There were smart phones before the iPhone, doesn't mean it wasn't revolutionary. Also, I see stylus. Stylus = BAD. NOT GOOD, BAD. FINGER = GOOD, STYLUS = BAD, MMKAY? Not to mention that the iPad actually has 3G cellular, something not many people seem to get. You need wifi for the courier. Not for the iPad. Also, it uses unlimited data cellular data plans, not limited data laptop plans. How many applications can you get for the courier? How many can you get for the iPad, noting all iPod Touch apps are iPad compatible.
So, you try to prove yourself right with a opinion and avoiding my statements. . . And most Itouch apps are just useless little entertainment devices, and please research before you talk (Also known as your never talking again) And hell you cant even make calls on the Ipad celluar plan is useless only good for internet.
Oversized ipod touch, underpowered netbook/tablet...wtf, I can't find anything right about it other then the logo it bears...but thats slowly becoming worthless. I'm a pc, and minecraft still runs decently on my aging computer :biggrin.gif:
Its just typical Apple Fashionfaggotry. I'd buy a tablet pc instead, as they are about the same price and have way more abilities. Can you run a game of Jazz Jackrabbit 1 on your iPad? I don't think so buddy. But tablet pc's, however, sure can.
Widescreen: Turn it sideways, genius...
Saying the iPad doesn't have E-Ink is like saying the Kindle doesn't have a screen.
It will (Likely) Have a cam after iphone os 4 comes out, same with multitasking.
But seriously, I agree it should have run OSX, but stop trying to cram something out of the box into existing boxes. It's like the laser in 1968, a solution looking for a problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
At the end of the day it's the chair I trust
The cushion is comfy and the works don't rust
With a straight line of vision to my Elvis bust
Watch the kingdom, eat the bread crust
Widescreen: Turn it sideways, genius...
Saying the iPad doesn't have E-Ink is like saying the Kindle doesn't have a screen.
It will (Likely) Have a cam after iphone os 4 comes out, same with multitasking.
But seriously, I agree it should have run OSX, but stop trying to cram something out of the box into existing boxes. It's like the laser in 1968, a solution looking for a problem.
How can it be out of the box when it's a big iPod touch? It is revolutionary in exactly zero ways. They don't even have the decency to copy someone else, they're just repeating stuff they've already done!
The thing about E-Book readers and their screens is that they were made specifically for displaying books and text. They're much easier on the eyes, and there's no glare. It's something you can stare at for hours and hours without straining. It's crap for displaying other things, but that's not what it's for.
The iPad's screen, however, is not made for reading off of. It's made for displaying all sorts of media be it a webpage, picture, or video. It is glossy, and it's much harsher on the eyes than an E-Book screen. It wasn't made for displaying E-Books, but that's not stopping Apple from trying.
You have to respect that the two types of screens were made for different purposes and that trying to make one do the other is sub-optimal. E-Ink will always provide a more pleasant E-Book reading experience than the iPad, but the iPad can do all sorts of multimedia. That's why it isn't incorrect to say that the iPad won't replace E-Book readers despite having similar capabilities. E-Books have the purpose-built E-Ink that makes them superior.
Widescreen: Turn it sideways, genius...
Saying the iPad doesn't have E-Ink is like saying the Kindle doesn't have a screen.
It will (Likely) Have a cam after iphone os 4 comes out, same with multitasking.
But seriously, I agree it should have run OSX, but stop trying to cram something out of the box into existing boxes. It's like the laser in 1968, a solution looking for a problem.
How can it be out of the box when it's a big iPod touch? It is revolutionary in exactly zero ways. They don't even have the decency to copy someone else, they're just repeating stuff they've already done!
The thing about E-Book readers and their screens is that they were made specifically for displaying books and text. They're much easier on the eyes, and there's no glare. It's something you can stare at for hours and hours without straining. It's crap for displaying other things, but that's not what it's for.
The iPad's screen, however, is not made for reading off of. It's made for displaying all sorts of media be it a webpage, picture, or video. It is glossy, and it's much harsher on the eyes than an E-Book screen. It wasn't made for displaying E-Books, but that's not stopping Apple from trying.
You have to respect that the two types of screens were made for different purposes and that trying to make one do the other is sub-optimal. E-Ink will always provide a more pleasant E-Book reading experience than the iPad, but the iPad can do all sorts of multimedia. That's why it isn't incorrect to say that the iPad won't replace E-Book readers despite having similar capabilities. E-Books have the purpose-built E-Ink that makes them superior.
Ok, so E-Ink is the future in E-Book readers. The top current ebook reader (Kindle)'s VERY top end model costs 10 bucks less then the lowest end iPad. But the iPad has 16 GB storage, compared to 4. E-Ink may be revolutionary, but clunky buttons are not. E-Ink is revolutionary until you want color. E-Ink is perfect for reading unless you happen to be in a dark place without having backlighting. And as for copying something they've already done, the second car was really similar to the first, and thousands of cars later it's completly different, one small change at a time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
At the end of the day it's the chair I trust
The cushion is comfy and the works don't rust
With a straight line of vision to my Elvis bust
Watch the kingdom, eat the bread crust
Actually, a survey before the iPad was released showed that most people's max price point was 700~800. So a 500 base model is insane.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
At the end of the day it's the chair I trust
The cushion is comfy and the works don't rust
With a straight line of vision to my Elvis bust
Watch the kingdom, eat the bread crust
So, you try to prove yourself right with a opinion and avoiding my statements. . . And most Itouch apps are just useless little entertainment devices, and please research before you talk (Also known as your never talking again) And hell you cant even make calls on the Ipad celluar plan is useless only good for internet.
Win.
Raise my dragons please!!
edit:
The stone has a touch screen, but you have to use a stylus and press really hard.
Widescreen: Turn it sideways, genius...
Saying the iPad doesn't have E-Ink is like saying the Kindle doesn't have a screen.
It will (Likely) Have a cam after iphone os 4 comes out, same with multitasking.
But seriously, I agree it should have run OSX, but stop trying to cram something out of the box into existing boxes. It's like the laser in 1968, a solution looking for a problem.
The cushion is comfy and the works don't rust
With a straight line of vision to my Elvis bust
Watch the kingdom, eat the bread crust
How can it be out of the box when it's a big iPod touch? It is revolutionary in exactly zero ways. They don't even have the decency to copy someone else, they're just repeating stuff they've already done!
The thing about E-Book readers and their screens is that they were made specifically for displaying books and text. They're much easier on the eyes, and there's no glare. It's something you can stare at for hours and hours without straining. It's crap for displaying other things, but that's not what it's for.
The iPad's screen, however, is not made for reading off of. It's made for displaying all sorts of media be it a webpage, picture, or video. It is glossy, and it's much harsher on the eyes than an E-Book screen. It wasn't made for displaying E-Books, but that's not stopping Apple from trying.
You have to respect that the two types of screens were made for different purposes and that trying to make one do the other is sub-optimal. E-Ink will always provide a more pleasant E-Book reading experience than the iPad, but the iPad can do all sorts of multimedia. That's why it isn't incorrect to say that the iPad won't replace E-Book readers despite having similar capabilities. E-Books have the purpose-built E-Ink that makes them superior.
In all seriousness, though:
Ok, so E-Ink is the future in E-Book readers. The top current ebook reader (Kindle)'s VERY top end model costs 10 bucks less then the lowest end iPad. But the iPad has 16 GB storage, compared to 4. E-Ink may be revolutionary, but clunky buttons are not. E-Ink is revolutionary until you want color. E-Ink is perfect for reading unless you happen to be in a dark place without having backlighting. And as for copying something they've already done, the second car was really similar to the first, and thousands of cars later it's completly different, one small change at a time.
The cushion is comfy and the works don't rust
With a straight line of vision to my Elvis bust
Watch the kingdom, eat the bread crust
The cushion is comfy and the works don't rust
With a straight line of vision to my Elvis bust
Watch the kingdom, eat the bread crust
I'm sure Sony had the same ideas with the PS3.
"800, eh? We just have to be under that!"