I am using the glossy display and am very satisfied.
I got the 17" mbp partly for making presentations to clients. The image quality never fails to impress - a wow effect.
I guess your decision depends a bit what you define by "work". You do get reflections in some light conditions and they may be disturbing. Personally I either move the PC or change the ambient lighting if reflections are disturbing - not often by the way.
The Mac comes with a calibration utility which works fine and responds to your own judgement and taste. I never found the need to use it in day-to-day work and rely on default settings all the time. Again this suits me for presentation work - it would perhaps be different if I had to interface with a printer.
This display decision was a bit worrying when I purchased the Mac as so many "experts" on the net were chuntering on about the glossy screen. Now I am glad I chose for the standard.
photo work? Can either of these be calibrated (I have an x-rite from Eye-1) successfully?
You will probably find this article interesting, it is specifically about MacBook Pro screen quality, calibrating with an X-Rite Eye-One Pro for professional photography, and comparing glossy to antiglare http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10041-10146
The matte vs glossy pictures in the article will probably push you toward the antiglare...
The Mac comes with a calibration utility which works fine and responds to your own judgement and taste. I never found the need to use it in day-to-day work and rely on default settings all the time. Again this suits me for presentation work - it would perhaps be different if I had to interface with a printer.
RogersDA, since you already have a very reputable hardware calibrator, you should not touch the Apple calibration utility, ever. It's a software-only utility which is fine for basic uses, but cannot come close to the color quality your Eye-One can achieve with its sensor. From the article:
For a laptop display to show colour as accurately as it can, a good profile must be created and loaded into the system. We've never seen a default profile that has come close to wringing out a display's full colour capabilities, and the newest MacBook Pros are no exception.
iPad No Multitasking. Only one application runs at a time according to official documentation.
No Flash Support on the browser. Too many sites (SmugMug included) run flash-based components. Will it be able to upgrade to html5? Probably not a big deal on that as html5 is not being pushed anytime soon.
WiFi + 3G, but not 4G. Why not just integrate 4G into it?
No Camera. O.k. the camera is just gimicky - but come on, even the iPhone has one.
Stuck with AT&T for 3G. O.k. now their 3G network is really going to go to hell. And it's not as extensive as Verizon's 3G.
I probably won't be assimilated because I use a real computer for my multimedia needs. Whether the iPad succeeds as a consumer device will depend on whether Apple can be as successful with TV, film studios and publishers as it was with the record industry in creating a user-friendly environment at reasonable prices. We'll see.
What about bumps? When I read this I thought about using the etch-a-sketch in the car on long road trips as a child. You were always one pothole away from a ruined masterpiece.
I don't have an ipod yet, or a laptop, so I may actually consider an ipad. It would make it easy to pull up smug galleries to show off. I really wan t a macbook pro, though.
I don't have an ipod yet, or a laptop, so I may actually consider an ipad. It would make it easy to pull up smug galleries to show off. I really wan t a macbook pro, though.
Caroline
Well, the iPad is no substitute for a MacBook, but you would be able to show your galleries. No slideshow, though, till either Apple accepts Flash or SmugMug comes up with another implementation. I would bet on SmugMug to provide a solution first. You wouldn't have this problem with a real computer.
Don't worry. In the 2nd or 3rd gen there will be enhancements made.
That's actually the issue - all of the missing stuff is what makes the deficiencies in the iPhone/iPod Touch. So Apple/AT&T knew about all of this.
Maybe a lot of this stuff is inside the iPad, but just not enabled. If so the MacHackers will find out pretty quickly. Then Apple will start pushing firmware "enhancements" to keep people from jailbreaking them. Ahhhh...the Apple-Circle-of-Life.
Well, remember the iPhone had tons of missing features (no 3G, cut and paste, camera, etc) when it launched. Hasn't stopped it much.
This device looks like a good solution to me. I do not want an iPhone, as I am issued a Blackberry by my work, and can't justify $2400 commitment for a second phone. the iPod touch is tempting, since getting the apps would be killer, but I haven't been convinced.
I find I spend as much time web surfing as any other entertainment, and often doing it in front of TV or with family. This would be a great solution for that use, but too expensive for that use alone.
However, I travel alot, and have seriously considered a kindle, to pt of almost ordering one, but it was too single tasking. iPad offering books nearly seals the deal, as the capabilities add up to a good device. The iPad seems to provide a good mix: a kindle replacement, cool iPod touch/iphone apps, music and nice web browsing. Looks like a great travel companion and general surfing tool.
