An open community 
of Macintosh users,
for Macintosh users.

FineTunedMac Dashboard widget now available! Download Here

Page 3 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 >
Topic Options
#8086 - 01/31/10 09:20 AM Re: iPad [Re: Hal Itosis]
dkmarsh Offline
Moderator

Registered: 08/04/09
_________________________

dkmarsh • member, FineTunedMac Co-op Board of Directors

Top
#8087 - 01/31/10 09:54 AM Re: iPad [Re: dkmarsh]
crarko Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Minnesota USA
My actual concern about iPad is that it will finish the job of flushing AT&T's network down the head, by being too wildly successful too early like the iPhone was.

As Gruber indicates, the web will adapt if the market penetration of the platform forces it to do so. Who still has doubts about the market penetration of the platform?
_________________________
---

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. - Niels Bohr

Top
#8090 - 01/31/10 10:38 AM Re: iPad [Re: ryck]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: ryck
I'm unconvinced that's entirely the case with the iPad, particularly the part about reading books on it. I cannot imagine reading a novel or any other lengthy book on a screen.

I'll first reiterate Dave's point: that we (millions of us) already read text on a screen many hours a day. Most of what i've learned about Unix (for example) has come from on-screen documents.

Have you experimented with the dark theme here at FTM? Try this: select "ubbthreads-dark" from the popup menu at the bottom of the screen... and then bump up the text size significantly with command+      ...that's pretty easy on the eyes, no?

Also... some users with *extremely* poor vision (my mom has macula degeneration) have to use screen-based devices. She has this "reading machine" that zooms her materials (novels mostly) up on a screen, and she does about 6 hours a day like that. (it's her only source of entertainment, as her hearing device's processor does not allow her to understand "fast" speech... so TV has been out of the realm of possibility for some years now). Like the dark theme here, her machine can do white text on black background... as well as various other shades and color combinations.

Anyway, part of my interest in the iPad is to see if she will be able to read from it. I'll need to investigate what options it has [text size, etc.] not just in the iBook area, but also with email. We have tried the "zoom" feature offered by Mac OS, but the laborious scrolling required has proven to be too disorienting for her to use.

Top
#8092 - 01/31/10 12:11 PM Re: iPad [Re: dkmarsh]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

Thanks for that.

Pretty amazing, the iPad is practically 2 months away still... yet the level of buzz shows no sign of decline.*
*edit -- OTOH, this comment at Wired made me laugh:Oh look, another iPad article… Didn’t see that one coming.

I've been leafing through Gruber's website lately (not one of my usual haunts), and ran across this one:

> The Tablet < [a bit long as well as old (dec. 2009), but surprisingly insightful.]

--

And now, a little gasoline for the fire: "Google’s mantra is BS" and "Adobe is Lazy"
Wow... welcome back Steve! [hard to believe a year ago the pundits were writing him off the page.]



Edited by Hal Itosis (01/31/10 02:34 PM)
Edit Reason: Ha, no bad words allowed in links? -- just use bit.ly

Top
#8099 - 01/31/10 04:03 PM Re: iPad [Re: dkmarsh]
mneptok Offline


Registered: 08/12/09
Loc: Albuquerque, NM USA
The difference between the Firefox standards issue and Flash is that Firefox adoption happened across all platforms, and was not driven by a single niche market.

I'd imagine that if Firefox had never been offered for Windows, or if Windows users had not flocked to Firefox in droves, the "Requires IE" problem would still be much more a factor today.

Scoble also says

Quote:
But just a few years later and have you seen a site that doesn’t work on Firefox? I haven’t.


I have. The MLS site that every real estate agent uses. It's IE/Windows dependent, as it uses a nasty ActiveX control. If you're a real estate agent in the US, don't get rid of that Windows partition or VM just yet.

What drove the "Requires IE" issue was sheer numbers. When the German and French governments are recommending their citizens not use IE, it's a pretty good motivator.

The problem with Flash is that it's not just a few HTML tweaks to fix the issue. And, for most people, Flash "just works" on almost every browser on almost every platform.

I think it's going to take more than just Apple to fix this. Smartphone makers may be able to help. But the real impetus will be Microsoft. They have the majority of users. And their answer is almost certain to be, "Yeah, don't use Flash. Use Silverlight."

