PDA

View Full Version : The Apple iPad.


Pages : 1 2 [3]

tsiguy96
04-10-2010, 03:58 PM
I guess my biggest regret is there is no built in camera for Skype video phone

an ipod attachment for one would be really, really cool.

baja
04-10-2010, 03:58 PM
I agree, but Jobs needs to hold on to something to lure us to buy iPad 2.0 right? :rofl:


Maybe someone will come up with an after market idea.

baja
04-10-2010, 04:00 PM
an ipod attachment for one would be really, really cool.

Ya I had that thought too. Is that possible without hardware?

davidtkd
04-10-2010, 04:02 PM
Ya I had that thought too. Is that possible without hardware?

I think I saw someplace where one could attach an iPhone/itouch to the iPad and use the camera. Let me snoop around and see if i can find it.

davidtkd
04-10-2010, 04:07 PM
Not quite a video cam as tsi or Baja want, but given the device is only a week old this is kind of cool. http://www.katonda.com/news/get-camera-your-ipad/996/2010

Oh, I can also control my laptop remotely from my iPad as well. Finding all sorts of cool things.

Found this also: http://www.entertainmentengineering.com/v7.issue04/22

baja
04-10-2010, 04:18 PM
The second link is mind blowing in the new markets that will open up for this device

Used as a Wi Fi control panel Wow I just added millions of units to by sales numbers guess. The i pad will sell millions as a control device.

The first link - not so much

davidtkd
04-10-2010, 04:34 PM
The second link is mind blowing in the new markets that will open up for this device

Used as a Wi Fi control panel Wow I just added millions of units to by sales numbers guess. The i pad will sell millions as a control device.

The first link - not so much

I hear ya. We here in the theatre can somewhat control our light boards with ana iPhone. Very cool, but the device doesn't have enough screen. The iPad however... Having Electronic Theatre Control (ETC) in my backyard should be interesting to see what they do with the device.

baja
04-10-2010, 04:43 PM
I hear ya. We here in the theatre can somewhat control our light boards with ana iPhone. Very cool, but the device doesn't have enough screen. The iPad however... Having Electronic Theatre Control (ETC) in my backyard should be interesting to see what they do with the device.

Just think about an "in the field" tool that you can use to isolate components in a very large network of any kind of conglomeration you can imagine.

It may also give those that would do harm to a public infrastructure a leg up.

Killericon
04-10-2010, 05:11 PM
Maybe someone will come up with an after market idea.

Third party apple stuff? HAH!

Popps
04-10-2010, 06:11 PM
Third party apple stuff? HAH!

There's a ton, bro. Seriously. Name what you want, I'll find it.

baja
04-10-2010, 06:12 PM
Bet you can't find a better monitor.

Popps
04-10-2010, 06:20 PM
http://i41.tinypic.com/wirn6e.jpg

Sub out two non cinema displays, and the prices even out considerably.

I'm seeing quad-core 3.66 Mac Pros for 2499.



Beyond that, you get what you pay for.

Ford Fusion 20K

Infiniti G37 35K


Both work fine. Both have engines and wheels. Both will serve the function of getting back and forth.

One has additional performance, quality and customer satisfaction and luxury. People are willing to pay for those qualities.

If you're not willing to pay for them, no problem. Don't.

Popps
04-10-2010, 06:46 PM
Bet you can't find a better monitor.

Agree. There are none better.

That said, they're very expensive. I don't even purchase them for my business, but then again... I'm not in graphics. If I were, I'd have them for sure.

I do have one Final Cut station that I'm considering outfitting with an ACD. But, 99.9% of consumers are served just fine with a nice Samsung monitor off the Best Buy shelf.

bowtown
04-12-2010, 08:30 AM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9_EcybyLJS8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9_EcybyLJS8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Play2win
04-12-2010, 08:55 AM
I've just go to say one thing:

CS5 B!tches !!!!

orange&blue87
04-12-2010, 12:58 PM
I've just go to say one thing:

CS5 B!tches !!!!

?

What about CS5? The CreativeSuite has been incredible for professionals to deliver amazing content, but it has also open the flood gates for a ton of crap to reach the masses. From what I have seen, that trend will not only continue but reach an even more annoying level.

