They also make ones where the screen flips around and turns into a tablet. They just tend to suck.

Laptops have always been a bit too klunky for me. I don't really NEED portability; it's just something I think is groovy. So I'm waiting for a tablet that doesn't suck and that's a computer, and not just a big iPhone with no phone.

I really don't understand Alex's deal here. I never said that a computer must run MY software to be a "real" computer; only that it must be able to run the same software that any desktop or laptop computer is or was able to, whether that's now or 1993 or any year in between. As far as I know, the iPad can't do that. It's limited to whatever "Apps" are out there, and that's not the same thing.

I think iPads are sexay and i wants one. I just have to figure out what I would actually do with one. If it were a computer, I'd get one. And if laptops were half as sexay as an iPad, I'd get one of those instead.

My home computer is 6 years old, which makes it pretty obsolete (though not to me) and more likely than not to die within the next year or so. I'd like to transition to portable, since that's been the worldwide trend. But I don't want to give up any of my current computing power or capabilities.

In fact, I'd like to transition from PC to Mac - and since you can run Windows on a Mac, that might ease the transition - since I could use all my current software until I found suitable Mac equivalents. None of this is possible on the iPad - yet. So I'm still waiting. But if my PC dies before the perfect iPad is born, I'm likely to get a cool Mac computer.

No hurry, though. $$$$ and all that.

I'm reminded of ISM's opposition to the iPhone as an impractical device he would never want to own for lack of keyboard. I suspect at some point he'll succumb to his represed techno-lust, acquire an iPad and declare it the perfect tool for his needs.

So a "Real computer" is defined as "A computer that runs one particular operating system"? Because, the word "apps" not withstanding, that's all you're talking about. No, iPhone can't run Windows applications. It can't run Mac applications. But neither can a computer running Linux. It runs applications ("apps") that are written to run on the operating system it runs.

Apps are programs too.

"Apps are programs too" ... Sounds like a great slogan for an anti-protest sign :)

So, get a laptop and buy this cover for it.


Really, the MacBooks aren't very clunky. I have a 17" Pro and it's very portable.

Apps are programs, too. Very simplistic, retarded programs. That iMovie thing mousepad linked to is the first thing I've ever seen in "App" form that is actually like a complex piece of software.

Of course, I'll admit to not being an App junkie. So maybe I'm missing some that are full-fledged programmed software. Though I note that most "real" software costs between $100 and $4,000, while most Apps run between $0 and $1.

I'm a strong believer in You Get What You Pay For. :D

And maybe that's the crux of it. Who's going to design complex software to run on a cellphone? No market for that. This might change with the iPad, and more complex software like that iMovie might become more common. (I note from the video that you can run iMovie from your iPhone, but pulease.)

The truth is, I don't think there's much market for complex software specific to devices that are portable. Laptops worked like "real computers" because they ran the same operating system as desktops. My problem, so far, with the iPad is that it doesn't. I'm not sure what the logic is in not having this Apple computer product run on the same OS as Macs and thus be able to perform like a Mac - unless it's to sell people on iPads AND Macs.

Or their market research says that most people aren't interested in doing the kinds of intensive work the require intensive computing power on the go.

The reality is, a portable device will NEVER have the same computing power as a non portable device. By definition. They don't have the same OS because the standard Mac OS is designed to take advantage of the vastly larger resources available to it on a desktop machine. Any version of a Mac OS that runs on a tablet/phone would have to be sold as a knackered version of a Mac OS. Much better to give a quality version of a mobile OS than a dumbed-down version of a desktop OS. Sacrifices are made for size. So there will always be more powerful, more featureul, more capable options on a desktop/laptop platform than a truly mobile platform. Who the fvck wants to do detailed Photoshop work on a 7 inch screen anyway? That sounds like torture, no matter how much processing power is behind that screen.

Tablets and phones are for on-the-go tasks. Games to pass time, minor productivity stuff, idle entertainment, and constant connectivity. They are NOT for serious desktop productivity.

What you're saying is like saying, "I'll buy a Vespa when it's a REAL car, that can go highway speeds, protect me in a head on collision, and help me transport the contents of someone's dorm room." It's never going to happen because the platform is not intended for those uses.

If you don't want something small, light, and mobile that does small, light, and mobile things, then fine. But that's simply a mismatch of desired use, not a product failing.

Ok, so I don't own a laptop and never have. Are you saying, then, that laptops have been unable to do what desktops can do? I was under the impression they were merely smaller computers with pretty much the same capabilities as an averagely-powerful desktop computer.

I've known people to do ALL their work on laptops, so the notion that people don't do intensive work on-the-go is belied by the millions of people who operate exclusively on portable computers. I'm sure market research says consumers are not interested in such things - but business people have been so interested for decades, and I'm sure their laptops operate on par with most desktops.

So with that assumption in head, I also think of tablets as the next version of laptops. Perhaps they are not that powerful today, but when might they be?