Top
#8101 - 01/31/10 05:00 PM Re: iPad [Re: dkmarsh]
ryck Online


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Okanagan Valley
Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

But the iTunes [Music] Store—the solution to "The market wants to get music from the internet legally and they want to do it simply"—wasn't launched until a full year and a half after the introduction of the iPod.


I wonder if the timing (iPod a year earlier than iTunes Music Store) wasn't just one of the kind of things that happen when you manage huge things - in that case two huge things. Usually, no matter how much you consult and plan, a huge project has a good chance of not being quite the same as the vision, not ending with quite the planned cost, and possibly finished on a different date than planned.

With the iPod and iTunes the perfect result would have been a simultaneous release and, for all we know, that's what Apple wanted. However, they had much more control over the deadlines for the iPod than they would have had for iTunes (negotiations with third parties for content) and so the latter was forced to later.

Meanwhile they had an iPod ready, and an expectant market, so were forced to "get it out there" knowing they'll take a lot of flak. That also is something that happens when managing - sometimes you have to make a decision that you know will make people question your sanity and, although you know there is a logical answer, you just can't say anything. Do you recall if Jobs looked like he might have been biting his lip back then?

However, I speculate....and I guess we won't know for sure until somebody writes the "Behind the Scenes at iPod" book. I wonder if it'll only be released on iPad.

Originally Posted By: dkmarsh
As for the reading experience, I think there's a distinction to be made between the iPad and devices such as the Kindle which use e-ink technology. Any "brilliant" display is likely to be hard on the eyes when reading for an extended period of time, but the Kindle and other dedicated e-readers don't employ such displays. Would you disqualify those as well?

Or are you saying the "form factor" of a flat-screen-display housed in a rigid body—however thin and light—doesn't comport with your sense of the novel-reading experience? I'm inclined to agree with you in specific regard to lengthy books.


It's more about the preference for holding a book than holding a rigid device with a screen and I'm not including the books (art, photography, et cetera) for which page size and paper stock are a part of the experience. Heck, I don't even want to look through my Don Martin Collection on anything other than the same layout as the original Mad. Sklorkle!! Thwak!! But, I digress.

If I take a paperback to the park I can fold a page corner and stick it in my pocket when I leave. And, I'm not going to worry too much if I forget it on a picnic table. If I'm reading on the deck and nod off, I'm not concerned that the paperback might slide off my lap.

I see Hal Itosis also wondered if I meant screen brightness and, although that's not the issue, he does make an excellent point about a market that wants and needs this kind of device just to be able to have the pleasure of reading.

ryck


Edited by ryck (01/31/10 05:11 PM)
_________________________
ryck

iMac (Retina 5K, 27", 2017), 3.4 GHz Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, 2400 MHz DDR4
OS High Sierra 10.13.6
Canon MX712 Printer
Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner
Time Machine on 320GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro
Super Duper on 500GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro

Top
#8103 - 01/31/10 06:26 PM Re: iPad [Re: ryck]
roger Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Vermont
I put it in context of remembering the first iPod, and that became the iPhone. so what will a future iteration of the iPad look like? v2 will have a camera. probably two, one facing forward and one on the screen side.
_________________________
MacBook 2.4 Ghz · 4 Gb ram · 10.7.5
stuff I'm interested in
iPhone 4s 7.0.2

Top
#8106 - 02/01/10 06:41 AM Re: iPad [Re: ryck]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: ryck
I wonder if the timing (iPod a year earlier than iTunes Music Store) wasn't just one of the kind of things that happen when you manage huge things - in that case two huge things. Usually, no matter how much you consult and plan, a huge project has a good chance of not being quite the same as the vision, not ending with quite the planned cost, and possibly finished on a different date than planned.

No. The iPod is a hardware device which mainly required manufacturing. Setting up the iTunes Store required tons of legal negotiations with dozens of record labels (and different nations with differing laws). At its release, the iPod was just a portable player for iTunes users (who had presumably ripped their existing CD collection onto their HDs).


Originally Posted By: ryck
With the iPod and iTunes the perfect result would have been a simultaneous release and, for all we know, that's what Apple wanted. However, they had much more control over the deadlines for the iPod than they would have had for iTunes (negotiations with third parties for content) and so the latter was forced to later.

