct tape on it" views that have been expressed by iPhone supporters and detractors alike.
At the press conference, Jobs stated that you could claim your free case, and have 30 days from that date to cancel, and when asked if AT&T would honour that he said they would. Don't know if AT&T have confirmed this, but that was the claim.
But nowhere in there have they said they will stop the offer on that date. The offer runs to at least the 30th of September. Anything else is speculation dressed up as fact. If you can't distinguish one from the other, you are in no position to judge.
Put another way, my point is valid regardless of whether I love or hate Apple. It is objectively true and based in fact. Your post is utterly steeped in biased subjectivity and supposition.
I've also read this, but I've also tested this and my mileage varied. Lots. I'm not convinced CR did test tape, I think they fell for the same mistake of thinking it obvious.
Well, a clear epoxy coating on the antenna would have fixed this poor design inexpensively. That's still within the laws of physics, isn't it?
No - that's resistance in a DC circuit that you're thinkng of. On an AC antenna it's impedance you need, and as that varies inversely with frequency, at phone frequencies you'd need a pretty specialist high impedance (low dielectric constant) coating, should a viable such exist (that I don't know; Anandtech tested with a specialist tape, and it helped---perhaps enough to bring it in line with other phones, but didn't eliminate it entirely, even wearing rubber gloves.).
You can read more about it in a post on my own (hobby - I don't stand to gain from hits) blog.
More likely that it was because THIN TRANSPARENT COATING DOESN'T HELP!!!
Sellotape doesn't help. Duct tape doesn't help. Insulating tape helps a little, but not enough to bother with. Impedance != resistance, and impedance varies inversely with frequency.
Apologies for shouting, but it's time this old wives' tale went to bed.