Combine iPod touch and netbook money, or perhaps kindle money, and this is an easy purchase. I don't really want 3G except for rare occasions where I won't have wifi (get wifi at airport and on plane for example), and since I travel internationally, its too pricy anyway. I don't need a laptop replacement, I have one of those (from work). I have an iMac, where I do photos, etc. This would be a good device for all the other times, basically what a netbook would do.
Well, remember the iPhone had tons of missing features (no 3G, cut and paste, camera, etc) when it launched. Hasn't stopped it much.
That's right - people complained and the 2G and 3G phones came out pretty quickly. Why wasn't this stuff included (or enabled if that's the case) right from the start? It's not like Apple didn't know...and it's not like cellular 4G is going away.
This device looks like a good solution to me. I do not want an iPhone, as I am issued a Blackberry by my work, and can't justify $2400 commitment for a second phone. the iPod touch is tempting, since getting the apps would be killer, but I haven't been convinced.
I find I spend as much time web surfing as any other entertainment, and often doing it in front of TV or with family. This would be a great solution for that use, but too expensive for that use alone.
However, I travel alot, and have seriously considered a kindle, to pt of almost ordering one, but it was too single tasking. iPad offering books nearly seals the deal, as the capabilities add up to a good device. The iPad seems to provide a good mix: a kindle replacement, cool iPod touch/iphone apps, music and nice web browsing. Looks like a great travel companion and general surfing tool.
Combine iPod touch and netbook money, or perhaps kindle money, and this is an easy purchase. I don't really want 3G except for rare occasions where I won't have wifi (get wifi at airport and on plane for example), and since I travel internationally, its too pricy anyway. I don't need a laptop replacement, I have one of those (from work). I have an iMac, where I do photos, etc. This would be a good device for all the other times, basically what a netbook would do.
I am always in areas that do not have WiFi - so the 3G/4G solution would work for me. And with the iPhone and/or laptop I am doing several tasks at a time. So this was looking like a great alternative. What I really need is multitasking with 3G (4G would be better once it hits the DC area).
However, I travel alot, and have seriously considered a kindle, to pt of almost ordering one, but it was too single tasking.
I think that's a strength. I have enough things to distract me from reading. Plus, I like reading the e-paper more than a backlit display. But that's me. Plus, the larger Kindle and the iPad are both too large for my taste, I like the smaller, cheaper Kindle just fine.
No Multitasking. Only one application runs at a time according to official documentation.
I'd be fine with this, but I just can't quite believe you can't listen to music and do other things. That simple level of multi-tasking seems like a no-brainer and a big step back from the iPhone/iPod Touch.
I'd be fine with this, but I just can't quite believe you can't listen to music and do other things. That simple level of multi-tasking seems like a no-brainer and a big step back from the iPhone/iPod Touch.
What about just running a program, game, or whatever - having to quit that when you go check your mail or instant messages (vice pausing it or pushing it to the background/minimizing the app)? I do not like having to quit the a program just to read and reply to an email like I have to do on the iPhone 3G.
What about just running a program, game, or whatever - having to quit that when you go check your mail or instant messages (vice pausing it or pushing it to the background/minimizing the app)? I do not like having to quit the a program just to read and reply to an email like I have to do on the iPhone 3G.
My point was that for a 1st gen design, I understand the lack of multi-tasking, but to not even be able to provide what you can get on the iPhone seems ridiculous.
I do think multi-tasking would be awesome. It's far from the most important thing Jobs has done, no matter what he says.
What about just running a program, game, or whatever - having to quit that when you go check your mail or instant messages (vice pausing it or pushing it to the background/minimizing the app)? I do not like having to quit the a program just to read and reply to an email like I have to do on the iPhone 3G.
you can listen to music and other things at the same time, but only music within itunes (or iPod as it is called on iPhone). What you can't do, and some folks are griping about, is play music from Pandora and work at same time.
I don't have an issue with multitasking, provided it is managed correctly. the iPad, and iPhone avoid presenting multiple windows, which is critical on the small screen,and makes the device much simpler...no need to minimize, move or dismiss windows. So, since there is no ability to view two or more apps at once, multitasking is only a technical issue, or would only come into play if in quitting an app, it lost its context. So if you are playing a game, and say need to jump to a stock quote app to check a stock price, if when returning to that game, it was not where you left it, but started over, then indeed, single tasking would suck dramatically. But if singletasking preserves context, you won't notice the difference. In my experience, this is exactly what the iPhone does. If you leave Safari, and do something else, when you start Safari again, it is on the page you were on when you left...but of course the iPhone doesn't multitask, right?