No again. "iTunes" was an already-existing piece of software (SoundJam) which Apple simply grabbed up and changed the name. Sure, the iPod was probably a glimmer in Steve's eye at the time... but, there was no need for some simultaneous release of both iTunes and the iPod. In fact, many threads i've seen echo the sentiment that "too much too soon" is often a formula for failure. [else, maybe i'd be typing this message on a NeXT workstation.]




Edited by Hal Itosis (02/01/10 06:50 AM)

Top
#8123 - 02/02/10 02:24 PM Re: iPad [Re: roger]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)

Pee-wee Gets An iPad!

[that flash viddy looks/sounds a little choppy on my aged g4, hope it plays smoother on intel]

Top
#8124 - 02/02/10 02:49 PM Re: iPad [Re: Hal Itosis]
jchuzi Online


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: New York State
It plays really smoothly on my Intel.
_________________________
Jon

OS 10.14.2, iMac Retina 5K 27-inch, late 2014, 3.5 GHz Intel Core i5, 1 TB fusion drive, 16 GB RAM, Epson SureColor P600, Photoshop CC, Lightroom CC, MS Office 365

Top
#8129 - 02/02/10 04:18 PM Re: iPad [Re: roger]
roger Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Vermont
Originally Posted By: roger
I put it in context of remembering the first iPod, and that became the iPhone. so what will a future iteration of the iPad look like? v2 will have a camera. probably two, one facing forward and one on the screen side.


see, I told you!

cool
_________________________
MacBook 2.4 Ghz · 4 Gb ram · 10.7.5
stuff I'm interested in
iPhone 4s 7.0.2

Top
#8142 - 02/02/10 09:27 PM Re: iPad [Re: Hal Itosis]
mneptok Offline


Registered: 08/12/09
Loc: Albuquerque, NM USA
Quote:
[that flash viddy looks/sounds a little choppy on my aged g4, hope it plays smoother on intel]


mumble ... mumble ... irony ... mumble ...

Top
#8153 - 02/03/10 11:06 AM Re: iPad [Re: mneptok]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: mneptok
Quote:
[that flash viddy looks/sounds a little choppy on my aged g4, hope it plays smoother on intel]

mumble ... mumble ... irony ... mumble ...

Amazing. shocked I just viewed that viddy on my (2008) iPod touch... and it played PERFECTLY!!! (it goes from Safari into some sort of background QuickTime player). I tried again with my (2004) PowerBook G4 and it's still a little choppy... the picture part anyway, the audio seems fine. Admittedly, i'm using ClickToFlash (on the PowerBook) to load that vid, and interestingly enough, it only offers Flash. [i.e., CTF doesn't see the QuickTime version that my iPod is managing to pull down.]

Anyway, please take your irony back... it appears i won't be needing it. wink

Top
#8162 - 02/03/10 04:56 PM Re: iPad [Re: Hal Itosis]
artie505 Online


Registered: 08/04/09
No problem viewing it on my Early 2009 White MacBook/2.0GHz Core 2 Duo/4Gb RAM/OS X 10.5.7 (Build 9J61) with ClickToFlash installed.
_________________________
The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

Top
#8165 - 02/03/10 07:46 PM Re: iPad [Re: artie505]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
10.5.7 confused [try running software update grin ]

Top
#8170 - 02/04/10 12:43 AM Re: iPad [Re: Hal Itosis]
artie505 Online


Registered: 08/04/09
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
10.5.7 confused [try running software update grin ]

It brings Safari 4 and NO SnapBack; thanks, but I'll still pass.
_________________________
The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

Top
#8178 - 02/04/10 10:08 AM Re: iPad [Re: artie505]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: artie505
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
10.5.7 confused [try running software update grin ]

It brings Safari 4 and NO SnapBack; thanks, but I'll still pass.
 

I'll see your Safari 4.0.4 -- and raise you one Security Update (2010-001). [plus any future security update, which will also require 10.5.8 (or higher).]

And speaking of security, let's tie this back to the iPad (or its operating system anyway):
[Snapback, really? The functionality still exists in v.4 (as explained in another thread), but... it's not something needed very often. Anyway, it's still there artie... in fact, better because we can choose the best level to snap back to on the fly (i.e., without needing to "plan" ahead).]