Too many things are created in flash that don't need to be. CS5 has features that make it so a 3 year old can put junk out there as a swf. Adobe wants the entire web to be completely run on flash, yet (and please correct me if I am wrong here) I don't know of a single browser that includes flash as a built in plugin.

5 years ago, Adobe was one of many that wanted to have flash killed off. Then they purchased Macromedia and all of a sudden, it's the greatest thing ever.

Play2win
04-12-2010, 01:42 PM
I saw the whole streamed CS5 preview broadcast event this morning. Extremely impressive. Plus, this is really only the second CS after the acquisition. Give Adobe the same benefit you would give Coach McDaniels. ;D

Flash is not everything Adobe. I think Flash is going to have to adapt in the coming years. HTLM5 and CSS3 are going to have serious impact on the web. Adobe will pimp Flash, but it was in other areas that I thought CS5 really shined.

I care more about graphics and web development. I care about CSS, javascript, jquery, PHP, Joomla, etc. I care about Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, Dreamweaver.

Dreamweaver, from the brief preview, seems a lot more like an Adobe app now, instead of bloatware that it currently is. It looks like they have been listening, and understand how important the Dev side of things are. They also bought an analytics company, and are going to embed that functionality into the programs directly. I could go on and on, but this is quite a release.

They have been anything, but lazy, no matter what Steve Jobs thinks.

orange&blue87
04-12-2010, 01:56 PM
I saw the whole streamed CS5 preview broadcast event this morning. Extremely impressive. Plus, this is really only the second CS after the acquisition. Give Adobe the same benefit you would give Coach McDaniels. ;D

Flash is not everything Adobe. I think Flash is going to have to adapt in the coming years. HTLM5 and CSS3 are going to have serious impact on the web. Adobe will pimp Flash, but it was in other areas that I thought CS5 really shined.

I care more about graphics and web development. I care about CSS, javascript, jquery, PHP, Joomla, etc. I care about Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, Dreamweaver.

Dreamweaver, from the brief preview, seems a lot more like an Adobe app now, instead of bloatware that it currently is. It looks like they have been listening, and understand how important the Dev side of things are. They also bought an analytics company, and are going to embed that functionality into the programs directly. I could go on and on, but this is quite a release.

They have been anything, but lazy, no matter what Steve Jobs thinks.

I'll need to watch the entire thing. I'm mostly interested in InDesign. The improvements there are great timesavers. Very impressed. I beta tested photoshop and found it to be very solid. Hard core users will love some of the changes while casual users will find newer features to be perfect for making those hard changes easy.

I think when it comes to flash, Adobe, while not necessarily lazy, has become pretty complacent with the idea that it is a must have program. HTML5 and CSS3 will be big competitors to flash, and IMO very welcomed.

Flash was in CS3, so this makes it Adobe's third go, although most of CS3 was very macromedia like. I don't dislike flash because of Apple, I dislike flash because of flash. It has a pretty solid purpose on the web, but it has been used for EVERYTHING. I don't mind ads either, but it seems as if every add is made in flash. They want to expose the consumer to an interactive experience, yet I find it unacceptable to have a page load, then have audio coming from the ad. I've seen excellent flash content, but it's only about 2% compared to the rest of the junk out there.

Killericon
04-12-2010, 02:29 PM
There's a ton, bro. Seriously. Name what you want, I'll find it.

I know there's a lot of third party apple stuff, I'm just saying that other than software, there's next to none that actually change functionality. Not really.

Basically, I'm saying the chances a decent camera add-on for the iPad coming out are not that big.

Popps
04-12-2010, 02:40 PM
I know there's a lot of third party apple stuff, I'm just saying that other than software, there's next to none that actually change functionality. Not really.

Basically, I'm saying the chances a decent camera add-on for the iPad coming out are not that big.

Probably so. But, I think they're intentionally keeping the unit as a media manager/consumption device rather than an ingestion device.

Remember, add a little more functionality and it starts to chop into their own laptop market.