David: right you are regarding the Kindle. it is good because it is a multitasker. I will be thinking this thru for some time to come, and likely handle an iPad before I decide. Reading on a backlit screen is not something you can do for long periods of time.
David: right you are regarding the Kindle. it is good because it is a multitasker. I will be thinking this thru for some time to come, and likely handle an iPad before I decide. Reading on a backlit screen is not something you can do for long periods of time.
The other thing is the swipe to turn pages. I read on the iPhone as well as the Kindle, and I much prefer a button. My finger never moves, just clicks. It's much less distracting.
It's far from the most important thing Jobs has done, no matter what he says.
It might be, though, eventually. Just not this first one. Which I am not buying. Probably not the second one either.
I did have the reaction, after looking at the iPad site, of turning back to my laptop and saying "Hey!! That's just an old-school mashup of a typewriter and a TV." The tablet as human media device goes back thousands of years. After Apple perfects the iPad, which won't happen for a few years, it may become the standard form (again) and laptops may be seen as the short-lived historical aberration, from the time when the only reason you had to access your computer through a keyboard and "pointing device" was because our technology was too primitive.
After Apple perfects the iPad, which won't happen for a few years, it may become the standard form (again) and laptops may be seen as the short-lived historical aberration, from the time when the only reason you had to access your computer through a keyboard and "pointing device" was because our technology was too primitive.
Yeah, maybe. If and when all the actual computing and storage is done in the cloud, all we really will need is an I/O device with very fast, universal, reliable and affordable connectivity. But we're years away from that and a hundred different companies could build a device like that. Apple might just be a little too far ahead of the curve on this one: think Newton.
I have to say, I find the iPad fairly lame in its current configuration. When the obvious faults are corrected and the price comes down, it might be appealing to some but it won't be compelling without a complete ecosystem like Apple built with the iPod/iTunes Store. I don't underestimate Apple, but I wonder whether they are powerful enough to put together a proprietary content delivery system that's going to make the iPad as appealing as the iPod/iPhone.
I think the iPad is not revolutionary in form, and when viewed as a traditional computer, it looks like a huge flop.
But, that is the problem here: we, computer users, are trying to view this as a traditional computer. it is not, and hopefully, it never will be.
I, like many of you reading this, probably act as IT administrators (what i call Dadministrator) for your family and perhaps friends. I personally manage 11 computers among family and friends (oh and I recommend the free Logmein, but thats another post). And THIS is the problem: computers are just TOO HARD. Normal, otherwise very smart people (think doctors, lawyers and such) just can't figure out their computers. Its not just viruses and other threats, though that is a significant part of it: they can't figure out how to send a photo to a friend, or where the Word doc they just wrote is on the hard drive. If you don't get computers and their file system and workings, then its really hard. And this includes Macs. Granted Mac makes things simpler, but when things go wrong, better break out Terminal, right?
But WHY should we humans have to GET computers to use them? What went wrong? This doesn't really make sense: computers should make things easy to do. Why can't taking and sending photos be TOASTER simple? Why should I have to know that my photo is in the C:/My Documents/My Photos/2009-01-14/Graduation directory? And why should I have to know that if it is a large JPG that it will be HUGE on Grandma's old monitor, so I need to reduce the image size before sending? And when I get a photo, that I need to download the attachment, save it to a new directory, and then make sure my photo viewing tool has put it in its database? Who came up with this?
I can not tell you how many phone calls I get from these family and friends that go like this: "Ok, so click on Start, then Programs. Now you should have Picasa because I put it there over Christmas. No?. Ok. Click, Start, Accessories, Windows Explorer. Ok, what do you see? Desktop? Ok, now, go to My Documents. No, in Windows Explorer, on the left hand side...should be under Desktop. Oh right, it is called Documents in Windows 7, I forgot...." . And so on. These are smart people, people with masters degrees, and who have owned computers for 10+ years.
I think this is the problem the iPad is trying to solve. This in fact is what the iPhone did solve: it eliminated file systems, attachments, directories, file types, data mode, etc etc. When you download a map, or a photo from an email...where does it go? Does it matter? No, it goes where it should, and that isnt for the user to know or care. When sync'd or docked, there is no data or files to drag: they just sync and go onto your PC (yep the one you don't get). This is truly RADICAL, don't underestimate it. Folks who don't get their computer or Blackberry, understand and use their iPhone almost immediately.