Edited by Hal Itosis (02/04/10 10:21 AM)

Top
#8197 - 02/05/10 01:32 PM Re: iPad [Re: Hal Itosis]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)

Top
#8208 - 02/06/10 02:37 AM Re: iPad [Re: Hal Itosis]
artie505 Online


Registered: 08/04/09
> I'll see your Safari 4.0.4 -- and raise you one Security Update (2010-001). [plus any future security update, which will also require 10.5.8 (or higher).]

Sounds like you're playing in a higher stakes game than the one I'm in...

First, I haven't noticed a whole lot of posters who are still running Tiger and earlier versions of OS X, let alone 10.5.7, falling victim to the vulnerabilities patched by the Security Updates they've failed to install.

And second, I do not visit untrustworthy websites; my Safaris do not take me into the lawless areas of the web, so I do not consider myself sufficiently at risk to need to downgrade my computing experience in order to upgrade my security.

> [Snapback, really? The functionality still exists in v.4 (as explained in another thread), but... it's not something needed very often. Anyway, it's still there artie... in fact, better because we can choose the best level to snap back to on the fly (i.e., without needing to "plan" ahead).]

I assume you mean here?

I'm afraid you're universalizing your computing habits, Hal...

Maybe you don't need SnapBack very often, but I need and use it a lot...it's something I'll not live without before it becomes overwhelmingly necessary that I do so.

And as for "better," I suppose Apple has imposed on the world what IT, in its imperial wisdom, thinks is better, but I hadn't realized that hubris is an ITD (Internet Transmitted Disease) that you've caught.

> And speaking of security [....]

I'm not certain of the significance of your links, but I have neither iPhone nor any use for or intention of getting an iPad.
_________________________
The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

Top
#8212 - 02/06/10 07:05 AM Re: iPad [Re: artie505]
dkmarsh Offline
Moderator

Registered: 08/04/09

Quote:
...I haven't noticed a whole lot of posters who are still running Tiger and earlier versions of OS X, let alone 10.5.7, falling victim to the vulnerabilities patched by the Security Updates they've failed to install.

How many posters running any version of OS X have you noticed falling victim to the vulnerabilities patched by Security Updates they've failed to install?

Quote:
I do not visit untrustworthy websites...

How would you know in advance to avoid, say, a "trustworthy" site which had been compromised?

Quote:
...I suppose Apple has imposed on the world what IT, in its imperial wisdom, thinks is better...

But Safari itself is an Apple product, which you seem happy to use as long as its feaure set is to your liking.

Since anecdotal evidence suggests that the vast majority of Safari users are untroubled by the loss of SnapBack—if, indeed, they ever used it or even knew it existed—equating the ongoing evolution of the product with corporate arrogance because your preference is no longer being served seems a tad arrogant in its own right.

Quote:
I'm not certain of the significance of your links, but I have neither iPhone nor any use for or intention of getting an iPad.

Well, Hal did say "And speaking of security, let's tie this back to the iPad," and the title of the thread is iPad.

The fact that Hal's post was made in reply to you doesn't mean that all of it was aimed at you. (Some might say that to believe so is, well, hubristic!)

Long-time MFIF/FTM members understand that you prefer to make separate replies to each individual poster to whom you're responding, but I think a majority of posters are inclined to address points touched on by multiple posters in a single reply, and I think Hal was simply attempting to return the thread to its original topic, on behalf of the nine other participants.
_________________________

dkmarsh • member, FineTunedMac Co-op Board of Directors

Top
#8224 - 02/06/10 09:56 AM Re: iPad [Re: artie505]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: artie505
Sounds like you're playing in a higher stakes game than the one I'm in...

First, I haven't noticed a whole lot of posters who are still running Tiger and earlier versions of OS X, let alone 10.5.7, falling victim to the vulnerabilities patched by the Security Updates they've failed to install.

And second, I do not visit untrustworthy websites; my Safaris do not take me into the lawless areas of the web, so I do not consider myself sufficiently at risk to need to downgrade my computing experience in order to upgrade my security.

All perfectly good rationalizations (except for implying i visit lawless websites), but you're taking it too personally. I'm just trying to encourage all readers (you and others) to adopt the healthy practice of keeping current with OS versions and security updates.


Originally Posted By: artie505
I assume you mean here?

