fanboy nonsense about netbook vs. iPad debunked

On 11/06/10 1:44 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, SMS
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If it can't be decoded in hardware then they don't want it on the iPad.
>> For all the posturing about Flash, the real reason they don't want it on
>> the iPad or iPhone has nothing to do with stability or the fact that
>> it's an Adobe product, it's that Flash is a CPU hog and drastically
>> affects battery life.
>
> it's both. most of the crashes in safari are due to flash.

Then that's a Safari problem that needs to be fixed. You don't see Flash
causing crashes in Firefox or IE.

>
>> If they said 'we don't allow flash because it
>> affects battery life' you'd see complaints like 'let users decide if
>> they want to trade-off battery life for functionality' but you'd also
>> see product reviews complaining about short battery life when running
>> certain apps.
>
> just wait until android 2.2 is out battery life on some of the
> android phones sucks without flash, it's going to be awful with it.

The iPhone and iPad represent Apple's long held beliefs in closed,
proprietary hardware and software, while Android is more like the open
architecture that has been espoused by Google, Microsoft, and the Linux
community. It's a completely different mindset. Things like the lack of
expansion, lack of connectivity, lack of memory slots, and the inability
to use any software not approved by Apple and loaded through the iTunes
store are not appreciated by those that like open architecture. OTOH,
Apple's control over hardware, O/S, and applications has its advantages
too.

>
>> The iPad is a compelling product for what it is, a web pad and
>> entertainment device. It's not a general purpose computing device like a
>> netbook.
>
> right, it's not intended to be
>
>> It's expensive because they can charge that much for it, not
>> because of the underlying cost of manufacturing it which is good for
>> Apple who is not in a race to the bottom in terms of pricing like the
>> netbook manufacturers.
>
> it's not expensive when compared to other tablets. in fact, it's one of
> the cheaper tablets.

No, it's cheaper than the more powerful and full-featured Windows
tablets, but more expensive than the other embedded network appliance
type tablets. But Apple has always been able to charge premium prices
for its hardware compared to other manufacturers, and that's a good
thing for Apple, not something that anyone has to rationalize and lie about.

---

› See More: fanboy nonsense about netbook vs. iPad debunked

In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 11/06/10 1:44 PM, nospam wrote:
> > In article<[email protected]>, SMS
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> If it can't be decoded in hardware then they don't want it on the iPad.
> >> For all the posturing about Flash, the real reason they don't want it on
> >> the iPad or iPhone has nothing to do with stability or the fact that
> >> it's an Adobe product, it's that Flash is a CPU hog and drastically
> >> affects battery life.
> >
> > it's both. most of the crashes in safari are due to flash.
>
> Then that's a Safari problem that needs to be fixed. You don't see Flash
> causing crashes in Firefox or IE.

yes you do and the stack traces show the crash as within flash.

it's also one reason why 64 bit safari runs plugins in a separate
process.

> >> It's expensive because they can charge that much for it, not
> >> because of the underlying cost of manufacturing it which is good for
> >> Apple who is not in a race to the bottom in terms of pricing like the
> >> netbook manufacturers.
> >
> > it's not expensive when compared to other tablets. in fact, it's one of
> > the cheaper tablets.
>
> No, it's cheaper than the more powerful and full-featured Windows
> tablets, but more expensive than the other embedded network appliance
> type tablets.

it's more expensive when compared to netbooks but that's an entirely
different product category. compare it with joojoo, kindle dx, even the
eeepad, and they're similarly priced, or more than the ipad.

> But Apple has always been able to charge premium prices
> for its hardware compared to other manufacturers,

myth.

> and that's a good
> thing for Apple, not something that anyone has to rationalize and lie about.

the facts show it to be false.

On 2010-06-11, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/06/10 1:44 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>, SMS
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> If it can't be decoded in hardware then they don't want it on the iPad.
>>> For all the posturing about Flash, the real reason they don't want it on
>>> the iPad or iPhone has nothing to do with stability or the fact that
>>> it's an Adobe product, it's that Flash is a CPU hog and drastically
>>> affects battery life.
>>
>> it's both. most of the crashes in safari are due to flash.
>
> Then that's a Safari problem that needs to be fixed. You don't see Flash
> causing crashes in Firefox or IE.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Macromedia_flash#Crashes

Dennis Ferguson

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:44:30 -0400, in
<110620101644307752%[email protected]>, nospam
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, SMS
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If it can't be decoded in hardware then they don't want it on the iPad.
>> For all the posturing about Flash, the real reason they don't want it on
>> the iPad or iPhone has nothing to do with stability or the fact that
>> it's an Adobe product, it's that Flash is a CPU hog and drastically
>> affects battery life.
>
>it's both. most of the crashes in safari are due to flash.

