You guys really can talk a lot about the same topic. Just going in circles again and again and again.
Let's put it simple. I rarely, very rarely, saw anyone on this board change their mind about anything, so I think you lot are losing your time.
Printable View
You guys really can talk a lot about the same topic. Just going in circles again and again and again.
Let's put it simple. I rarely, very rarely, saw anyone on this board change their mind about anything, so I think you lot are losing your time.
There is a very large chunk of the market that doesn't agree with the statement about the extra money. And the market speaks volumes about the reality of the business world.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden
I switched jobs recently, and they provided me with a laptop. I would have gladly paid the price difference for an iPad, and may just purchase one out of pocket for work. I know quite a few people doing the same, and we all have good and capable phones. Can I type as fast on an iPad as I can on a laptop or desktop PC? No... certainly not. But for the average work related email or anything I'd consider doing on a laptop 99% of the time I could have it done quicker on the iPad. Push a button and go to the task at hand. No boot time, no recharges mid day, and much more portable.
Everyone has options, and if you like a laptop stick with a laptop. I'm sure it won't bother anyone here, and it certainly won't bother anyone at Apple.
Each device has different uses:
Smartphone: Out and about
Tablet: Sat on the sofa
Laptop: Sat at the kitchen table
Desktop: At work
Indeed not even Apple will try and tell you an iPad is good for everything, they want you to buy an iPhone, MacBook Pro and iMac too ;)
You can buy a bluetooth keyboard - full-size or miniature - for any table which supports USB, and get the best of both worlds. I have to say I played with an iPad the other day and was massively underwhelmed. I understand now why they say "sequence shortened" in the adverts: it's certainly not the slick UI I'd been expecting. My 18 month old phone was more responsive. Plus I still believe that once you get to that screen size it's inexcusable not to have a 16:9 widescreen ratio, otherwise about a third of the screen is wasted when viewing media content unless you zoom or distort the picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Not slow, just not quite as responsive as I'd been lead to believe it would be. It's still a damn impressive bit of kit, but it didn't wow me in the way I'd expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
:p indeed! When you watch widescreen media (ie almost everything produced in the last 6 years, and pretty much every film ever) on an iPad or similar you've got 3 choices: (a) put up with letterboxing, the black lines at the top and bottom which effectively waste nearly a third of the screen's capability; (b) crop the sides of the picture and lose about a quarter of the view; or (c) distort the ratio of the picture. None of these solutions is ideal, and to me personally it seems strange for Apple to produce a 4:3 device but make such a big deal about its media capabilities.Quote:
I've watched quite a few films on it so far with no issues concerning HD quality or screen size affecting my viewing, but again I can't see the positives for Sky having better sound than the BBC on another topic.. :p
Daniel is watching :wave:
But not posting because he finds borlocks infuriating :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Borlocks here only not in F1 or WRC :p :
They do? :cornfused:Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden
Ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark