Anyone else dislikes tablets - all tablets?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by wodin

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?

We are talking about different things. What I meant is that a CRT image fades away, and has to be refreshed so many times a second. The image on an LCD screen does not fade - it remains steady, without flickering, as long as power remains applied to the screen.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by ApK

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.

If you prefer, call Android a Linux system rather than a flavor of Linux. Android is one of many systems that uses a Linux kernel.

I wouldn't call Win 3.1 a flavor of DOS either. It booted from DOS, and used the DOS FAT file system, but didn't exactly use a DOS kernel. The GUI and protected mode memory management support were supplied by Windows. Win 9X further increased the separation. It used DOS as a real-mode loader, but once up, Win 9X was a full protected mode OS, and DOS was out of the loop. Win 9X ran on a DOS FAT file system, but did not use DOS for file system access.

GEOS didn't originate on DOS. I ran it back when on a Commodore 64, and there was also an Apple II version. On PCs, GEOS was a user space application that booted from DOS. I never played with it on a PC, so I don't know what DOS did for it other than serve as a loader.

Most of what people think of when they think of a Linux system are all things running on top of Linux, but are not required for it to be a Linux system. X-windows and the window manager you use to provide a GUI are layered on top of the OS. You can boot a Linux system to a command line and not run a GUI, and still have a multitasking, multi-user OS.

Along the same lines, Mac OS/X is a Unix system, using a modified BSD kernel, with a complement of the standard Gnu utilities, and an Apple GUI.

Current NT based versions of Windows are full native protected mode OSes, but with a different separation of functions than Linux. You can't boot Windows to a command line. (Well, technically, you can, if you hack the registry, but you'll have fun trying to use it.)

A lot of these things were architecture dependent. Real mode vs protected mode, for example, were intrinsic to the segmented architecture of the X86 processors. I don't believe they are meaningful on things like ARM devices.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by conan50

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.

Back when, I saw a number of people looking at Kindle Fires and Nook tablets as cheap Android tablets - just root them.

I recommended spending $50 more and getting a Nook tablet, as the specs were better and they would have a happier experience. (Lack of support for external cards in the Fire is a major negative.)

The Fire's virtue is that it's cheap. Amazon doesn't want you to use it as a general purpose computer. It's a media consumption device for media you will buy from Amazon.

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.

eInk is out for me because too much of what I do requires color, and that includes reading books. (I have illustrated volumes on Impressionism and Cubism I'm reading on my tablet at the moment. No, full color art does not translate acceptably to B&W when part of the point is the artist's use of color in the work...)

I haven't had call to use text-to-speech, but support for multiple formats was a requirement. I've accumulated volumes in ePub, Mobi and PDF format among other things, and being able to read any of them was a requirement. FBReaderJ handles ePub and Mobi, and calls a PDF viewer for things in PDF format.

And Android tablets certainly multitask. There are always an assortment of system processes and services running in the background, and I can have several apps active and switch between them, with the foreground app taking over and the others asleep.

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.

That's precisely what I did. I assumed it would make a dandy eBook viewer even if I did nothing else with it, and it is, but I'm coming up with other things I can do with it.
______
Dennis

[ApK]

Originally Posted by conan50

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,

No Android tablet is a 'real computer' by my standards. None could replace any 'real computer' for various 'real computer work' like development, video editing, controlling various hardware devices, design, even 'real' word processing and other office work.
If you need a 'real computer', get a 'real computer.'

you'll be much happier with a full Android operating system and feel less limited.

Can you please give any specifics here? Yes, Fires don't have Google services, but for the most part, they run all the Android apps most people want. Not that I disagree that in many cases, people will run up against their limitations. -- I did, and I too no longer use Fires because of it-- but I think the price, support, etc, combined with the fact that they do indeed run most Android apps that folks seem to want just fine will make those limitations moot for many folks.
Plus if you are a serious Amazon content consumer, the Fire has added benefits, like really good Prime video support.

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.

An 'inexpensive' tablet, depending on your definition of that word, may not meet those criteria, starting with 'decent screen' and could easily result in a far worse experience than with a Fire.

ApK

[conan50]

Originally Posted by ApK

No Android tablet is a 'real computer' by my standards. None could replace any 'real computer' for various 'real computer work' like development, video editing, controlling various hardware devices, design, even 'real' word processing and other office work.
If you need a 'real computer', get a 'real computer.'


