Anyone else dislikes tablets - all tablets?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by NickC42

You are holding the tablet closer to the eyes than your monitor so the relative brightness may be higher. There may also be a question of the refresh rate.

LED screens don't have a "refresh rate"; the illumination is constant - they don't flicker.

[NickC42]

Ah yes, my mistake!

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by NickC42

You are holding the tablet closer to the eyes than your monitor so the relative brightness may be higher. There may also be a question of the refresh rate.
It has been shown that the light from the screens may disrupt sleep patterns if used in the late evening so increasing tiredness. That's why I've just ordered an Onyx T68 so I can set aside my iPad Mini and Android phone in the evening and hopefully still read email and these forums. It remains the be seen how well it works for this.

Interesting. I don't usually hold the tablet while reading, and it is probably about the same distance away as when I use a laptop, but I may have on the first couple of books.

I don't find the tablet bothers my eyes exactly. I was hooked on paradise Island for two months and used it a lot. No eyestrain that I noticed. I have also used it for browsing and forum reading on the balcony.

I just do not find reading books on it as comfortable. If I had no ereader or laptop I would probably be happy with it, as it is not noticeably unpleasant. But I have tried several reader apps and a smaller tablet, and while not hating the experiences, I always experience a feeling of relief when switching back to an ereader or even a monitor.

It is similar to the feeling I get when I am feeling poorly and I sink into my nice comfy bed with freshly washed linen and jammies It is just somehow better.

Helen

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

LED screens don't have a "refresh rate"; the illumination is constant - they don't flicker.

Are you sure about that? The LED light source doesn't flicker like a florescent source would, but the data displaced on the LCDs pixels on the screen has a refresh rate, yes? (See 60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz HDTVs, etc)
Since those LCD pixels control how much of the LED light gets to your eye, there can certainly be flicker. For moving video it can be very important. Not sure it matters for mostly static display like a page of text, but I'm not certain the effect is nil.

ApK

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

Are you sure about that? The LED light source doesn't flicker like a florescent source would, but doesn't the data displaced on the LCDs pixels on the screen has a refresh rate? (See 60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz HDTVs, etc)

The "refresh rate" of an LCD is a measure of how rapidly a given pixel can be updated. But unless or until a pixel is updated, its illumination is constant, with no flicker. It's not like a CRT display where every pixel goes on, off, on, off, on, off, so many times a second. If the image on an LCD display is unchanging (such as the page of a book), there is no flicker.

[dwig]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "refresh rate" of an LCD is a measure of how rapidly a given pixel can be updated. ...

With static display (e.g. text in an ereader) on an LCD screen the flicker issue is not with the LCD component but, instead, with the backlight.

Early backlit LCD displays used fluorescent illumination which flickered, but at a rather high frequency. This didn't produce any flicker that would normally be perceptible, but could become perceptible if the display was moved quickly (e.g. reading in a bouncy car, ...). The only issue I ever encountered with this type of display was when there was some loose component that vibrated at the oscillation frequency and produced an audible very high frequency squeal. My old Clie UX50 never did this though there were many posts on the boards back in the day discussing the annoyance. My travel alarm clock is quite audible when the backlight is turned on.

The more modern LCD displays use LED backlight. This, like pure LED displays can flicker. Dimming an LED display is often done by turning it on and off quickly and changing the percentage of on vs off. This results in a very high frequency flicker. You can sometimes see when this is being done by moving the LED array very very quickly and noting whether you see a smooth smear or a series of discrete images. This cycling is often done to limit the heat build up in higher power LEDs. You can often see this in LED automobile tail lights when following another car on a rough road or if you jerk your head sideways very quickly. The taillights don't smear; they are seen as a series of discrete dots.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by mgmueller

I've had a Samsung UMPC from 2008 to 2010.
I absolutely loved it.

What did you do with it?

