Would the rumoured/anticipated Tablet be a full Mac OS X system?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Mail Problems
Next: Sound issue
From: Fred Moore on 23 Dec 2009 11:24 In article <michelle-6A92D0.12224822122009(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > In article <fmoore-DAA319.13353522122009(a)feeder.eternal-september.org>, > Fred Moore <fmoore(a)gcfn.org> wrote: > > I never 'got' the Touch. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Take away the > > phone from an iPhone and what have you got? I don't own an MP3 player. I > > don't want to watch movies on a postage stamp. I don't browse the web in > > coffee houses. I don't want to compose emails with my thumbs. What's the > > point of a stand-alone GPS without a phone? > > Well, first of all, it's the size of an envelope, not a postage stamp. ;) > > Seriously, aside from its phone, I use my iPhone to send email; not lengthy > messages like I type on my home computer, mostly short messages to friends > and relatives while I'm out of the house. And of course, to receive email. > But mostly, I do browse the web with it, usually as a result of receiving > email with links. I also watch movies and/or TV shows while on airplanes. > At that hand-held distance, the size of the screen doesn't matter all that > much. > > The biggest downside to a tablet for me is the same as for a laptop: the > inconvenience of carrying it around. Thanks for responding, Michelle. I do now get a little better idea of why a Touch could could be useful. The email might be handy, though my preference would be to phone someone. I still tend to favor paper and voice for many functions, Luddite that I am.
From: Fred Moore on 23 Dec 2009 11:32 In article <hgrboi$8mf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > Fred Moore wrote: > > what an Apple tablet would be. I never 'got' the Touch. Perhaps someone > > can enlighten me. Take away the phone from an iPhone and what have you > > got? I don't own an MP3 player. I don't want to watch movies on a > > postage stamp. I don't browse the web in coffee houses. I don't want to > > compose emails with my thumbs. What's the point of a stand-alone GPS > > without a phone? > > It's big enough to be tolerable for you-tube, but not full-length movies. > Reading e-mail--not bad. > Calendar--useful. > Web-well, when out and about, if you NEED something, not bad. > Keyboard sucks but it is usable. > > I needed a PDA calendar, so a used $100 iPod touch > gave me the other stuff as a bonus. As I mentioned to Michelle, I'm still into paper for a lot of this sort of thing. "Those damn pesky 'lectrons is jus UNSTABLE! Never know when they're gunna head for the border. Gimme a Day Timer so I can feel the crisp solidity of wood fiber between my fingers and a Bic pen that writes in REAL ink." > And how did I ever live without the app that makes > lightsaber sounds when I wave it? :-) Well, now you have the ultimate argument to which I have no rebuttal. A 100,000 apps is damn impressive. And so many of them are not only exquisite time wasters, they're FREE!
From: Fred Moore on 23 Dec 2009 11:36 Here's another tablet speculation, hot off the press: OLPC XO-3: An impossible $75 fantasy tab <http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10421017-1.html>
From: David Fritzinger on 23 Dec 2009 00:10 In article <paul.nospam-A5BCBA.15005322122009(a)pbook.sture.ch>, Paul Sture <paul.nospam(a)sture.ch> wrote: > In article <timmcn-450039.19093621122009(a)news-2.mpls.iphouse.net>, > Tim McNamara <timmcn(a)bitstream.net> wrote: > > > In article <m2ws0gp3ed.fsf(a)revier.com>, Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> > > wrote: > > > > > Maybe, but don't be surprised if what you get is an oversized iPhone > > > with an OS based on the iPhone OS. > > > > I think that is probably more likely than a full OS X installation. I > > want one that is 8.5 x 11" or A4 size so that I can digitize all my > > music lead sheets and just take that to gigs and rehearsals instead of a > > pile of fake books. > > Ditto. I want one which displays an A4 page properly - in other words at > 90� to the orientation of traditional computer screens, but for movies > still works in "landscape mode". > > I actually saw this on a dumb terminal some 20 years ago. You could use it > like a normal 24 x 80 terminal but when you rotated the screen it > automatically switched to 66 x 132 for reading computer listings. I know Radius made a monitor for Macs that did the same thing, sometime back in the late '80s or early '90s, I think.
From: Davoud on 23 Dec 2009 00:25
Paul Sture: > > I actually saw this on a dumb terminal some 20 years ago. You could use it > > like a normal 24 x 80 terminal but when you rotated the screen it > > automatically switched to 66 x 132 for reading computer listings. David Fritzinger: > I know Radius made a monitor for Macs that did the same thing, sometime > back in the late '80s or early '90s, I think. The Radius Pivot. I bought one with my Mac IIci in 1991. It seemed like magic at the time. Weighed 11,000 metric tons. 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 |