Oh, yeah? Wait 'til You see Microsoft's Tablet!
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: The New Apple Tablet - $499!
Next: iPad is supercool
From: isw on 28 Jan 2010 13:29 In article <4b6140f0$0$1965$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie(a)pixelmemory.us> wrote: > In article <jollyroger-98D3DE.00525628012010(a)news.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > In article <000ce5a6$0$2147$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, > > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > > > Microsoft supports touch screen on Windows 7. So Apple is behind MS for > > > touch screen on real computers. > > > > ...and if you think that's an oversight on Apple's part, you're likely > > mistaken. > > It's what the customer says it is because that's where Apple's money > comes from. I would never buy an iPad because of the locked-down > environment it runs in. And Apple is doing very well because yours is the minority opinion... ISaac
From: isw on 28 Jan 2010 13:33 In article <jollyroger-F8A682.12134028012010(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > In article <00dd10c2$0$23824$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > Jolly Roger wrote: > > > > >> Microsoft supports touch screen on Windows 7. So Apple is behind MS for > > >> touch screen on real computers. > > > > > > ...and if you think that's an oversight on Apple's part, you're likely > > > mistaken. > > > > I don't think it is an "oversight". It is obvious Apple made a conscious > > decision on this. But whether this decision is right or wrong, only time > > will tell. The multi touch technology can be significantly more > > productive than a mouse. > > Yes, and it can also be significantly *less* productive. Only in the > right environment, and with the right implementation, is it actually > more productive. > > Hold your arm up parallel with the desk, pointing at the screen for an > hour or so, or all day. How long does it take before you arm starts to > get tired? ; ) Back in the day when, if you wanted an OS for your 8086, you had to write it, we built an industrial computer in a "console" that used a light-pen for input because marketing said that industrial engineers (our market) couldn't learn to type. It was awful. Isaac
From: Davoud on 28 Jan 2010 13:52 Kevin McMurtrie wrote: > I would never buy an iPad because of the locked-down > environment it runs in. ROFLMAO!! I would never buy a BMW because of you're locked into BMW's drivetrain. I would never have plumbing in my house because I would be locked to a water supply. I would never own a refrigerator because I would be locked to the availability of electricity. How in the hell do you post to Usenet if you live naked in the deep woods utterly independent of the rest of the world!? 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
From: nospam on 28 Jan 2010 14:56 In article <slrnhm3q17.254.t-usenet(a)ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin Trautmann <t-usenet(a)gmx.net> wrote: > Steve claimed on the iPhone introduction: > > "iPhone runs OS X!" it does. > The iPad would be nice if it actually would support the full range of > OS-X applications. that would be stupid. > But being a huge iPhone only, I don't have any need > for it, yet you want it to support it??
From: nospam on 28 Jan 2010 15:23
In article <slrnhm3rmb.254.t-usenet(a)ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin Trautmann <t-usenet(a)gmx.net> wrote: > > > Steve claimed on the iPhone introduction: > > > > > > "iPhone runs OS X!" > > > > it does. > > No, it doesn't. yes it does. > It may share some parts with OS-X. But which univeral > binaries do you know which do run both on a MacBook and an iPhone? running an existing universal binary does not mean it's os x or not os x. however, a lot of mac & iphone apps share code because it's the same os underneath. > > > The iPad would be nice if it actually would support the full range of > > > OS-X applications. > > > > that would be stupid. > > Why? because it makes absolutely no sense. for example, desktop apps assume a mouse and cursor and there is no mouse or cursor. how do you plan on using those apps? many apps also assume a larger screen. i don't think photoshop even runs anymore on a 1024x768 screen. when apple ported iwork to the ipad, they *rewrote* the user interface. simply running the existing version would have been stupid. |