That's the reason I'm sure the prices will come down on these. I think their base laptops are starting at $900 and change, now. Mac Minis are $600. As cool as this unit may be to have, they'll have to bring the price down... and they will, imo.

I think we'll see 3G models for $499 inside of a year.

Play2win
04-12-2010, 03:08 PM
Flash was in CS3, so this makes it Adobe's third go, although most of CS3 was very macromedia like. I don't dislike flash because of Apple, I dislike flash because of flash. It has a pretty solid purpose on the web, but it has been used for EVERYTHING. I don't mind ads either, but it seems as if every add is made in flash. They want to expose the consumer to an interactive experience, yet I find it unacceptable to have a page load, then have audio coming from the ad. I've seen excellent flash content, but it's only about 2% compared to the rest of the junk out there.

Oh, I know. But I own CS3-- did not get CS4. Basically Flash CS3 (and DW, etc) was STILL Macromedia, just with just with a big plastic sticker on it saying "This is Adobe, no, really it is"

My point being I didn't consider CS3 Flash, DW, etc. really Adobe products. Just stuff they threw in so it was a SUITE...

I'm the same way when it comes to Flash. I could really take it or leave it, but mostly leave it, because of all the trash some people make.

I have "Click to Flash" on my browsers. The only time Flash loads is when I want it to.


But I will say, I just watched a training for Flash Catalyst. It looks real cool. It has a lot of the look and feel of other Adobe products (Illustrator, InDesign, Photoshop), and creates stuff I would make 90% of the time. Interactive components and animations.

I was getting to a point learning Actionscript, when I have decided to make the jump to js, jquery, CSS, PHP. I am definitely still learning this stuff, but with CSS3 and HTML5 on the horizon, it seems like the perfect time.

I actually think much of CS5 will fit right into the new web. It is quite a vast and diverse suite. AE too...

Fedaykin
04-12-2010, 03:11 PM
I saw the whole streamed CS5 preview broadcast event this morning. Extremely impressive. Plus, this is really only the second CS after the acquisition. Give Adobe the same benefit you would give Coach McDaniels. ;D

Flash is not everything Adobe. I think Flash is going to have to adapt in the coming years. HTLM5 and CSS3 are going to have serious impact on the web. Adobe will pimp Flash, but it was in other areas that I thought CS5 really shined.

I care more about graphics and web development. I care about CSS, javascript, jquery, PHP, Joomla, etc. I care about Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, Dreamweaver.

Dreamweaver, from the brief preview, seems a lot more like an Adobe app now, instead of bloatware that it currently is. It looks like they have been listening, and understand how important the Dev side of things are. They also bought an analytics company, and are going to embed that functionality into the programs directly. I could go on and on, but this is quite a release.

They have been anything, but lazy, no matter what Steve Jobs thinks.

Flash/Flex is a deeply flawed product, but it's still vastly superior to HTML/CSS/JS for producing rich internet applications efficiently. I have used both platforms as the architecture to produce similar content with similar staff in my projects, and the Flash/Flex apps were done in an order of magnitude less time, had far greater usability, fewer defects and were completed with far fewer resources (even including the learning curve for HTML/JS devs to pick up actionscript/mxml). Javascript frameworks are neat, but not at all ready for serious development of rich content on a reasonable budget.

Google and Yahoo can produce somewhat acceptable apps with their frameworks but I can guarantee they spend many orders of magnitude more getting it done. The amount of resources needed for cross browser testing alone probably dwarfs the cost of the entire development effort if it were done in Flex or Silverlight.

HTML5 adds a few neat features which may or may not close the gap to some degree, but what decade will it be as widely available (and consistently implemented) as Flash is? Hell, HTML4/CSS2 aren't even consistently implemented across browsers yet, and they've been out for almost 2 decades.

Play2win
04-12-2010, 03:13 PM
Probably so. But, I think they're intentionally keeping the unit as a media manager/consumption device rather than an ingestion device.

Remember, add a little more functionality and it starts to chop into their own laptop market.

That's the reason I'm sure the prices will come down on these. I think their base laptops are starting at $900 and change, now. Mac Minis are $600. As cool as this unit may be to have, they'll have to bring the price down... and they will, imo.

I think we'll see 3G models for $499 inside of a year.