Can you please give any specifics here? Yes, Fires don't have Google services, but for the most part, they run all the Android apps most people want. Not that I disagree that in many cases, people will run up against their limitations. -- I did, and I too no longer use Fires because of it-- but I think the price, support, etc, combined with the fact that they do indeed run most Android apps that folks seem to want just fine will make those limitations moot for many folks.
Plus if you are a serious Amazon content consumer, the Fire has added benefits, like really good Prime video support.


An 'inexpensive' tablet, depending on your definition of that word, may not meet those criteria, starting with 'decent screen' and could easily result in a far worse experience than with a Fire.

ApK

Last week I was running Android 4.4 x86 on my netbook and you would be surprised at how useful Android is on a larger screen with a keyboard and touchpad. I even did some word processing on it using Google Docs and was impressed at how well it worked. Indeed, I expect in the next few upgrades of Android we will see it on more laptops and desktops, and also more convergence with Chrome OS (Chromebooks).
I think heavy lifting will always need software like Windows, Apple, and Linux, but the people who actually need that kind of software and hardware are a small percentage of users outside of Enterprise.
Working from memory, most Google apps are not available on the Kindle Fire, Google Music, Youtube, Play Books, Play Videos, Chrome browser, and if you are invested in Google's Ecosystem, or Apple's, or even Microsoft's, other devices are probably going to be more useful. As I said, primarly as an ereader and especially if you have a large Kindle books library, the KFires are fine, but I think many people will want a device that will do more and has a much bigger app store.
I recently purchased an Acer B1 710 for $79 and liked it so much I gave my KFire HD away. The battery is kind of lame, but the screen and everything else is quite nice for the price, and it has a micro sdcard slot. It would be a small investment in a name brand tablet if someone just wanted to see if they like tablets. The price has bumped up a few dollars, but still a decent tablet for the money:
http://www.amazon.com/Acer-Iconia-B1.../dp/B00DKFF386

[ApK]

Originally Posted by conan50

Working from memory, most Google apps are not available on the Kindle Fire, Google Music, Youtube, Play Books, Play Videos, Chrome browser

I don't know about the app, but Youtube videos work fine. Youtube is my kid's number one use of their Fires. Chrome runs fine, it just needs to be side-loaded. The other Google stuff would indeed require more hoops to jump through --too much for me to mess with, but remember, Amazon has their fairly popular ecosystem as well. People with libraries of music and movies on Amazon probably care little for Google music and video. That's kind of Amazon's point with it.

Originally Posted by conan50

you would be surprised at how useful Android is on a larger screen with a keyboard and touchpad.

No I wouldn't.
But I'd be surprised if a device with a larger screen, keyboard and touchpad was considered a "tablet" which is what was under discussion, since that form factor is a key differentiator.

And really, what about it being "Android" per se made the netbook any more useful than the OS that came on it, be it Windows or Linux? I'd think that with out a touch screen, and with more screen real estate, running Android would be more of a novelty rather than particularly more useful than a "real" computer OS, as we're calling it. Personally, I think Angry Birds sucks without a touch screen. Fruit Ninja is even worse.

I agree that we are going to see a convergence of device types, but I don't know that their killer OS will be Android in any form or flavor. In fact, if forced to go one way or the other, I'd bet against it. I'd predict there will be something totally new evolving out lessons learned in Linux, Android, and iOS.

By the way, I never got hooked on netbooks. Too many physical compromises and too under-powered.
When I did get my hands on a friend's netbook once, I took off Windows and put on a light Linux distro (Easy Peasy). Made it more bearable to use.

Tablets have overwhelmed the consumer market segment that the netbook was hoping to conquer, and rightfully so, I think.

[conan50]

Probably the new Netbook is the Chromebook.
I have Linux Mint installed on that particular netbook, and it's perfectly useful. Android on it runs lighter and faster, and you get access to all the Google Play apps.
Personally, an Android tablet will do 90% of what I would use any computer for, and be a better form factor as a music player and ereader. I have Kindle, Moon+, Google Books, and Fbreader on my 7 inch tablet with the external sdcard holding hundreds of ebooks.
I have several Linux computers, but I really only use my Chromebook (mostly for word processing) and my tablets for most of my computer use. Haven't used Microsoft for anything in ages.
Another useful thing about a tablet as an ereader, if you read a lot of Project Gutenberg ebooks, you can save the ebooks to Google Drive, Onedrive, or Dropbox and access those online folders on your tablet to almost instantly access and read the ebook.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by conan50

Another useful thing about a tablet as an ereader, if you read a lot of Project Gutenberg ebooks, you can save the ebooks to Google Drive, Onedrive, or Dropbox and access those online folders on your tablet to almost instantly access and read the ebook.