But I've got a simple explanation, why iPad did succeed, where all the other tablets before had failed: iTunes.
Before iTunes, you had to use sheer endless sources:
- Music maybe from a single source.
- Movies, if you actually bought them, from another source, but still might have been a single source.
- Software (nowadays we call it apps): Each app from a different source.

That's a good point, and is certainly a major factor in Apple's success. but I don't think its a full explanation.

The key to the success of any device is what the user will do with it. Apple has historically thought that through, and crafted devices based on it. They are fanatical about the quality of the user experience. In the process, they created devices the user found of sufficient value to be willing to pay a premium price, and Apple got soaring revenues and profits and a stock price in the ionosphere in consequence.

These days, Amazon wants to be your single source for everything.

I still have my old programs from 10 years ago backed up.
I put each .exe file in a separate folder. And I put the emails, containing passwords, registration numbers and such, into the very same folder.
I've got hundreds of those folders.

I'm also a pack rat, and still have distribution archives for MS-DOS software dating from when the original IBM PC was first taking over the micro computer space. (I still use a few of those things, too.)

And still: Each time I reinstalled my system, some apps/programs had been missing. I simply couldn't remember, where I had bought a specific app. Games, for example, could be bought from tons of sources.

One of the things I tended to do was keep a list of what was on the system and where it came from, to make re-installation easier. I could generally find it when it came time to re-install. The trick was remembering it needed to be.

Now we use iTunes (or Google Play or the Microsoft store) as our central platform for every type of content.

I don't. I do use the Google Play Store for Android for most of what is on the tablet, but I have some things grabbed from elsewhere.

It's similar on Linux. I run Ubuntu, and use apt-get (command line) os Synaptic (GUI) to get and install packages. Ubuntu has the best dependency management I've see in Linux, and when an install is done, the system checks to see what you already have, so the download includes any dependencies the program may have that aren't already installed, and things Just Work.

The problem is the lag in new versions making their way into the official Ubuntu repository. Because Canonical offers paid support for Ubuntu, new versions don't automatically get posted. Canonical has to be able to support it, and doesn't add updates till they've tested and verified them. I run a fair number of bleeding edge versions, and had to add various application specific repositories to those apt-get and Synaptic would look in, to be able to get current versions.

And on Windows, I have a variety of sources, with a preference for open source.

That, in my opinion, is the single most important argument, why iPad did succeed.
And, funny enough, Apple did the very same before for music. iPods, imho, couldn't compete with the specs of Sony players or even Microsoft Zune. But the combination of iTunes and good enough hardware was outstanding.
And it shouldn't even have been a surprise: It had been Apple's approach for Macs as well = Hardware and OS from a single source.

I've never considered Apple an innovator in the new product sense. All of the product lines Apple is in existed before Apple got into them. Apple's great strength was in refining the concepts, and creating what became the example for "This is how you do that!" Apple is a master at UI design, and when you select something from the UI, the device generally does what you expect it to do, the way you expect it to do it.

The limitation with one-stop shopping is the "Have it our way" approach. If what you really want isn't available through them, you have a problem.

Simple, but looking backwards all genius decisions seem simple...

Hindsight is always 20/20...
______
Dennis

[eschwartz]

What is better about dependency management on Ubuntu vs. other distros?

I assume it is all just a matter of naming what you want and having all the necessary pieces installed -- on any distro?

I am running Arch Linux right now, and the difference is primarily that things get updated faster -- and Arch by design doesn't install optdepends (since you might not want them).

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

An earlier poster said that with the exception of a larger screen, he sees no benefit over Smartphones, but the larger screen is the key difference. I struggle to read on a phone screen; the larger screen of the tablet is what makes it feasible to read on.

I find it really difficult to read on small smartphone screens as well. I found it difficult to read on my iPod Touch as well as my Galaxy S4. I could read well on my Nexus 7.