I just got a Mac Mini last fall that drives my 2005 30" Cinema Display (2560x1600) quite well.

That Mac Mini is a great unit and I have used it for all kinds of things. Really snappy, too...

Sometime in the next year I want to get the 27" iMac. I hear that is a real good unit...

Fedaykin
04-12-2010, 03:19 PM
Oh, I know. But I own CS3-- did not get CS4. Basically Flash CS3 (and DW, etc) was STILL Macromedia, just with just with a big plastic sticker on it saying "This is Adobe, no, really it is"

My point being I didn't consider CS3 Flash, DW, etc. really Adobe products. Just stuff they threw in so it was a SUITE...

I'm the same way when it comes to Flash. I could really take it or leave it, but mostly leave it, because of all the trash some people make.

I have "Click to Flash" on my browsers. The only time Flash loads is when I want it to.


But I will say, I just watched a training for Flash Catalyst. It looks real cool. It has a lot of the look and feel of other Adobe products (Illustrator, InDesign, Photoshop), and creates stuff I would make 90% of the time. Interactive components and animations.

I was getting to a point learning Actionscript, when I have decided to make the jump to js, jquery, CSS, PHP. I am definitely still learning this stuff, but with CSS3 and HTML5 on the horizon, it seems like the perfect time.

I actually think much of CS5 will fit right into the new web. It is quite a vast and diverse suite. AE too...


HTML and JavaScript are *great* at the purpose they were designed for, which is presentation of data with limited amounts of interactivity. However, for a couple decades now we've been trying to shoehorn them into the role of rich application development -- which they are simply not designed for.

What we really need is an open standards framework, designed from the ground up for application development delivered over the web. In other words, Flash/Flex/Silverlight but done with open standards -- hopefully fixing the problems with Flash/Flex/Silverlight along the way.

What's currently available for app development in the HTML/JS world is complete junk.

Play2win
04-12-2010, 03:22 PM
Flash/Flex is a deeply flawed product, but it's still vastly superior to HTML/CSS/JS for producing rich internet applications efficiently. I have used both platforms as the architecture to produce similar content with similar staff in my projects, and the Flash/Flex apps were done in an order of magnitude less time, had far greater usability, fewer defects and were completed with far fewer resources (even including the learning curve for HTML/JS devs to pick up actionscript/mxml). Javascript frameworks are neat, but not at all ready for serious development of rich content on a reasonable budget.

Google and Yahoo can produce somewhat acceptable apps with their frameworks but I can guarantee they spend many orders of magnitude more getting it done. The amount of resources needed for cross browser testing alone probably dwarfs the cost of the entire development effort if it were done in Flex or Silverlight.

HTML5 adds a few neat features which may or may not close the gap to some degree, but what decade will it be as widely available (and consistently implemented) as Flash is? Hell, HTML4/CSS2 aren't even consistently implemented across browsers yet, and they've been out for almost 2 decades.

Good points, but I think the current climate is much different than it has been in the last 10 or so years. Flash is alway going to be here, but it won't be the (some say RUSTY) swiss army knife it once was.

I can see it not being nearly so prevalent on the web, and become much more of a dedicated multimedia/rich media development tool.

Play2win
04-12-2010, 03:36 PM
HTML and JavaScript are *great* at the purpose they were designed for, which is presentation of data with limited amounts of interactivity. However, for a couple decades now we've been trying to shoehorn them into the role of rich application development -- which they are simply not designed for.

What we really need is an open standards framework, designed from the ground up for application development delivered over the web. In other words, Flash/Flex/Silverlight but done with open standards -- hopefully fixing the problems with Flash/Flex/Silverlight along the way.

What's currently available for app development in the HTML/JS world is complete junk.

So you think a whole new model needs to be developed?

It is interesting that Apple said the iPhone/iPad apps must be developed in obj-C. No porting from FLASH.


Yet in Adobe's Preview this morning, they listed that as one of the new feature's of Flash CS5.


A lot of this comes back to what I used to say about Photoshop all the time-- it all depends on what you want to do with it. What do you want to get done?

Same thing with the web. What do you want to get done, and what USABILITY do you need?