Couldn't you just access the book directly at PG?
This works on many web-enabled eink readers as well, particularly with the magic catalog.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by ApK

No Android tablet is a 'real computer' by my standards. None could replace any 'real computer' for various 'real computer work' like development, video editing, controlling various hardware devices, design, even 'real' word processing and other office work.
If you need a 'real computer', get a 'real computer.'

It depends on your use cases.

I concur that Android tablets aren't "real computers" by those standards. Things like video editing and software development require toolchains that probably don't exist and more power than an Android tablet will have. Even if it can be done on a tablet, it will probably simply take too long to be feasible.

But for many folks, an Android tablet is a "real computer."

One of the things that has been happening for years is a steady migration of functions away from "all-in-one" PCs to other devices, with a consequent stagnation of the PC market. PC vendors are struggling because the market is saturated. There's still a largee market for upgrades and replacements, but new sales are largely non-existent, because pretty much everyone who can use a PC has one.

The question is what the users actually need to do on their device. There are a fair number of people who use smartphones instead of PCs, and an increasing number who use tablets, because those devices perform the functions the users need in a fashion acceptable to the user, in a device that can be carried in a pocket or slipped into a bag and go where the user goes, without the bulk and weight of a laptop or notebook. For them, such things are real computers.

I'm not interested in a smartphone, because the sorts of things I do really need a larger screen than a practical phone will have. My cell phone is deliberately the smallest, cheapest feature phone Samsung makes. All it does is calls and SMS, and that's all I want it to do. The rest is something else's job.

The Android tablet I'm playing with now might just be able to replace a laptop or notebook when I'm traveling, with a lighter, easier to transport device. My primary need when traveling is communication: I need to access the web, handle email, read books, view pictures and videos, listen to music, and view/edit documents and spreadsheets. All of those the tablet can do, though a larger and more powerful model would be better suited. (Screen size again.) The addition of an external keyboard was the missing piece of the puzzle.

I make increasing use of Google Docs and Sheets, stored on Google Drive, and I have an Android office suite that can create and edit locally stored files, and open docs and spreadsheets from my Google Drive and saved changed versions back to it. It's not as powerful and fully featured as MS Office or Libre/Open Office, but I don't use most of the features in those in any case.

No, it can't do development, design, video editing, and the like, but it doesn't need to. Those are the job of other devices, and not done when I'm traveling.

It's a real enough computer for the purposes it serves.
______
Dennis

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

It depends on your use cases.

Of course it does.
I just felt that "real computer" was a wholly inappropriate phrase to use to distinguish a Fire from any other tablet. It's like the second little pig telling the first little pig that the straw house isn't a "real house."

Truth be told, a Fire is every bit the "real computer" any other tablet is for many, many users who only want a computer to do certain things.

ApK

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by ApK

But I'd be surprised if a device with a larger screen, keyboard and touchpad was considered a "tablet" which is what was under discussion, since that form factor is a key differentiator.

I wouldn't. We're seeing an increasing number of devices with touch screens in form factors where the case includes a keyboard and touchpad. Mate it with the case, and it's a netbook. Remove it, and the device functions as a tablet.

And really, what about it being "Android" per se made the netbook any more useful than the OS that came on it, be it Windows or Linux? I'd think that with out a touch screen, and with more screen real estate, running Android would be more of a novelty rather than particularly more useful than a "real" computer OS, as we're calling it.

The driving factor has been the fact that hardware gets steadily smaller, faster, and cheaper.

My first home computer was a Unix machine - an AT&T 3B1. It was the brother of the AT&T UNIX-PC, sold in the days when AT&T was still in the computer business. It was made for AT&T on an OEM basis by workstation vendor Convergent Technologies (now part of Unisys), and was an AT&T attempt to compete on the desktop with the IBM-PC. It had a bit-mapped GUI console, with a 10mhz Motorola 68010 CPU, 2MB RAM by default, expandable to 4MB, and a 40 or 72 [i]MB[/b] MFM hard drive. It would boot and run a Convergent port of AT&T Unix System V Release 2, a full multitasking, multi-user OS, in 1 MB of RAM and perform acceptably. (I had a client back then supporting four users on dumb terminals and driving a printer off a 3B1 with 72MB drive and 3MB RAM, running a specialized distribution management application.) I still have the 3B1.

