Best advice for those wanting iPad
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: nospam on 10 Apr 2010 10:13 In article <4bc07d94$0$4971$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Stuffed Crust <pizza(a)spam.shaftnet.org> wrote: > > It is really funny. This is like the people who keep insisting that OS > > X does not support true 64 bit processing. It is the old "moving the > > goal posts" fallacy. Apple adds multitasking, then say it is not "true" > > multitasking. > > Yes, OSX didn't support native 64-bit processing in userspace until Snow > Leopoard's release. Apple trumpeted this as one of its big new features. > (See http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit) nonsense. os x has supported 64 bit user space since tiger, 5 years ago. i think mathematica was 64 bit in tiger, among a few others. your link even says so: "Earlier versions of Mac OS X have offered a range of 64-bit capabilities." snow leopard is the first version that has a 64 bit kernel, making it *completely* 64 bit, but that is not necessary for a user space app unless you need more than 32 gigs of memory. very few people need the 64 bit kernel since there aren't many 64 bit drivers (yet). > > It appears that the main reason Apple is not supporting Flash on the > > iPad is that Flash interferes with multitasking. Apple's multitasking > > is implemented in seven APIs. Fast Switching allows apps to be frozen > > Eh, that's bullshit. A much more poignant reason is that most flash > stuff is designed for mouse interation (especially "hovering") and as > such simply won't work with a touch interface. true, as well as being proprietary and a battery hog. > > It seems to me that when people say that the iPad and iPhone do not > > have true multitasking then what they really mean is that the iPad and > > iPhone do not have a crappy, poorly implemented, battery draining form > > of multitasking like they are used to. > > You do realize you're just "moved the goalposts" by redefining what > "multitasking" is to suit your argument? he didn't. > > There is absolutely nothing that stops Adobe from developing a version > > of Flash that would meet the needs of the iPhone/iPad API. Yet Adobe > > does not do this. That is certainly not Apple's fault. > > See section 3.3.1 of the "proposed" OS4 SDK license. Adobe is > dissallowed from writing a version of Flash without special dispensation > from Apple, and even then, anyone wanting to actually use Flash would > also have to get special dispensation. actually, that part isn't why.
From: nospam on 10 Apr 2010 10:16 In article <pf20s5hsabmvmqq9itm79ndionkgha66iv(a)4ax.com>, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > Other than the form factor and UI, what is fundamentally different > about it? Other than running a different OS in order to support the > form factor and UI, what is the difference between it and a laptop? it's an entirely different product category that does some of the same things as a traditional computer but with touch. the user experience is very different. it also does a number of things that are difficult or impossible on a desktop or laptop computer.
From: C J Campbell on 10 Apr 2010 11:16 On 2010-04-09 20:57:18 -0700, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> said: > On 4/9/2010 11:24 PM, nospam wrote: >> In article<k3qvr5l69osbf91i7g58uvarjdd02fp3hu(a)4ax.com>, John A. >> <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> A pickup isn't a dump truck, but it certainly has a certain fraction >>>>> of the capabilities of one. >>>> >>>> bad analogy. they're both trucks. >>>> >>>> the ipad is not a netbook, it's a tablet. it has a lot more in common >>>> with a kindle than it does a netbook. it's in many ways, a kindle on an >>>> awful lot of steroids. >>> >>> Not a bad analogy at all. >> >> yes it is >> >>> They're both handheld devices that run >>> applications and communicate. >> >> that's where it ends. >> >> a cellphone is a handheld device that runs applications and >> communicates, so by your metric, a cellphone is also a netbook. >> >>> And one's capabilities are largely a >>> subset of the other's. >> >> actually, they're different with some overlap. >> >>> The book vs tablet difference is just the physical UI. To say they're >>> apples& oranges is like saying it's impossible to compare the >>> capabilities of a pen and a typewriter. >> >> a pen is not a 'smaller typewriter' and an ipad is not a 'less capable >> netbook.' > > He didn't say that it was a netbook, he said that it was less capable > than a netbook? Is the problem that (a) you're not a native speaker of > English, (b) you failed reading comprehension, (c) you're stupid or > (d) you're just a jackass? Well, what he said is about equivalent to saying that an automobile is less capable than a boat. Meaningless. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor
From: nospam on 10 Apr 2010 11:25 In article <2010041008160375249-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom>, C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Well, what he said is about equivalent to saying that an automobile is > less capable than a boat. Meaningless. why not have both a car *and* a boat? :) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphicar>
From: J. Clarke on 10 Apr 2010 11:19
On 4/10/2010 10:16 AM, nospam wrote: > In article<pf20s5hsabmvmqq9itm79ndionkgha66iv(a)4ax.com>, John A. > <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > >> Other than the form factor and UI, what is fundamentally different >> about it? Other than running a different OS in order to support the >> form factor and UI, what is the difference between it and a laptop? > > it's an entirely different product category that does some of the same > things as a traditional computer but with touch. the user experience is > very different. it also does a number of things that are difficult or > impossible on a desktop or laptop computer. Name one. |