Fedaykin
04-12-2010, 04:24 PM
So you think a whole new model needs to be developed?

The model is already there:

* Java Applets / JavaFX
* Flash/Flex and Silverlight

What all these have in common is that they have some sort of abstracted, platform independent run time environment.

The problem is they all miss the mark in a fundamental way. Java Applets require a download that was (at the time they were pushed) way to big for the average user and wasn't easy to do multimedia with. Flash/Flex has crappy support (performance wise) for anything other than Windows and is a vendor lock in solution.

JavaScript frameworks miss out entirely. They are are extremely brittle, have piss poor performance and defect ridden and have dozens of different and sometimes mutually incompatable implementations. Basically an application developers perfect nightmare.

Despite its many flaws, Flash/Flex is the most useful and least troublesome solution available for rich internet applications. (and the reverse is true too, Flash/Flex is *terrible* at the things HTML is good at)


It is interesting that Apple said the iPhone/iPad apps must be developed in obj-C. No porting from FLASH.


Yet in Adobe's Preview this morning, they listed that as one of the new feature's of Flash CS5.


This is Apple trying to preserve the revenue stream from their app store. If Flash is allowed to run or be compiled to run on their devices, there's an army of developers who can produce applications for their platform without jumping through Apple's hoops and without giving Apple a cut of the profits.


A lot of this comes back to what I used to say about Photoshop all the time-- it all depends on what you want to do with it. What do you want to get done?

Same thing with the web. What do you want to get done, and what USABILITY do you need?

Like I said, HTML is a simple, effective way to present data (whether that be a blog, message board or online store. What it fails at is highly interactive, graphically complex applications, such as web based geodatabases (which is what I do professionally).

Both models (presentation languages and application languages) should exist, but both have separate purposes.

orange&blue87
04-12-2010, 04:31 PM
If flash on the iphone OS is as much as a resource hog that it is on OSX, then apple is doing very well to keep it off.

The objective-c based apps are needed for multitasking. Apples way of multitasking allows apps have certain attributes left running while others arent. This should help save battery life, which is more important to me than running flash.

enjolras
04-12-2010, 04:38 PM
I don't have time to get into the particulars, but there is no technical reason that Flash based apps couldn't fit into the new 'multitasking' (that really isn't) scheme. More importantly, the iPhone will not be supporting multi-tasking in the new OS. It's more of a scheme to allow apps to hook into pre-defined services that work in the background.

There are still entire classes of multi-tasking applications that won't work (like alarm clocks for one).

Android, Palm, and Symbian support much fuller multi-tasking models. While the Symbian version really does consume more resources and battery life (it works a lot like your desktop OS does), both the Palm and Android 'bundle' approach produce stellar results.

Fedaykin
04-12-2010, 04:43 PM
If flash on the iphone OS is as much as a resource hog that it is on OSX, then apple is doing very well to keep it off.

The objective-c based apps are needed for multitasking. Apples way of multitasking allows apps have certain attributes left running while others arent. This should help save battery life, which is more important to me than running flash.

Flash (and many javascript engines) are a big hog on non-windows machines, but that's a complete non-issue with the CS5 actionscript to objective-c compiler. This is why Apple putting the "must be originally written in c/c++/objective-c" is so telling about their motives.

Killericon
04-12-2010, 05:55 PM
Can I just take a moment to say how much iTunes sucks?

Seriously. Sucks.

misturanderson
04-12-2010, 08:01 PM
Can I just take a moment to say how much iTunes sucks?

Seriously. Sucks.

QFT. It's one of, if not THE biggest reason that I would really struggle to bring myself to buy another iPod. And I hate quicktime too.

tsiguy96
04-12-2010, 08:03 PM
Can I just take a moment to say how much iTunes sucks?

Seriously. Sucks.

alternative?

orange&blue87
04-12-2010, 08:07 PM
Any chance you can give reasons to why itunes and quicktime suck?

Killericon
04-12-2010, 08:15 PM
Any chance you can give reasons to why itunes and quicktime suck?

iTunes is slow, and it drains HUGE amounts of system resources. Almost every other media player runs smoother. iTunes crashes on me all the time. When I try to add files to my library, the program ****ing freezes for 10 minutes before working. When I press a media key to stop play, it takes about 5 seconds to respond. On any other media player it's instantaneous.