I now have a Kindle 4 and it has made me remember all the advantages of e-ink readers. It's really light and actually nice to read on. I thought the lower PPI of the Kindle 4 would bother me but it hasn't. I don't think I'll replace my Nexus 7 as I primarily used it for reading anyway. I may upgrade my S4 to either a Note 3 or LG G3 (I love big phones). They can do everything my Nexus 7 did.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

What is better about dependency management on Ubuntu vs. other distros?

I assume it is all just a matter of naming what you want and having all the necessary pieces installed -- on any distro?

Yes. The trick is the package manager understanding what pieces are necessary.

I am running Arch Linux right now, and the difference is primarily that things get updated faster -- and Arch by design doesn't install optdepends (since you might not want them).

I haven't tried all distros. (That would be the work of a lifetime.)

Ubuntu was a win for me because it did the best job I'd seen in a distro of figuring out what it was being installed on, setting itself up, and Just Working. I'm a tech. I was a Unix Admin before Linux existed. I know how to pop the hood and fiddle. I know how to answer the questions other distros ask in the install process, and diddle things at the system level. It's not how I want to spend my time. I installed Linux to have a system I could use, and Ubuntu installed to a usable state with no user intervention. (A commenter elsewhere who uses Ubuntu said essentially "I'm a developer. My clients pay me to create code. Time spent fiddling with the OS is time not spent doing what I get paid for, so I want an OS that minimizes the amount of fiddling I have to do." I agree.)

Once up, adds and upgrades were mostly painless. Every app has dependencies in the form of libraries it needs. Ubuntu's package manager keeps track of what you already have, so when you install something you don't have, anything that it depends on that isn't installed comes with it, and things Just Work. (Ubuntu also distinguishes between offerings, and defaults to free software, but can install non-free if you choose.)

I haven't tried Arch, but I'm willing to believe it handles package management well. If I were looking at other distros, Arch is one I'd try. Linux Mint is another.

Which distro to use becomes a matter of religious argument, but it's not an argument I'm interested in having. Ubuntu works for me. It may not work for others, but there are more alternatives that might than I can keep track of.
______
Dennis

[wodin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

LED screens don't have a "refresh rate"; the illumination is constant - they don't flicker.

Ummm? You sure you're not talking about eink? Of course LED screens have a refresh rate, how else would they be able to do video?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Yes. The trick is the package manager understanding what pieces are necessary.


I haven't tried all distros. (That would be the work of a lifetime.)

Ubuntu was a win for me because it did the best job I'd seen in a distro of figuring out what it was being installed on, setting itself up, and Just Working. I'm a tech. I was a Unix Admin before Linux existed. I know how to pop the hood and fiddle. I know how to answer the questions other distros ask in the install process, and diddle things at the system level. It's not how I want to spend my time. I installed Linux to have a system I could use, and Ubuntu installed to a usable state with no user intervention. (A commenter elsewhere who uses Ubuntu said essentially "I'm a developer. My clients pay me to create code. Time spent fiddling with the OS is time not spent doing what I get paid for, so I want an OS that minimizes the amount of fiddling I have to do." I agree.)

Once up, adds and upgrades were mostly painless. Every app has dependencies in the form of libraries it needs. Ubuntu's package manager keeps track of what you already have, so when you install something you don't have, anything that it depends on that isn't installed comes with it, and things Just Work. (Ubuntu also distinguishes between offerings, and defaults to free software, but can install non-free if you choose.)

I haven't tried Arch, but I'm willing to believe it handles package management well. If I were looking at other distros, Arch is one I'd try. Linux Mint is another.

Which distro to use becomes a matter of religious argument, but it's not an argument I'm interested in having. Ubuntu works for me. It may not work for others, but there are more alternatives that might than I can keep track of.
______
Dennis

I was just bringing an example, not arguing for or against any particular distro.

So it isn't the package management specifically, just the general environment of Ubuntu that you prefer? I agree Ubuntu is very easy to use and just make work for you.

