Jump to content
SAU Community

Can we consider the new iPad a computer?  

33 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I say no, technically its a computer but you can only do one thing at a time. Even Steve Jobs says its somewhere between a smartphone and netbook so not really a computer. Its just a giant Ipod touch and watch it will sell like hotcakes.

It processed information/actions/requests etc.

Just because it does one task at a time or whatever doesn't mean a lot.

Look back to 15 years ago what your normal desktop would do - one thing at a time :P

Won't be long before the ipad will run more than once process at a time

Its a bigger iTouch.

Its not a computer if it can't perform the minimum behaviour of a usual desktop (ie. office, hardware and external hardware management, software installation etc).

I've been reading on it very closely but the deal breaker is :

- it still operates on an itune like environment where you have to download everything from itune stores

- its a mobile OS so everything is "low powered"

- no conferencing (camera)

- no infra-red

- only 720p video, MPEG-4 video is only up to 2.5 Mbps

- 10 hours is not bad, but no eco-saving mode to make it last a bit longer, most flights out of Australia to the other side of the world is longer than 10 hours

- at $500 USD (minimum as there are extras that you will probably need) it is pretty much a bigger and glorified iTouch for only 16GB

- no flash card reader (support for DSLRs?)

I'll look forward to the other makers (namely Acer) to bring out the Windows 7 counterpart, better battery, screen and features.

Its not a computer if it can't perform the minimum behaviour of a usual desktop (ie. office, hardware and external hardware management, software installation etc).
Look back to 15 years ago what your normal desktop would do - one thing at a time

That was the year of Windows 95 and NT 3.5 which was developed even earlier. Then there was Redhat, all thrived in a multi-tasking environment.

where's the "i consider it to be a waste of money but will be massively popular because apple fans will buy ANYTHING new apple brings out because they are nerds and would would buy a steaming pile of dogshit if apple released it"

Would you consider the Xbox 360 or the PS3 a computer? They run much the same hardware as computers...

I have to admit, I'm not really a fan of this either. The iPhone/iPad etc is a great step towards the future, but it's bound by the constraints and the money hungry hearts of the Apple corporation. They could be great little devices if they were just set free!

agreed, you can't classify it a computer because you're not free to install whatever you want on it, can't download things onto it and most importantly can't upgrade it.

Even netbooks these days can have hard drives etc upgraded. Definitely the market filler between the iphone and a netbook, which I never thought existed, as the netbook fills the void between a phone and a laptop.

The iPad is the BMW X3 of the tech world... its made by a trendy company, but it serves no specific purpose, just does everything half arsedly (from a car buff point of view). The problem is that even though anyone who's tech savvy will find it restricting, pleb users will love it to bits, cos they won't know any better. It'll do "internets" well, so as long as it facebooks, emails, browses websites, its fine. It's mainstream and makes a great accessory/status symbol. Just like the soccer mums that buy X3's and think its the bees knees.

bahahahahaha, love it.

does anyone think that the ipad is just the prototype iphone that they made before they shrank the technology down to the size of a phone? they probably had it sitting in some box somewhere and some work experience kid found it and jizzed his pants over it so they put it into production.

gotta love apple, finding (read creating) gaps in the market that didn't exist and then making products to fill them. i suppose you gotta give them credit for that. they found an extremely gullible demographic and have grabbed it with both hands and are pumping products out to sell to them as fast as they can.

I still can't believe that teh Ipod is the runaway success of the mp3 player market tbqh, shows how many gullible hipsters there are in the world. Same goes for the "revolutionary" Iphone that needs to be hacked to have any real useability over any other smart phone.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...