If I didn't have a ****ing iPod, man...As soon as I can, I'm getting something else, and leaving iTunes the **** behind me.

I have no problem with quicktime, but I use VLC for everything, so I don't use quicktime a lot.

baja
04-12-2010, 08:55 PM
Hey what happened the last two pages are written in Greek.

orange&blue87
04-13-2010, 04:50 AM
iTunes is slow, and it drains HUGE amounts of system resources. Almost every other media player runs smoother. iTunes crashes on me all the time. When I try to add files to my library, the program ****ing freezes for 10 minutes before working. When I press a media key to stop play, it takes about 5 seconds to respond. On any other media player it's instantaneous.

If I didn't have a ****ing iPod, man...As soon as I can, I'm getting something else, and leaving iTunes the **** behind me.

I have no problem with quicktime, but I use VLC for everything, so I don't use quicktime a lot.

So do you use itunes on windows? It's been ages since I have, so it could be a completely different program on that platform. There are things I would change in itunes for the mac, but its fairly decent from my experience.

Popps
04-13-2010, 09:21 AM
So do you use itunes on windows? It's been ages since I have, so it could be a completely different program on that platform. There are things I would change in itunes for the mac, but its fairly decent from my experience.

iTunes is fine for me, at least the Mac OS version. Haven't had any probs. I'd also change a few things, but it runs fine.

baja
04-13-2010, 09:25 AM
iTunes is fine for me, at least the Mac OS version. Haven't had any probs. I'd also change a few things, but it runs fine.

Sometimes i tunes is a little sluggish for me but it might be the 9,000 songs and books I have in my library

orange&blue87
04-13-2010, 09:29 AM
I'd like a better way to manage podcasts. But as far as music, movies, etc go, I have about 7 libraries instead of 1 big one. For my syncing, I have a library that doesn't auto manage (other than podcasts) and I can just link to the other sorted libraries for content. Seems to make things pretty zippy.

baja
04-13-2010, 09:33 AM
I'm gonna get this;

http://store.apple.com/us/cart

or this;

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC497LL/A?mco=MTcyMTgwOTU

soon

Killericon
04-13-2010, 08:30 PM
So do you use itunes on windows? It's been ages since I have, so it could be a completely different program on that platform. There are things I would change in itunes for the mac, but its fairly decent from my experience.

On windows it is the worst thing out there. I imagine it works great on macs.

For the record, I'm a PC user, but mostly because I play games. I also am a pretty high end user, and so have no problems fixing what little issues Windows throws at me. I see value in Macs, and have no problem with them, they're just not for me.

Popps
04-13-2010, 08:54 PM
On windows it is the worst thing out there. I imagine it works great on macs.

For the record, I'm a PC user, but mostly because I play games. I also am a pretty high end user, and so have no problems fixing what little issues Windows throws at me. I see value in Macs, and have no problem with them, they're just not for me.

And I present you with a reasonable human being, taking a reasonable approach to a simple product purchase. No sleep lost. No need to call people names. No insecurity about his choice. Just a simple product choice.

Popps
04-13-2010, 08:56 PM
Sometimes i tunes is a little sluggish for me but it might be the 9,000 songs and books I have in my library

It's not ideal, but it's pretty good. It does a lot. It lets you manage a lot. I can't think of any program that comes close with regards to integration, purchasing, podcasting, etc.

****, iTunes basically made the concept of net-casting mainstream.

It's got it's issues, but I've sure gotten a lot out of it, which is how I measure products.

bowtown
04-13-2010, 08:56 PM
And I present you with a reasonable human being, taking a reasonable approach to a simple product purchase. No sleep lost. No need to call people names. No insecurity about his choice. Just a simple product choice.

Up yours!

Killericon
04-13-2010, 09:07 PM
And I present you with a reasonable human being, taking a reasonable approach to a simple product purchase. No sleep lost. No need to call people names. No insecurity about his choice. Just a simple product choice.

