Good god the iPad is a steaming pile of disappointment

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think you guys are underestimating the fact that people have gotten used to extremely fast and reliable response times for basic programs; unless a network can match the internal response times of a modern computer, there would be significant frustration in using them.

Now you're talking the difference between latency (response time) and bandwidth (watching a video). Furthermore, you're absolutely wrong. This has been extensively studied in the industry.

For most people, latency under 100 milliseconds (1/10th of a second) is unnoticeable. Further, people are used to the web, where loading a page can take seconds, and they don't care.

There are three types of computer delays: blink delays, sip-of-coffee delays, and trip-to-the-break-room delays. As long as people don't have trip-to-the-break-room delays, they're generally happy.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But some of you seem to think that ALL computing should be done on thin clients, which isn't a very good idea really for several reasons.

You are the only person in this whole thread trying to get one thin client to do "ALL computing". Hell if you understand the thin client you know that it simply can't do all computing, it's a terminal to big servers.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes, it is convenient to be able to access your information and programs from anywhere.
No, it is not convenient to give someone else control of all your information and programs.

Cloud computing may have an upside, but it also has a downside that many young people might not yet see as they are more than happy to post pictures of themselves committing crimes on the net and other personal information that could end up being detrimental to their futures.

Personally, I have come to prefer a vpn to my main computer. I can access it from almost anywhere and with the proper protection I am a lot safer than if I let some internet company keep my text file that contains all my passwords.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

This is changing and you can do things like local caching. Google Gears is an example, when my internet connection goes I still have my web mail client just like I would with Outlook. I can't send mail, just like I can't without the net with Outlook, but it's all still there.

Local caching means local processing and storage. If you have those there's no reason at all not to give the user control of the local box. My complaint about the Ipad isn't that it's a bad product, it's that it's one that you have very little control over and one that apple will try to prevent you from ever improving.

I know that versions of these tablets will arise from other competitors that do the things I want, because there's a market for them. I'd just hate to see that market get crowded out by a group who are so excited about everything server- and net- based that what I want becomes expensive instead of cheap as it is today.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

You know, your arguments are all over the place. If you are gaming then you are using a proprietary, for-profit, platform to do so and you were going off on the iPad about stuff like that. You should be using Linux if you take that ideology as far as you have here, and if you are then you aren't running many games on it.

A netbook or an e-reader wasn't a great replacement for your gaming rig either and if you are going to look for things it can't do you can be here all day. I once had a server that doubled as a chair in our datacenter. I bet this thing will suck at that being a chair too.

I wish this would end this conversation. You're dead on.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Local caching means local processing and storage. If you have those there's no reason at all not to give the user control of the local box.

If you give the user control of the box, then you give malicious software control of the box, too.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

My complaint about the Ipad isn't that it's a bad product, it's that it's one that you have very little control over and one that apple will try to prevent you from ever improving.

But those are things that you want, and other people may not want.

Some people want a fancy Espresso machine, most people want an automatic-drip coffee maker, and I just want a Diet Coke. Different things for different markets.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I know that versions of these tablets will arise from other competitors that do the things I want, because there's a market for them. I'd just hate to see that market get crowded out by a group who are so excited about everything server- and net- based that what I want becomes expensive instead of cheap as it is today.

What you want is already expensive. You just don't notice. You're like a mechanic wondering why everyone doesn't want a suped-up, tweaked-out racecar.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
But some of you seem to think that ALL computing should be done on thin clients, which isn't a very good idea really for several reasons.

You are the only person in this whole thread trying to get one thin client to do "ALL computing". Hell if you understand the thin client you know that it simply can't do all computing, it's a terminal to big servers.

I simply don't like the idea that this the direction that the majority of programming and product creation is moving towards. Others think it's an entirely good thing and that eventually ALL personal computers will run that way, just thin clients. I understand that there are positives and negatives to both positions, but at least with my position, I own my data and my programs - they cannot be arbitrarily taken from me at any time the way that a company decides to, or the network goes down. These are limitations which I am unwilling to accept in my computer usage.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I hate to play the "I'm older than you" card on you. But I must point out that it's an even older paradigm to segregate computer networks into terminals and mainframes. Excuse me, I mean "thin clients" and "the cloud" of course. My short-term memory is failing at my advanced age, so I find it hard to keep my buzzwords straight.

Yeah, I was wondering if someone would mention just how old the "thin client" model is in some of its incarnations.

But quite frankly, what is currently called cloud computing is nothing at all like what you describe. For starters, it's called a "cloud" because it represents the rejection of use of mainframes for networked commodity hardware.

It makes an amusing anecdote which I was sure someone was going to bring up but these aren't at all the same kettle of fish. What you describe was not a mainstream device, what you describe was not mobile. What you describe was not meant for mainstream multi-media consumption.

And fundamentally, what you describe was done for different reasons and with very different implementations. It was done because of the model of mainframes over parallelization. The ole "what's old is new again" anecdotes resonate with people, but this really is a very different beast even if it can, through a healthy bit of reductionism, be compared.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Local caching means local processing and storage. If you have those there's no reason at all not to give the user control of the local box.

If you give the user control of the box, then you give malicious software control of the box, too.

This is something of a jump. Somehow I've managed for years to avoid having malicious software control my box. And running every piece of data you do over the internet opens you up to a whole host of malicious software (and hardware!) attacks as well. It's no safer.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
My complaint about the Ipad isn't that it's a bad product, it's that it's one that you have very little control over and one that apple will try to prevent you from ever improving.