If true, then Safari (and/or Mac OS X) is poorly designed. Such crashes
are not a problem on Windows with any of the browsers I use.

>> If they said 'we don't allow flash because it
>> affects battery life' you'd see complaints like 'let users decide if
>> they want to trade-off battery life for functionality' but you'd also
>> see product reviews complaining about short battery life when running
>> certain apps.
>
>just wait until android 2.2 is out battery life on some of the
>android phones sucks without flash, it's going to be awful with it.

Only poorly designed Android phones have battery life issues -- most of
them are fine -- and Android 2.2 actually improves battery life.

>> It's expensive because they can charge that much for it, not
>> because of the underlying cost of manufacturing it which is good for
>> Apple who is not in a race to the bottom in terms of pricing like the
>> netbook manufacturers.
>
>it's not expensive when compared to other tablets. in fact, it's one of
>the cheaper tablets.

Nonsense.

--
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:17:08 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 11/06/10 1:44 PM, nospam wrote:

>> just wait until android 2.2 is out battery life on some of the
>> android phones sucks without flash, it's going to be awful with it.
>
>The iPhone and iPad represent Apple's long held beliefs in closed,
>proprietary hardware and software, while Android is more like the open
>architecture that has been espoused by Google, Microsoft, and the Linux
>community.

Say what? Microsoft open architecture is an oxymoron.

--
Best regards,
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

eOn Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:52:00 -0500, in
<[email protected]>, Dennis Ferguson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2010-06-11, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 11/06/10 1:44 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>, SMS
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it can't be decoded in hardware then they don't want it on the iPad.
>>>> For all the posturing about Flash, the real reason they don't want it on
>>>> the iPad or iPhone has nothing to do with stability or the fact that
>>>> it's an Adobe product, it's that Flash is a CPU hog and drastically
>>>> affects battery life.
>>>
>>> it's both. most of the crashes in safari are due to flash.
>>
>> Then that's a Safari problem that needs to be fixed. You don't see Flash
>> causing crashes in Firefox or IE.
>
> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Macromedia_flash#Crashes

I have never seen a single documented Flash crash in either my personal
or professional experience. Have I just been lucky? Or is it because
I keep all software properly updated?

--
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >it's both. most of the crashes in safari are due to flash.
>
> If true, then Safari (and/or Mac OS X) is poorly designed. Such crashes
> are not a problem on Windows with any of the browsers I use.

the crashes are in flash itself, not safari, and it's not just safari
either. it happens with other browsers and other platforms.

> >just wait until android 2.2 is out battery life on some of the
> >android phones sucks without flash, it's going to be awful with it.
>
> Only poorly designed Android phones have battery life issues -- most of
> them are fine -- and Android 2.2 actually improves battery life.

that must mean most android phones are poorly designed and 2.2 with
flash will make the already poor battery life even worse, whenever it's
actually released, that is. for htc phones, it's the end of 2010!

> >it's not expensive when compared to other tablets. in fact, it's one of
> >the cheaper tablets.
>
> Nonsense.

it's not nonsense at all.

which tablets are less expensive?

the joojoo is the same price, the eeepad is the same price *and* with a
contract, the wepad is more expensive, the hp slate was going to be
more expensive before it was cancelled and the dell streak is the same
price and it's 1/4" the size (5" screen).

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Then that's a Safari problem that needs to be fixed. You don't see Flash
> >> causing crashes in Firefox or IE.
> >
> > http://kb.mozillazine.org/Macromedia_flash#Crashes
>
> I have never seen a single documented Flash crash in either my personal
> or professional experience. Have I just been lucky? Or is it because
> I keep all software properly updated?

lucky, or in denial.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:13:09 -0400, in
<120620101213092698%[email protected]>, nospam
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >it's both. most of the crashes in safari are due to flash.
>>
>> If true, then Safari (and/or Mac OS X) is poorly designed. Such crashes
>> are not a problem on Windows with any of the browsers I use.
>
>the crashes are in flash itself, not safari, and it's not just safari
>either. it happens with other browsers and other platforms.

Not in my experience. Must be a Mac or Safari problem/weakness.
"If it walks like a duck ..."