I'm afraid you're universalizing your computing habits, Hal...

Maybe you don't need SnapBack very often, but I need and use it a lot...it's something I'll not live without before it becomes overwhelmingly necessary that I do so.

I use the drop down menu (off the back-arrow key) to "snapback" several times a day. Have you even tried the menu method yet? [it's hard to tell, but it doesn't sound as if you have. The difference is so minuscule that there's no way you would get this worked up about it.] EDIT: either way, your pronouncement that Safari 4 has "NO" snapback is simply inaccurate. It has a slightly different snapback feature, that's all.


Originally Posted By: artie505
I'm not certain of the significance of your links, but I have neither iPhone nor any use for or intention of getting an iPad.

Besides being blissfully unaware of which thread you've posted in, you are missing out on some fun technology. [i don't have an iPhone, but my iPod does have Wi-Fi... so i can browse and get info from the web when i'm out and about (if a network is available). It's nice (not to mention having over 5000 of my favorite songs in my pocket). And that "Star Walk" app i posted on page one is just amazing, when gazing up at the night sky and wondering what the heck i'm looking at.]

idunno, that iPad looks awfully tempting.


Edited by Hal Itosis (02/06/10 10:15 AM)

Top
#8228 - 02/06/10 11:11 AM Re: iPad [Re: Hal Itosis]
dkmarsh Offline
Moderator

Registered: 08/04/09

Quote:
...that iPad looks awfully tempting.

It's a dud. Sales are down already. grin
_________________________

dkmarsh • member, FineTunedMac Co-op Board of Directors

Top
#8230 - 02/06/10 01:15 PM Re: iPad [Re: dkmarsh]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
I pretty much expect there will be a Super Bowl ad (a la "1984").

Top
#8236 - 02/06/10 07:38 PM Re: iPad [Re: dkmarsh]
macnerd10 Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
I've read that a Chinese company is pretty angry with Apple because they may have "stolen their idea". Interestingly, their product, although without a multisensor screen has a camera!
_________________________
Alex
3.1 GHz 13" MacBook Pro 2015, 8 GB RAM, OS 10.11.2, Office 2011, TimeWarner Cable
2.8 GHz Xeon Mac Pro 2010, 16 GB RAM, OS 10.11.2, Office 2011, LAN

Top
#8242 - 02/07/10 03:32 AM Re: iPad [Re: dkmarsh]
artie505 Online


Registered: 08/04/09
> How many posters running any version of OS X have you noticed falling victim to the vulnerabilities patched by Security Updates they've failed to install?

(That sounds like you're supporting my position!)

I can't begin to answer that question; I've seen some, but not many, posts by individuals who've been victimized by something or other, but I have no idea whether those something or others could have been avoided by the posters' having installed one Security Update or another. (The older the OS, though, the more telling the lack of victims.)

> How would you know in advance to avoid, say, a "trustworthy" site which had been compromised?

I wouldn't, obviously, but my browsing habits leave me with a generally warm and fuzzy feeling and, thus, a willingness to gamble.

> Since anecdotal evidence suggests that the vast majority of Safari users are untroubled by the loss of SnapBack—if, indeed, they ever used it or even knew it existed—equating the ongoing evolution of the product with corporate arrogance because your preference is no longer being served seems a tad arrogant in its own right.

The fact that so few people seem to be aware of SnapBack suggests to me that I might be part of a crowd, rather than a lone voice, had Apple publicized it better.

(I wonder how many of the hundreds of new features in each new OS X release come and go without ever being noticed by anybody? Somebody recently posted that se tries out each new feature at least once [Wow! What an endeavor!]; I wonder how many others do the same?)

The thing that rankles me is that so many apps, Apple and 3rd party, add eye-candy bells and whistles, even as they discard functionality, with each new release, and I concede that my frustration with that approach to innovation has put me in the position of an extremist.

> I think Hal was simply attempting to return the thread to its original topic, on behalf of the nine other participants.

You're a Mod, I suspect that you've got sufficient influence to have any branch of any thread relocated to its own thread on behalf of all FTM members and visitors if you think it appropriate, and I suggest that this is one such branch; many FTM posters are running behind-the-times versions of OS X and may find this discussion interesting if not invaluable.
_________________________
The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

Top
Page 3 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 >

Moderator:  alternaut, cyn