Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Apple Ipad ! ? ! What do u guys think?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple Ipad ! ? ! What do u guys think?

post #1 of 51
Thread Starter 
Seriously guys, don't u think it is just a big iPhone??
Or- just another netbook?? Howcome dell, sony, acer, asus, hp's netbooks never made the news?!?
I'm gonna make a uTube video of me talking on the new ipad- like a celphone! See how many hits I'm gonna get?!? LOL
post #2 of 51
Right here a pretty good discussion is going here. Fanboys and haters are clashing right now.
post #3 of 51
It's not exactly like a iPhone because it can run the iWorks suite, so it can actually be used to type up papers and such. It also is being marketed as an ereader because of it's larger touchscreen. It's not really a netbook either, its a touch screen tablet that's more about style and ease of use more than anything. Other brands such as hp, acer, and asus don't make the news because nothing they release is really any different from the next item. They all are pretty much cookie cutter netbooks, apple made the news because they are good at creating a buzz, and their product is different from other companies offerings.
post #4 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by derek800 View Post
It's not exactly like a iPhone because it can run the iWorks suite, so it can actually be used to type up papers and such. It also is being marketed as an ereader because of it's larger touchscreen. It's not really a netbook either, its a touch screen tablet that's more about style and ease of use more than anything. Other brands such as hp, acer, and asus don't make the news because nothing they release is really any different from the next item. They all are pretty much cookie cutter netbooks, apple made the news because they are good at creating a buzz, and their product is different from other companies offerings.
The iPad is just a big iTouch. The iTouch has Works-TYPE applications.

It sucks. And I thought I'd finally have a product from Apple I'd be excited to buy. If it could run OSX and had a USB and Firewire port, I'd be sold.
post #5 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrys View Post
The iPad is just a big iTouch. The iTouch has Works-TYPE applications.

It sucks. And I thought I'd finally have a product from Apple I'd be excited to buy. If it could run OSX and had a USB and Firewire port, I'd be sold.
It is similar to a large ipod touch but it should be much faster with it's 1Ghz chip. It's not meant to be a full computer, it's just meant to be a browser/photo viewer/email client, that also runs app's. It has it's audience that it's targeted towards, if you don't like it don't buy it, simple as that.
post #6 of 51
Why not make...

MB Air + iPhone Multi Touch capability + OSX = ???????????

To reduce the cost, put less powerful CPU, Graphics Card, and etc.

Having a crippled OS with only Apple Store puts me down.

I am hoping the 2nd or 3rd generation is actually better than this..
post #7 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by derek800 View Post
It is similar to a large ipod touch but it should be much faster with it's 1Ghz chip. It's not meant to be a full computer, it's just meant to be a browser/photo viewer/email client, that also runs app's. It has it's audience that it's targeted towards, if you don't like it don't buy it, simple as that.
The point I'm trying to make is, the audience is too small. If they would've made it even just run a modified version of OSX, they'd have the Apple fanboys (such as yourself), tech unaware people, tech aware people... Generally, much more people.

PS: The iPod Touch 3G has an 800 mhz ARM processor. The ARM architecture is well refined, and has been used for a while. (In it's various applications.)

The iPad has a 1000 mhz processor that Apple designed themselves. They haven't ever made a processor in house before. This is a bad thing, and will lead to performance and stability problems until later down the line.
post #8 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrys View Post
The point I'm trying to make is, the audience is too small. If they would've made it even just run a modified version of OSX, they'd have the Apple fanboys (such as yourself), tech unaware people, tech aware people... Generally, much more people.
I agree that they could have given it a modified version of OSX and it would have been better but they didn't, and really as long as they give a flash plugin and the ability for it to multitask with the next software update, I would still be interested in this. Yes, you can call me an apple fanboy if you want because I do happen to like many of their products because imo they have a much better operating system than Microsoft. After being used to how easy and how smooth everything on a mac runs I just get annoyed with all of the problems that come up when using Window's.
post #9 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by derek800 View Post
I agree that they could have given it a modified version of OSX and it would have been better but they didn't, and really as long as they give a flash plugin and the ability for it to multitask with the next software update, I would still be interested in this. Yes, you can call me an apple fanboy if you want because I do happen to like many of their products because imo they have a much better operating system than Microsoft. After being used to how easy and how smooth everything on a mac runs I just get annoyed with all of the problems that come up when using Window's.
I have no problems with Mac OSX. Wonderful little system. My laptop has Hackintosh on it. Mind you, Windows is better for the power user, since we can customize everything, and have a much broader application field to access. It's the other things that Apple does I don't like. Such as charging people for a firmware update. Or overpricing their hardware massively. (My system runs BETTER than their top Macbook, in Mac OSX, and it was $700.) Or marketing a really bad product really well. (IE: Early iPods.)

They are very resistant to Flash, because many applications have Flash-based alternatives. They'll probably try to implement something Flash-LIKE, and fail. All I know is, my phone will have Flash before this thing does. Oh, and it can already multitask.
post #10 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrys View Post

They are very resistant to Flash, because many applications have Flash-based alternatives. They'll probably try to implement something Flash-LIKE, and fail. All I know is, my phone will have Flash before this thing does. Oh, and it can already multitask.
From the reports at engadget, they said that it cannot run app's in the background as of now.
post #11 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by derek800 View Post
From the reports at engadget, they said that it cannot run app's in the background as of now.
wut. I already implied it can't multitask.
post #12 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrys View Post
wut. I already implied it can't multitask.
Nevermind, I misunderstood what you said, I thought in your last sentence you were saying that the ipad can already multitask.
post #13 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by derek800 View Post
It is similar to a large ipod touch but it should be much faster with it's 1Ghz chip. It's not meant to be a full computer, it's just meant to be a browser/photo viewer/email client, that also runs app's. It has it's audience that it's targeted towards, if you don't like it don't buy it, simple as that.
Except none of these things are really exclusive or more intuitive on the iPad . . . they're just there too.
post #14 of 51
From the video reviews...I'm not digging it. It really is a massive iPhone with some new tricks...without the phone.

Maybe the Microsoft Courier will be the big game changer.
post #15 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hybrys View Post
The point I'm trying to make is, the audience is too small. If they would've made it even just run a modified version of OSX, they'd have the Apple fanboys (such as yourself), tech unaware people, tech aware people... Generally, much more people.

PS: The iPod Touch 3G has an 800 mhz ARM processor. The ARM architecture is well refined, and has been used for a while. (In it's various applications.)

The iPad has a 1000 mhz processor that Apple designed themselves. They haven't ever made a processor in house before. This is a bad thing, and will lead to performance and stability problems until later down the line.
The Apple CPU is ARM, just their design iteration of it. The CPU was choose for battery performance and price, and to keep compatibility with iPhone apps. It was designed in house (through an acquisition several months ago) to help keep the design from leaking, not for any performance reasons.

A non ARM CPU would be required to run full OSX but that would drive up cost, complexity, and kill battery life and its already a very expensive device thanks to the huge multi touch screen.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Apple Ipad ! ? ! What do u guys think?