But those are things that you want, and other people may not want.

Some people want a fancy Espresso machine, most people want an automatic-drip coffee maker, and I just want a Diet Coke. Different things for different markets.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I know that versions of these tablets will arise from other competitors that do the things I want, because there's a market for them. I'd just hate to see that market get crowded out by a group who are so excited about everything server- and net- based that what I want becomes expensive instead of cheap as it is today.

What you want is already expensive. You just don't notice. You're like a mechanic wondering why everyone doesn't want a suped-up, tweaked-out racecar.

[/quote]

Really? I just bought a kick-ass netbook that does EVERYTHING I described, weighs almost nothing, has a huge battery life and costs LESS then the Ipad does - much less for a much more powerful machine. What part of that is expensive, exactly?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I get where you're coming from. I like to drive a standard, because it gives me more control. On the other hand, I don't tell everyone else that driving an automatic is stupid.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

I get where you're coming from. I like to drive a standard, because it gives me more control. On the other hand, I don't tell everyone else that driving an automatic is stupid.

Plenty of your fellow Standard transmission users hold exactly that opinion - that those who don't use them have no idea what they are missing out on. I've certainly heard that enough in my life.

However, turn the argument around: I could argue really convincingly that your 'standard' transmission isn't the standard any more. Automatic is the standard and that's what people want, and if the market moves in a direction where you CAN'T get a standard any longer - or if it's really expensive to do so - then you should just accept that and move on, you old dinosaur. And that your preference for a Standard is really based on a lack of understanding on your part of the wonders of the Automatic transmission. Would that sit well with you?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

For most people, latency under 100 milliseconds (1/10th of a second) is unnoticeable. Further, people are used to the web, where loading a page can take seconds, and they don't care.

This is not true. Most people may not consciously care much but their actions show that they do. Google said that an accidental increase of 500 milliseconds in their page load time represented a 20% drop in revenue.

When I'm at my best I fight against every millisecond of load time. It matters hugely and one second more to load time can make or break some kinds of websites.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What part of that is expensive, exactly?

I was talking about your time to keep everything running smoothly, which is where the mechanic comparison comes into play.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
What part of that is expensive, exactly?

I was talking about your time to keep everything running smoothly, which is where the mechanic comparison comes into play.

how much time does it take YOU to keep things running smoothly? I admit that there is some time spent installing programs initially. But after that? Less than 1% of my time on the device - which continues to run smoothly independent of my network connection, something thin clients can't claim.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Personally, I have come to prefer a vpn to my main computer. I can access it from almost anywhere and with the proper protection I am a lot safer than if I let some internet company keep my text file that contains all my passwords.

I used to do that too (remote into my desktop which was my "cloud") but you have to back it up remotely to prevent catastrophic loss of data. After all, I'd hate to lose all my passwords if my hard drive fails (or if you use redundant drives if your house burns).

And I don't store my passwords in plain text anyway, I encrypt them. I don't mind backing that up to a remote server.

Don't get me wrong, putting data on someone else's servers is a very real step that has real consequences. But for most people the consequence is an improvement in data integrity and security because most datacenters tend to do better at both than the average home user.

It's not like your current setup doesn't have a lot of attack surface either. Where you store the data is just one part of the puzzle, if you are accessing it over the wire there is still a lot of ways your data can be compromised. No matter how you cut it you are likely using a lot of infrastructure you do not own and control anyway.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Which is why I don't tell everyone else that driving an automatic is stupid.

That's my point.

We're moving to server-centric computing the same way we moved to automatic transmissions.

Server-centric computing isn't for everyone, but it's becoming the norm, just as automatic transmissions have.

We don't insist that you give up your stick-shift, but please do give up the histrionics.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert wrote:

But quite frankly, what is currently called cloud computing is nothing at all like what you describe. For starters, it's called a "cloud" because it represents the rejection of use of mainframes for networked commodity hardware.

What's the difference from the perspective of the end users doing the work, playing the games, storing the data, and whatnot? For them, Yahoo's and Google's data centers are black boxes to which they outsource data and computing power. We nerds may find it interesting that these data centers are clusters of PCs rather than monolithic Crays, say. But what difference does it make to end users what hardware architecture companies use inside the data centers?

3 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Which is why I don't tell everyone else that driving an automatic is stupid.

That's my point.

We're moving to server-centric computing the same way we moved to automatic transmissions.

Server-centric computing isn't for everyone, but it's becoming the norm, just as automatic transmissions have.

We don't insist that you give up your stick-shift, but please do give up the histrionics.

You didn't answer my question about how you would feel if these same arguments lead to a stick-shift being more expensive and hard to get. You would think this is a positive development?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Google said that an accidental increase of 500 milliseconds in their page load time represented a 20% drop in revenue.

Perhaps I exaggerated a little. What was the original page-load time?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You didn't answer my question about how you would feel if these same arguments lead to a stick-shift being more expensive and hard to get. You would think this is a positive development?

Cyclops; the HAVE already made stick-shifts more hard to get. Most models of cars/trucks do not even give stick-shift options to consumers.

There are arguments to be made on either side regarding weather it's a positive or a negative, and both are valid viewpoints. Your inability to see the iPad as anything but a shot across the bow of your world-view is a bit excessive.

The only thing keeping it cheaper is that the technology is much much much simpler than an automatic transmission (you ever tear one of those beasts apart; I have, not much fun).

2 Replies

Good god the iPad is a steaming pile of disappointment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know