Snow Leopard on iPad?
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: ZnU on 10 May 2010 14:39 In article <hs88m9$bqj$1(a)lust.ihug.co.nz>, "Your Name" <your.name(a)isp.com> wrote: > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote in message > news:4be78b0a$0$14672$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > Your Name wrote: > > > > > long term it will become tiresome. Using a normal keyboard and mouse > your > > > wrist rests on the desk or wrist-rest, but with a vertical touchscreen > > > your arm is always trying to resist gravity. > > > > Think of a glass desktop (litterally). Touch screen becomes much more > > intuitive than some keyboard/mouse. > > > > Who said that the display has to be vertical ? > > Nobody, but that's how computers are currently made. As I said, running a > touchscreen OS on a computer would require the re-design of both the OS and > the hardware ... which is what they've done to get the iPad. A touchscreen > OS on a computer, as we known them, is simply silly. The mouse and keyboard > will be around for a long while yet. > > But even with a horizontal / slightly-angled screen of any large size you're > going to have problems trying to work out whether that "touch" was an > intended finger or an accidental brush of the arm, meaning you've still got > nowhere to actually rest you wrists / arms. This might not be all that hard. Apple's current touch-screen tech can already tell how large an area of touch is. There are research systems that can go as far as telling specifically what finger a device is touched with and can track the user's hands even when the user isn't touching the device. It won't be especially hard in the long run, I think, to distinguish deliberate finger touches from other sorts of contact. > Both Microsoft and Apple have shown future dream-ideas which have a > touchscreen desktop interface, as well as voice recognition, etc. Microsoft > currently even sells a (hideously expensive) table "computer", but it's not > really used as a computer, it's just a giant iPad and photo shuffler. An iPad, of course, already does about 80% of what most people do with their computers.... -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: Your Name on 10 May 2010 17:24 "ZnU" <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote in message news:znu-EC9ACD.14394710052010(a)Port80.Individual.NET... > > An iPad, of course, already does about 80% of what most people do with > their computers.... An iPad also already does everything that probably 80% of people need. Outside of actual work needs, most people really only use their computer simply for email, web browsing, photo browsing, game playing, Twitter / Facebook / etc., and perhaps cataloguing their collections ... all of which the iPad can do. :-)
From: Wes Groleau on 10 May 2010 17:51 On 05-10-2010 14:39, ZnU wrote: > This might not be all that hard. Apple's current touch-screen tech can > already tell how large an area of touch is. There are research systems > that can go as far as telling specifically what finger a device is > touched with and can track the user's hands even when the user isn't > touching the device. It won't be especially hard in the long run, I > think, to distinguish deliberate finger touches from other sorts of > contact. I've already read stuff from either Axiotron or Motion Computing (I forget which) that claims to already be doing that. -- Wes Groleau Nobody believes a theoretical analysis -- except the guy who did it. Everybody believes an experimental analysis -- except the guy who did it. -- Unknown
From: wetpixel on 12 May 2010 01:36 In article <siegman-3DEF12.11491930042010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > In article <4bda9f4b$0$24374$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > The Ipad isn't a computer, it is an appliance. If you want a computer, > > buy a laptop or netbook. > > Entirely true statement, so far as I can see, and a valid suggestion. > > The sad point, however, is that the iPad _could_ have been a computer, > and a damn nice one -- even with somewhat limited functionality and some > missing features and capabilities compared to full-bore laptops or > netbooks, in order to keep cost and size down and battery life up. So, you're saying that Apple could have put a full OS on it and actually gotten full computer performance, if not as much battery life? I wonder where you get your info. Yes, a tablet may one day be able to do all those things ith similar performance and battery life as this has. It cannot be done today -- and that's according to every report from every company considering it. Apple may even intend to do such a thing in the future, but seeing that as a possible future now is _not_ a valid condemnation of what you have available right now. > But, it still could have been a modestly featured but very useful real > computer, useful as a secondary computer for "real computer users" _and_ > at the same time a great appliance for the large market segment that is > now buying it -- and it still could have had a user interface as easy to > use for that larger market as the actual iPad does. > > It seems clear to many of us that it was not designed and programmed as > a computer, however, NOT because of any valid technical reasons Right; you're going to swing against every hardware expert based on what kind of knowledge? If there are really no valid technical reasons against building a full computer in a tablet, then most laptop makers would be coming to market soon, because Apple just broke trail for them. > or > limitations, and not really because of any serious market concerns. It > was designed the way it is because this: > > 1) Lets Apple retain absolute control over what goes into it and what > is programmed for it. How Apple actually exercises that control is a > totally separate issue; but unless an iPod is "broken out of jail" by > someone -- note that very vivid and appropriate term, jailbreaking -- > Apple _retains_ that ultimate control. Do you really find that inappropriate? Everyone but OSS retains such control, and some are downright violent about it. Apple does it up front, with the lowest costs to developers around, and takes all the duty of distribution for a percentage -- it's been a lot better than any market channel I can think of, for all parties. but some absolutists see the potential for, what, Apple to decide against a Chinese duplicate of a word processor that isn't new at all and violates trademarks? > 2) Lets Apple retain rigorous control over the marketing of media > content that is intended for and goes into the device. (Same second > sentences as preceding paragraph.) Seriously? You think Apple has control over media going into it? Don't you know you can import aany of this stuff into iTunes separately? Apple makes sure people know this. Do you think Apple forces marketing screens up whenever the device si connected to iTunes, or something like that? I've only ever heard Apple reps suggest importing into iTunes, never buying much from iTunes Store in general. > 3) Lets Apple enforce whatever DRM restrictions it or other large media > firms want to bribe Congress into passing. Apple has no interest in pushing DRM restrictions; but Apple isn't the copyright holder. They are merely trying to cooperate while the rest of the industry figures such stuff out. They have been explicit about this. But I guess Apple haters gotta hate, huh? > None of these three reasons are of course at all admirable Not if you get them all wrong, no.
From: wetpixel on 12 May 2010 01:39
In article <Xns9D6ADA6D31925noonehomecom(a)74.209.131.13>, Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in news:300420101611145630% > nospam(a)nospam.invalid: > > > anyone can load any media they want into it > > > > Great! I want to load 10 movies off alt.binaries.movies.divx in DivX > format, and a couple of Xvids, and play them for the kids in the car! > > I'm so glad you figured out how to do that! > > Sheat! You big dummy. Yes, it's possible for you to find formats that it doesn't already load natively, but that wasn't the request -- the request was about _content_. So, if you want those movies, convert them or find them in a format your hardware knows how to use. Just like we have all done all through history. Just because the fuel station carries diesel when our car doesn't use it doesn't mean the car has failed us somehow. It means we choose the correct fuel. |