Did I come across as reasonable? Let me fix that. ****ING MACS HAVE NO MOTHER****ING RIGHT CLICK WHAT THE **** APPLE SERIOUSLY, IT'S ONE OF THE MOST INTUITIVE THINGS EVER IMPLEMENTED ON A ****ING COMPUTER, AND YOU JUST HAVE TO NOT HAVE IT TO BE DIFFERENT AND TO FORCE PEOPLE TO USE YOUR MICE INSTEAD OF USING THIRD PARTY HARDWARE GODDAMN MOTHER****ERS!

Dagmar
04-14-2010, 04:50 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q9NP-AeKX40&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q9NP-AeKX40&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

orange&blue87
04-14-2010, 07:09 PM
Did I come across as reasonable? Let me fix that. ****ING MACS HAVE NO MOTHER****ING RIGHT CLICK WHAT THE **** APPLE SERIOUSLY, IT'S ONE OF THE MOST INTUITIVE THINGS EVER IMPLEMENTED ON A ****ING COMPUTER, AND YOU JUST HAVE TO NOT HAVE IT TO BE DIFFERENT AND TO FORCE PEOPLE TO USE YOUR MICE INSTEAD OF USING THIRD PARTY HARDWARE GODDAMN MOTHER****ERS!

Whew! That's much better!

Although I can completely respect the approach. If you are a windows user and very comfortable with it, that's great. I'll always kid around with friends that they should get a mac whenever their windows does something screwy, but macs aren't perfect either. I've just found that they work better for me. Both are mere tools to accomplish tasks, but if pen and paper help you do that easier then it would be best option.

atomicbloke
04-30-2010, 11:42 AM
The Microsoft Courier looks far more interesting & useful to me.

http://www.concept-phones.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Microsoft_Courier_Tablet_1.jpg

Dual screen, fold-able to protect the screens, touch AND stylus input (handwriting recognition), could even use it in landscape to function as a netbook with a touch screen keyboard on the bottom half with the upper half serving as a traditional laptop screen.

eReader, journal, day planner, media, gaming, netbook all in one.

iPad? Meh.

Yeah, I've been looking forward to that. Kicks the **** out of the iPad etc.

Er, what were you guys saying?

http://zunited.net/content.php?194-Goodnight-Sweet-Prince-%28Courier%29

I have to say, the Slate looks pretty good.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2hd5zfb.jpg

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20003790-1.html

Welcome to vaporware world.....

baja
04-30-2010, 11:54 AM
I'm going to buy my i pad with 3 G today so my posts are going to get alot smarter.

Popps
05-03-2010, 11:46 AM
Geesh. 1 million in a month.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36911690

hookemhess
06-15-2010, 09:02 PM
Geesh. 1 million in a month.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36911690

After having an iPad for a couple weeks, I must say its casual internet browsing capabilities are astounding. Websites look amazing.

Re: the iPhone 4. I tried to pre-order today & got this:

http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/corey-hess/gBId3IQv3hIBnIt46kCcd6jD5lh6ws3tAq1QPgQFxqg1r1dK36 N6A4khJrAx/att.jpg

http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/corey-hess/S4dki7qpfOCPqkANrljUTYJgIggGuwCF0lXFNVQa7XbZLAjTh6 p3QFh1tFZ4/apple_fail.jpg

At&t is by far my biggest complaint with the iPhone... and now this? ugh!~

Popps
06-15-2010, 09:05 PM
ATT ****ing sucks donkey ass.

I love my iphone, but as soon as it comes out on Verizon, I'm gone from ATT, even if I have to buy my way out of it.

I came from T-mobile, and they weren't much better. But, ATT is a joke.

Rumors abound that it's coming to verizon.


Finally tinkered around with an iPad. Seems pretty sweet. Not something I really need right this minute, but I think my wife is on the short-track to having one.

gyldenlove
06-15-2010, 09:20 PM
How much is an ipad anyway?

hookemhess
06-15-2010, 09:23 PM
How much is an ipad anyway?

$500 stock.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-15-2010, 09:55 PM
It took me virtually all day, but finally reserved my iphone4. It was useless to try it through IE, but eventually worked through Safari