Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Jun 18, 2017.
F you all. You copied my stone tablet! Wheres my royalties?
I... think both are awesome. On one hand, iPad Pro 10.5 is pretty cool, with its pro-motion variable refresh rate 120Hz screen. Cost is nuts for the new iPad Pro, but paying lots for Apple tax and bleeding edge tablet tech are a given.
On the other hand, the surface pro is a real windows 10 PC and I can pretty much install anything on it. (apart from graphically demanding games ofc.) I don't think it's a good comparison at all. The iPad and all iOS devices are limited to apps from the app store. (any iOS user that's also a Win 10 PC user will surely know the difference in types of apps available for each.)
It's worse then that:
I have an iPad Pro (the smaller one). After spending some time with it, it actually seems to me like a copy of the iPad sold by Apple. Like crazy copy. Probably gonna get sued.
Is Apple going to sue itself???
Would make for a great movie... "Apple Rogue Faction: The Bad Apples Within" XD
That would be topical if I hadn't been using a hand size tablet PC running Windows 95 with a pen back in 1997...
Both companies have been evolving the concept, but honestly, Microsoft has been working the longest at it and the one constantly trying to upgrade options according to customer feedback.
Make no mistake MS certainly see's potential in technology and does a good job taking first stab at it, they just try way too early. I still remember the first time I used Windows Mobile, I immediately thought "this is horrible, I hate this, I never want to use this again" and each version thereafter was of little improvement. It put such a bad taste in my mouth I just flat out ignored anything miniature with a Windows tag on it. This is bad for business. If you're gonna be first to market with something it better damn well be at least decent. Apple did a good job not jumping the gun and listening to feedback to figure out what kind of interface users would want.
My first "Windows Mobile" experience was full fledged Windows 95 with a stylus on a small hand held computer in 1997. I could pretty much run everything on it. The stylus worked well, although back then there weren't many integrated stylus controls for base Win95. It was primarily used like a mouse and then you could write in WordPad with it, that was more or less it. But it still functioned like a full computer otherwise. So I don't think it is necessarily just the first stab or the their integration, it is the fact that the market was not yet ready for it. But without them putting that product out there, it would have been far longer before anything came out, or perhaps never at all. Apple was famous for saying "this or that thing is never going to catch on" or "we are never going to do that, its stupid" and then later eating their words, just like the Surface situation here.
And it can be turned off.
And my s7 does the same thing.
This exec's comment is stupid - but the surface is my dream tablet. And I'm posting from an iPad right now. The horror.
This brand dick wagging and stream crossing needs to fucking end. It makes the entire tech community look - and act - like a pack of unwashed baboons throwing feces around over literally nothing.
Buzz. Sorry, that's not the issue. It happens within hours of my previous use. Sometimes it's overnight, but often it's in the middle of the day and it's rare that I go 12 hours without using the device.
Was the Newton significantly larger than I recall? If not, then I'd call it an early PDA, not a tablet.
Are you actually saying you go months without patching? If not, then you were unaffected because the bug was patched (or lucky), because AFAICT, the attack has nothing to do with opening a file.
As for your safe Mac, nobody bothers attacking them because successfully attacking 1% of Windows users is a greater success than 100% of Macs. I suspect iPads/phones are somewhat safer because they're walled gardens, but I wouldn't be shocked if the NSA has zero day exploits for them.
Unless the last time you patched was prior to 3/14, you weren't vulnerable to the attack. That's the entire point. Wannacry mostly compromised Windows 7 machines, even though the exploit was patched 2 months earlier.
I do not go months without patching, I choose when to patch my PC like an adult rather than being denied the option completely. If someone chooses to ignore updates completely then power to them. I do certainly do it on some VM's, mining rigs etc.
My point was that due to the walled garden, it was never an issue for iPads in the first place which is one massive advantage of the platform. Don't say MS aren't trying to do it either because they are slowly heading in that direction with verified executables and Windows Store and make no mistake, they would love nothing better than to go down Apples route.
It is not just about OSX's smaller market share, OSX is simply more secure without utilising any external protection, it is inherent in the Unix design it is based off. Not to mention Apple have designed the OS so it doesn't nag the crap out of you when you do need to allow security exceptions.
No one will ever accuse me of being an Apple fanboi with a straight face, and even I think this is stupid.