Ubuntu is awesome. I have it installed on my other computer, this one only has Arch because I am learning how to pop the hood and fiddle.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I was just bringing an example, not arguing for or against any particular distro.

I didn't think you were.

So it isn't the package management specifically, just the general environment of Ubuntu that you prefer? I agree Ubuntu is very easy to use and just make work for you.

Good package management was a factor. I've spent more time than I like chasing dependencies to get something working, and I've had to do next to none in Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is awesome. I have it installed on my other computer, this one only has Arch because I am learning how to pop the hood and fiddle.

Ubuntu isn't perfect, but I'm not sure that's possible.

I have it up on an ancient notebook, and doing so was a challenge. The box has a 767mhz Transmeta Crusoe processor, slow IDE4 HD, and whopping 256MB RAM, of which the CPU grabs 16MB off the top for code morphing.

I originally installed Xubuntu, supposedly intended for lower end HW, but it was snail slow. Posters on the Ubuntu forums said Canonical has a steadily advancing idea of what "low end" is, and that too much Gnome had crept into Xubuntu. They suggested what I did: install from the Minimal CD to get a working command line installation, then use apt-get to grab the specific stuff I wanted. I use Lxde as the lightweight window manager, and selecting it brought along Xorg and the other parts needed to support a GUI environment, then added apps from there. The result was no speed demon, but did run more or less accessibly.

On the desktop, I looked at and passed on Ubuntu's default Unity interface. It was designed for things like notebooks with small screens, and falls down from my POV on large monitors. I installed XFCE4 instead.

On the notebook again, I got nailed the last time I tried to do a version upgrade. Everything went fine till the last step, when the upgrade tried to install a new kernel. Unfortunately, the kernel it wanted to install requires PAE support, and the ancient box lacks it, so that step failed. when I rebooted, what I had was an environment badly hosed enough that I wiped and redid everything from scratch, stopping just before that version and staying carefully put.

It apparently didn't occur to the packager of the release that a machine might not have PAE support. I suppose it's a fair enough assumption, since the notebook is close to 10 years old, and is strictly an experiment to see what I can wring out of low end kit without spending money.

Dragging things back on topic, Android is a flavor of Linux. (Linux is technically the Linux kernel, and a device that uses it is a Linux system. The Amazon Kindle, B&N Nook, and my former wireless router are all Linux systems.) There are a couple of different things I'm looking at as Linux under Android solutions for the tablet. They seem to be attempts to add the other stuff Linux users are used to an Android installation.

I already have one package installed that is a user space Busybox install, adding a lot of the CLI utilities Linux offers in a non-rooted environment. (My tablet is rooted, but the Busybox utils work fine run as root.)
______
Dennis

[conan50]

Great thread and interesting comments.
I could never have imagined using a tablet when they first came out, but now have 3 of them (I had 4 but just gave my Kindle Fire HD to my wife). I enjoy tablets, but there are some things that will quickly turn you off of them.
I use a stylus with all of my tablets, it will make inserting text far easier, and navigating web pages easier. Also have a good case for each of my tablets, many tablets are plastic and slippery to hold.
I hate to say this, but after having 2 Kindle Fires, and giving them away, I don't recommend them unless you are primarily using them as ereaders. They have good hardware, and are reliable, but they are pretty horrible to try to use as a real computer, you'll be much happier with a full Android operating system and feel less limited.
I prefer e-ink to read from generally, but with a decent screen, tablets can do more, offer more options, handle multiple formats, and they have text-to-speech. A tablet also allows a bit of multitasking in between reading.
I wouldn't write off a tablet based only on the experience with a Kindle Fire. As someone suggested earlier, pick up an inexpensive Android tablet with an sdcard slot for ebook storage and give it a try.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Android is a flavor of Linux

Would you really consider Android a "flavor" of Linux? I would call it system running on top of Linux. Similarly I would not have called Windows 3.1 or GEOS "flavors" of DOS.