A PC clone running MS-DOS was a later addition, with a 10mhz NEC V20 CPU, two 360KB 5.25" floppies, a Hercules video card driving an Amber monitor, two Seagate ST-225 20MB hard drives, and an AST 6-Pak addon card with a megabyte of expansion RAM, divided between a 512KB RAMdisk, a 256MB disk cache, and 256MB of EMS memory for apps that could use it.

Next step was a 33mhz 386 machine with 8MB RAM and a 2 GB hard drive running Windows 3.1. The 3B1 ran rings around it.

I still have and use a Palm TX PDA (replacing a Tapwave Zodiac 2) Both devices have 128MB RAM, 480x360 color screens, a 200 mhz ARM CPU, and 4GB of external storage. (A 4GB SD card for the TX, and two 2GB cards for the Zodiac, which has two card slots.) They have faster processors, more RAM, and more storage than the earlierr devices, in a form factor that fits in a pocket.

This has been the trend for years. As hardware gets smaller, faster, and cheaper, functions migrate to smaller devices because they can. Going forward, I largely expect every cell phone to be a smartphone, simply because it can be. The old distinctions between dumb phone, feature phone and smartphone were largely driven by hardware costs, and what could be done at a particular price point. As hardware costs drop, those distinctions increasingly blur. Today's feature phone is yesterday's high end smartphone. Along similar lines, the distinctions between PC and tablet are blurring,

It doesn't quite exist yet, but I expect to see a device in a smartphone form factor, with enough power that it can be the main computing device. Plug it into a dock with large monitor, keyboard, mouse, and connection to network storage, and voila! You have a capable desktop machine. There will still be a market for bigger iron with more power and capacity, but the phone sized unit will do the the job that most home machines do now.

I agree that we are going to see a convergence of device types, but I don't know that their killer OS will be Android in any form or flavor. In fact, if forced to go one way or the other, I'd bet against it. I'd predict there will be something totally new evolving out lessons learned in Linux, Android, and iOS.

A main form of convergence I'm seeing is in OSes. The driver is "The user runs the same OS on every device they use." Windows exists for desktop and laptop, a WindowsRT variant for ARM based tablets, and Windows phone for smartphones. Apple has iOS for smartphones and tablets, and OS/X for desktops and laptops, but I expect them to converge, and when the dust settles, everything Apple makes will run iOS.

Linux is still fragmented, but Android is the leading edge of convergence there. Android was originally developed to be a smartphone OS, and the design was carefully modular, so that OEMs could tailor the image to their hardware and intended use cases. I got the Android SDK back when, looked, and said "I wonder how long it will be before we see devices running Android that aren't phones? The answer was not long at all.

There is an early port of Android to X86 out there, intended to be used in things like desktops and laptops, and there is no reason Android couldn't power one.

A new OS based on the lessons learned from Linux, Android, and iOS is possible, but I consider it unlikely. Actually developing an OS is time consuming and expensive. It would require a deep pool of engineering talent, and deep pockets to fund the effort. Who would do it, when the others already exist, and why would they bother?

Tablets have overwhelmed the consumer market segment that the netbook was hoping to conquer, and rightfully so, I think.

I pretty much agree. They can do most of the same things, in a cheaper and lighter form factor. I have a netbook. A tablet may well replace it.
______
Dennis

[wodin]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

... It doesn't quite exist yet, but I expect to see a device in a smartphone form factor, with enough power that it can be the main computing device. Plug it into a dock with large monitor, keyboard, mouse, and connection to network storage, and voila! You have a capable desktop machine. There will still be a market for bigger iron with more power and capacity, but the phone sized unit will do the the job that most home machines do now...

Not quite smartphone form factor, but Microsoft Surface 3 (and increasingly a number of others) do that in a tablet form factor now.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

... I wonder how long it will be before we see devices running Android that aren't phones? The answer was not long at all...

No, the answer is now.

We have Televisions, watches, eyeglasses, car computers, and any number of other things that don't come to mind right now.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by wodin

No, the answer is now.
.

He was saying it wasn't long after he first looked at the Android SDK.

[wodin]

Ahhh, my bad!