iPad!
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Apple's new baby is...
Next: Stephen Fry on the iPad
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 29 Jan 2010 05:42 On 29 Jan 2010 00:11:55 GMT, richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote: >In article <m2wrz17rsc.fsf(a)revier.com>, Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> wrote: > >>I think this kind of instant-on (as in "less than a second") with a >>quite large Unix-based OS isn't *that* easy to do. > >Traditionally a large part of the time booting unix has been in >detecting devices, because of the wide range of hardware it runs on. Only on domestic kit. Take Solaris or AIX - they assume that the hardware this time will be the same as last time, unless told otherwise. Which is appropriate with the iPhone/iPad. >My EEE running the free version of Google's Chromium - which is not >tailored to the particular hardware - boots in 16 seconds including >the BIOS. I would have thought Apple ought to be able to get it down >to about 5 seconds given the control they have over the system. But >in fact my iPhone takes 40 seconds. Instant-on doesn't mean "boot instantly", but "recover from sleep/hibernate instantly". Mac laptops can do it in under two seconds, if they've been sleeping. Takes much longer from hibernation since they have to go through the firmware boot process then load the stored memory file into RAM. A Psion5 would be ready to go by the time you've finished opening the clamshell, and would last two months on a pair of AA batteries. But that was an entirely local device. Adding communications facilities (wifi, 3G, bluetooth) to that increases the startup time considerably thanks to all the negotiation that has to take place - *that* can only be fixed by changing the negotiation stage, so includes the need for improvement at the other end. Cheers - Jaimie -- "Everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do." -- Steven Brust
From: Chris Ridd on 29 Jan 2010 07:05 On 2010-01-29 10:45:27 +0000, Jaimie Vandenbergh said: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:07:41 +0000, Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> > wrote: > >> On 2010-01-29 01:03:12 +0000, zoara said: >> >>> Tenner on the table says it never gets an internal USB port. >> >> Even when iPhones get their required (by ITU for all phones) mini-USB >> ports? Or do we think those will come via dock adapters? > > That's the one that surprised me - I was sure there'd be a micro-USB > (not mini!) port on it. Doh. I'm waiting for nano-USB. -- Chris
From: Bruce Horrocks on 29 Jan 2010 12:24 On 28/01/2010 07:09, The Older Gentleman wrote: > Jim<jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > >> The Older Gentleman<totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> eBay reckons anything between �30-50 each. >>> >>> So not enough to retire on, but a nice return on investment. >> >> Ah, but do you have the Sinclair thermal printer to go with them? I do >> :-) >> > > <fx: deep, deep envy> Yeah but how much bacofoil does he have to go with it, eh? -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com)
From: Jim on 29 Jan 2010 12:28 On 2010-01-29, Bruce Horrocks <07.013(a)scorecrow.com> wrote: >>>>> eBay reckons anything between �30-50 each. >>>> >>>> So not enough to retire on, but a nice return on investment. >>> >>> Ah, but do you have the Sinclair thermal printer to go with them? I do >>> :-) >>> >> >> <fx: deep, deep envy> > > Yeah but how much bacofoil does he have to go with it, eh? > Two rolls :-) Well, technicall 1.8 rolls, but you get my drift. Jim -- http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK "Get over here. Now. Might be advisable to wear brown trousers and a shirt the colour of blood." Malcolm Tucker, "The Thick of It"
From: Bruce Horrocks on 29 Jan 2010 13:47
On 28/01/2010 10:25, James Jolley wrote: > On 2010-01-28 10:17:10 +0000, Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> said: > >> On 2010-01-28, James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I was thinking about the lack of camera aspect, and I think they may be >>>> right. Video chatting sounds good, but you'd have to hold it at a >>>> _very_ >>>> precise angle to keep yourself in view. That would become tiresome, >>>> I think. >>> >>> I think they may do a camera dock thing. PErhaps the iSee as they've >>> already had iSight? IT'll just be a camera in a case. >> >> Maybe. This is one area where I'm really on the fence about how useful it >> would actually be. >> >> Jim > > I see what you mean. It's one of those nice things that probably should > have been in there, regardless of how good it is. The new iPod Nanos have a completely pointless camera in them. Why not in the iPad (unless, shock horror, Apple do actually listen to customer feedback)? -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com) |