>> >just wait until android 2.2 is out battery life on some of the
>> >android phones sucks without flash, it's going to be awful with it.
>>
>> Only poorly designed Android phones have battery life issues -- most of
>> them are fine -- and Android 2.2 actually improves battery life.
>
>that must mean most android phones are poorly designed and 2.2 with
>flash will make the already poor battery life even worse, whenever it's
>actually released, that is. for htc phones, it's the end of 2010!

Wrong on all counts.

>> >it's not expensive when compared to other tablets. in fact, it's one of
>> >the cheaper tablets.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
>it's not nonsense at all.
>
>which tablets are less expensive?

"Asked and answered." Do keep up.
Otherwise, "Google is your friend." Hint: Acer Aspire One,
currently on sale at Egghead for $199. Apology accepted.

--
Best regards,
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Only poorly designed Android phones have battery life issues -- most of
> >> them are fine -- and Android 2.2 actually improves battery life.
> >
> >that must mean most android phones are poorly designed and 2.2 with
> >flash will make the already poor battery life even worse, whenever it's
> >actually released, that is. for htc phones, it's the end of 2010!
>
> Wrong on all counts.

nope. all of it is correct.

> >> >it's not expensive when compared to other tablets. in fact, it's one of
> >> >the cheaper tablets.
> >>
> >> Nonsense.
> >
> >it's not nonsense at all.
> >
> >which tablets are less expensive?
>
> "Asked and answered." Do keep up.
> Otherwise, "Google is your friend." Hint: Acer Aspire One,
> currently on sale at Egghead for $199. Apology accepted.

that's a netbook, not a tablet. do you not understand the difference?
do keep up and lose the attitude.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:45:17 -0400, in
<120620101245178401%[email protected]>, nospam
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Only poorly designed Android phones have battery life issues -- most of
>> >> them are fine -- and Android 2.2 actually improves battery life.
>> >
>> >that must mean most android phones are poorly designed and 2.2 with
>> >flash will make the already poor battery life even worse, whenever it's
>> >actually released, that is. for htc phones, it's the end of 2010!
>>
>> Wrong on all counts.
>
>nope. all of it is correct.
>
>> >> >it's not expensive when compared to other tablets. in fact, it's one of
>> >> >the cheaper tablets.
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense.
>> >
>> >it's not nonsense at all.
>> >
>> >which tablets are less expensive?
>>
>> "Asked and answered." Do keep up.
>> Otherwise, "Google is your friend." Hint: Acer Aspire One,
>> currently on sale at Egghead for $199. Apology accepted.
>
>that's a netbook, not a tablet. do you not understand the difference?
>do keep up and lose the attitude.

You're in denial. I'm done.

--
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> >which tablets are less expensive?
> >>
> >> "Asked and answered." Do keep up.
> >> Otherwise, "Google is your friend." Hint: Acer Aspire One,
> >> currently on sale at Egghead for $199. Apology accepted.
> >
> >that's a netbook, not a tablet. do you not understand the difference?
> >do keep up and lose the attitude.
>
> You're in denial. I'm done.

so you don't understand the difference.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:06:32 -0400, in
<120620101306324874%[email protected]>, nospam
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> >which tablets are less expensive?
>> >>
>> >> "Asked and answered." Do keep up.
>> >> Otherwise, "Google is your friend." Hint: Acer Aspire One,
>> >> currently on sale at Egghead for $199. Apology accepted.
>> >
>> >that's a netbook, not a tablet. do you not understand the difference?
>> >do keep up and lose the attitude.
>>
>> You're in denial. I'm done.
>
>so you don't understand the difference.

*plonk*

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

In article <[email protected]>, Larry
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > for some things, but not for others. how well does that netbook help
> > you navigate without a gps or compass?
>
> What the hell are you talking about? My Samsung NC10 has a 20 channel,
> WAAS-compensated, bluetooth GPS receiver so accurate it will place the
> little GPS puck in the exact parking space at the mall.

it does not have a gps or a compass.

> It's the same
> little pocket puck I use on my Nokia N800 Linux tablets.

in other words, the gps is *external*. thanks for confirming what i
said.

it is also twice the weight and a little more than half the battery
life.

try again.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:18:10 +0000, in
<[email protected]>, Larry <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> ...

>John, have you upgraded your Win boxes to Flash 10.1 that came out a couple
>of days ago off the beta?
>
>They finished the beta testing of Flash 10.1 and I've upgraded all the Win
>boxes here. Works great, seems a little faster loading than before. Not
>sure why.

Yep, 10,1,53,64 working great here.

--
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?