Best advice for those wanting iPad
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Savageduck on 18 Apr 2010 21:20 On 2010-04-18 18:03:48 -0700, sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> said: > On 19 apr, 01:06, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On 18 apr, 22:47, nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> In article >>>> <77e58fae-b9b7-4c74-8ef9-f46f6188c...(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, >> >>>> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-10467752-233.html >> >>>>> Multitasking is about as basic as functionality gets on a computer. >> >>>> it's a phone, not a computer, and it has multitasked since day one. it >>>> can play music, check email, make and receive calls and quite a bit >>>> more, all at the same time. >> >>>> what's coming to iphone os 4 is the ability for third party apps to ru > n >>>> in the background, which a lot of people mistakenly call multitasking, >>>> and it will do so in a way that doesn't murder battery life. >> >>> Well, that's the kind of multitasking I've been enjoying for a long >>> time on my HTC.. >> >> And how many 3rd party apps does it run? > > http://thepiratebay.org/search/windows%20mobile/0/99/0 > >> >>> Multitasking is multitasking.. >> >> Stop. �Do not make any more claims about computers. �You don't know >> the subject and you're just making a fool of yourself. > > I used to study computer science. Until somebody dangled a bright shiny thing in front of you. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: nospam on 18 Apr 2010 21:30 In article <be6d9c6a-7a18-4be5-a8c4-d5deb431a68e(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > And how many 3rd party apps does it run? > > http://thepiratebay.org/search/windows%20mobile/0/99/0 78 hits. that many? do you get all your software from a pirate site? according to a report from last year, windows mobile had 20k apps then, after roughly a decade. the iphone had more than that in under a year and now has 10x as many, at about 200,000. > > >Multitasking is multitasking.. > > > > Stop. �Do not make any more claims about computers. �You don't know > > the subject and you're just making a fool of yourself. > > I used to study computer science. apparently you didn't do particularly well and sought another path. > A pocket PC is still a PC. But iPhones are crippled and inferior > pocket PCs. iphones are not pocket pcs in the first place, so they can't be crippled ones.
From: nospam on 18 Apr 2010 21:59 In article <0mbns55g06ug0qcfnogph1r5t107amto01(a)4ax.com>, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > And if you have true multitasking you can set a complex filter working > on your image in the background while you switch over to checking > email while you wait for it to finish. who runs complex filters on a phone? > >it's easier to search in an ebook (which can be read via speech > >synthesis by the way). you *can't* search a printed book. > > You can look in the index if it has one, or table of contents. only for words that are listed in the index, not arbitrary words. you also can't do a global search across all printed books for a certain word or phrase. > Somewhat akin to the Semantic Web in that they let you search for > concepts rather than mere words. that's something different. > >> Like people having a conversation in a bar where there is music > >> playing in the background. > >> How many people do you know who would object to this arguing they > >> can't talk or listen > >> when the music distracts them? > > > >what does that have to do with listening to two sound sources on the > >*same* speakers? > > You only listen to recordings of soloists? If there are more than one > instrument or singer performing in a recording all those sound sources > will come out of the same speakers. he wants to listen to multiple and different songs or a song and an audio book at the same time, not multiple instruments playing the *same* piece of music in harmony. > >'true multitasking' has no technical definition. the fact remains that > >you *can* do multiple things on an iphone. > > It's allowing possibly unrelated processes to run > simultaneously/timshared without them having to hand off to one > another. It's one of the things that made Windows95 and NT so much > better than Windows 3.x, IIRC. that's preemptive versus cooperative. both are 'true' and differ in how they're scheduled.
From: sobriquet on 18 Apr 2010 22:02 On 19 apr, 01:22, Robert Haar <bobh...(a)me.com> wrote: > On 4/18/10 1:52 PM, "George Kerby" <ghost_top...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 4/18/10 11:01 AM, in article C7F0A527.491B7F%bobh...(a)me.com, "Robert > > Haar" <bobh...(a)me.com> wrote: > > >> On 4/18/10 11:35 AM, "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>> Those poor iPhone users are still waiting for multitasking to be > >>> implemented, while pocket pc users have been enjoying multitasking > >>> for years. > > >> My iPhone (not jail broken) allows me to be on a phone call while I am > >> reading email or browsing the web. And I get background push notifications > >> through several apps. While it may not be technically full multitasking, I > >> don't feel a need for more. > > >> It sounds like you have drunk Google's Cool-aid. > > > He has A.D.D. and the need for that is mostly uncontrollable. Much like > > Bloomberg Television on steroids... > > Must be. That's the only excuse I can think of for listening to three audio > steams simultaneously. I listen to 7 independent playlists on my computer, even in my sleep. It's wonderful because it's like a way to meditate and to cultivate awareness with respect to the way you distribute your attention over various subjects that compete for your attention. Not all music is suitable to mix up with other music, but minimal music and sound collages are very suitable for that. Some music tends to interfere with most other music, while other kinds of music will result in a kind of synergy or resonance when it's enjoyed in combination with other music. It's kind of similar to the way you can focus your attention on particular instruments in a piece of music that involves various kinds of instruments playing in concert. You can listen to all of the instruments simultaneously or focus your attention on any particular instrument or a particular combination of 2 or more instruments while trying to ignore the rest of the instrumentation to the best of your ability. At first it might be hard, but it's a kind of exercise in learning to focus your attention that you can improve upon by practice. If you listen to a piece of Steve Reich for the first time you might wonder if this music was perhaps intended to be played simultaneously with other music. Here is another great example of a piece of music by John Cage which is very suitable as a kind of sound collage to mix with just about any other music: http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/s/Imaginary+Landscape+No+1/2GoBhj
From: nospam on 18 Apr 2010 22:04
In article <cldns5l77qudkp3v8o97e4o8d16a26u322(a)4ax.com>, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > >> Also, Apple computers look pretty slick in terms of design, but > >> judging from stories of people who had issues with broken Apple > >> computers, I doubt that there is a great deal of high quality > >> components under the hood compared to a typical windows computer > >> (dell, HP or whatever). > > > >right, because no dell or hp ever failed. > > I don't think he's saying that. I think what he's saying is that Apple > systems aren't any less failure-prone than Wintel systems. depends on the model. overall, apple has the highest satisfaction rate, according to forrester research. <http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/how-does-your-pc-manufactur er-rate-842> Apple topped the overall list for the second year in a row, while Dell -- also for the second time in a row -- brought up the bottom. > >> These days with Apple using intel CPU's, it doesn't really matter > >> anymore since you can run both windows and os-X side by side on the > >> same computer and enjoy the best of both worlds. > > > >yes, which you *can't* do on a pc. > > Only because Apple decided not to license OS-X separately from > systems. IIRC they were considering it, but decided against it. i doubt they were considering it, and whatever the reason may be, it's not public. as i said, a mac can run mac, windows and linux software natively and simultaneously, while a pc can't. |