The Surface and iPad Pro are both such evolutionary technologies, that its as idiotic as Toyota claiming that Honda is copying their Camry with their Accord, when both are just a clear case of convergent technologies to fill a specific niche, and they both very closely watch the competitor and modify their next generations accordingly.
But Steve Jobs knew how to run a cult.
Completely agree. However, the sad truth is there's a pack of unwashed baboon consumers that buy into this stupidity as well. That group that never asks themselves, "why not both?" and chooses to partake in rampant fanboism, as if they're rooting for their favorite sports team, etc. Really dumb because competition is what drives progress and it's good one opposing sides win, causing the losing side to improve, regroup, etc.
This is what I'm talking about. Ready for it? Are there any mobile OS's today that look and function anything like Windows 95? The simple truth is a desktop interface on a mobile device is terrible. It's not that the market wasnt ready for it, it was simply a terrible way to use a small handheld device. Start menus, postage stamp sized screen, stylus, resistive touch screen, menu bars, close/minimize/maximize buttons, terrible performance. The whole thing just sucked and was terribly inefficient to use, hence the reason why it died and everything uses huge touchscreen buttons now. When the first iphone was released it really demonstrated how you could achieve complex interactions with nothing but your thumb and actually have a rewarding experience with a mobile OS. I'm not sure Apple owe's that to Microsoft, nor am I sure Microsoft would have got there on their own.
Windows was a desktop OS and Microsoft could not come up with a single way to simplify this for a mobile device, they literally just shrunk the desktop real estate of windows and slapped it on lousy hardware that was laggy and unresponsive and said "here ya go!". Apple knew this would never fly and made sure that any software designed for a handheld device was actually designed for it, rather than "making it work" like Microsoft's approach. They also knew basic user experience and polish was very important and having shitty graphics and UI elements would turn users off to the experience. That a mobile OS would require an entire theme built around it through the use of shiny icons with rounded corners and stuff like that. It's important and it explains Apple's success coming to market with this.
This is where you missed my point entirely. In 1997, my little handheld device with a pen running Win95 worked almost flawlessly. I had a full desktop OS, I could install full desktop applications, and we wrote software specifically to work for that system as well. I had no issues with it. It might not have many of the advances and conveniences we have today, but to say the interface was terrible is disingenuous. It was no worse than any other interface at that time, and Win95 was a vast improvement from previous iterations.
The first iPhone was not as good as either my Blackberry or PocketPC at the time. It was stylish, and it had a cool interface, but that was about it. I could do vastly more on both my Blackberry and PocketPC than I could on an iPhone. I actually had full production software and enterprise applications running on my PocketPC and Blackberry, while the first iPhone couldn't run really any productivity software or integrate with any enterprise systems.
I disagree, I had a lot of success with PocketPC on both phones and PDAs. The first iPhone's were not nearly as good as the Blackberry's and PocketPCs of the day. Apple's success was mainly marketing and design. That was always Job's strong point.
I've used all the devices you have used and all I can say is to each their own. I'll certainly give credit to BB for recognizing the faults in mobile OS's and doing something about it. Their solution was appropriate at the time. I still stand firmly behind the statement that WinMo performed poorly on any mobile device. Maybe you just didnt care or something but I find it hard to believe you didnt observe any performance related issues. Plus the whole experience left something to be desired, as there was rarely any value to using Winmo when you could probably just tote a laptop along to do the same thing better, an argument you cant necessarily make today.
The Gen1 iphone might not have been useful due to a shortage of productivity apps, but the moment I saw the first screenshot of the desktop I knew this thing was gonna kill, and I dont watch Apple expo's or listen to Steve keynotes or anything at all. I literally saw a single shot of the iphone desktop and was like "ahhh, thats what we've been missing".
WinMo, even though it was a later iteration, is still different than the PocketPC environment. PocketPC was not perfect, but offered far more power and versatility than iPhone. It was able to run many full fledged products on it. Also a lot of software for the later WinMO was very poorly ported applications from PocketPC environment.
There are performance related issues on all phones. There were lots of performance related issues on the original iPhone. Applications that we used at the time ran well on both Blackberry and PocketPC, but could not be run on iPhone, and it took years for iPhone to catch up. As far as whether something could be done better with a laptop is basically silly. A laptop can still do things far better than any phone. The fact was we needed something that could do the productivity that fit in the palm of our hands.
I don't know why the instant you saw the desktop you thought it was going to kill, the only advantage it really had was how it looked. Other than that the iPhone desktop provided less than what I could get on the PocketPC.