The iPad is a large iPhone, but this is exactly what it should be. It isn't a computer that us computer users are familiar with (and want), but one for EVERYONE else. It doesn't require you to learn the computer, it only asks you to do, what you do. Write an email, attach a photo. Don't worry about where the photo is, because it is where is should be. This is how the iPhone works: each app has its own directory for data storage. There is no common storage. If data is to be shared, this is published and shared internally. So if you should be able to email a photo, the email app knows about the photo app storage. In other words, photos are where they should be, no where else.
Now, this is achieved by essentially closing the system. But in fact, I think it is closed more to computer users way of thinking than anything. Sure, I can't add an app without Apple's permission, and that does chap my ass a bit, but the result is remarkable.
So, (wow this is long), in the end, I think the iPad is a completely new kind of device, one that provides the kinds of things one does on a computer, without having to LEARN or USE a computer, in the traditional sense. This is, for lack of a better term, the closest we have gotten to the computer as a toaster.
And that is a good thing.
Is it a computer for me? No, because I am a computer user that GETS computers, so it doesn't answer all my needs, and never will. My only complaint about it currently is that it still essentially requires you to have a computer: it depends on syncing. I think for some it can be their only computing device, but truly syncing photos and other docs will have to wait for future versions, that can allow more connection options.
Comments
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
- Hi-Resolution Glossy Widescreen Display
- Hi-Resolution Antiglare Widescreen Display
Which one is better for photo work? Can either of these be calibrated (I have an x-rite from Eye-1) successfully?GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
I got the 17" mbp partly for making presentations to clients. The image quality never fails to impress - a wow effect.
I guess your decision depends a bit what you define by "work". You do get reflections in some light conditions and they may be disturbing. Personally I either move the PC or change the ambient lighting if reflections are disturbing - not often by the way.
The Mac comes with a calibration utility which works fine and responds to your own judgement and taste. I never found the need to use it in day-to-day work and rely on default settings all the time. Again this suits me for presentation work - it would perhaps be different if I had to interface with a printer.
This display decision was a bit worrying when I purchased the Mac as so many "experts" on the net were chuntering on about the glossy screen. Now I am glad I chose for the standard.
You will probably find this article interesting, it is specifically about MacBook Pro screen quality, calibrating with an X-Rite Eye-One Pro for professional photography, and comparing glossy to antiglare
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10041-10146
The matte vs glossy pictures in the article will probably push you toward the antiglare...
RogersDA, since you already have a very reputable hardware calibrator, you should not touch the Apple calibration utility, ever. It's a software-only utility which is fine for basic uses, but cannot come close to the color quality your Eye-One can achieve with its sensor. From the article:
I may be getting a MacBook Pro - we'll see how things go in the next few weeks. The wife keeps disappearing with the MacBook Air a lot.
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
No Multitasking. Only one application runs at a time according to official documentation.
No Flash Support on the browser. Too many sites (SmugMug included) run flash-based components. Will it be able to upgrade to html5? Probably not a big deal on that as html5 is not being pushed anytime soon.
WiFi + 3G, but not 4G. Why not just integrate 4G into it?
No Camera. O.k. the camera is just gimicky - but come on, even the iPhone has one.
Stuck with AT&T for 3G. O.k. now their 3G network is really going to go to hell. And it's not as extensive as Verizon's 3G.
I still want one though.
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
Seriously - I am a gadget person. I just wish that Apple implemented a bit more into this thing.
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
Never crashed on me once.
What about bumps? When I read this I thought about using the etch-a-sketch in the car on long road trips as a child. You were always one pothole away from a ruined masterpiece.
I don't have an ipod yet, or a laptop, so I may actually consider an ipad. It would make it easy to pull up smug galleries to show off. I really wan t a macbook pro, though.
Caroline
Don't worry. In the 2nd or 3rd gen there will be enhancements made.
www.tednghiem.com
Well, the iPad is no substitute for a MacBook, but you would be able to show your galleries. No slideshow, though, till either Apple accepts Flash or SmugMug comes up with another implementation. I would bet on SmugMug to provide a solution first. You wouldn't have this problem with a real computer.
Maybe a lot of this stuff is inside the iPad, but just not enabled. If so the MacHackers will find out pretty quickly. Then Apple will start pushing firmware "enhancements" to keep people from jailbreaking them. Ahhhh...the Apple-Circle-of-Life.
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
This device looks like a good solution to me. I do not want an iPhone, as I am issued a Blackberry by my work, and can't justify $2400 commitment for a second phone. the iPod touch is tempting, since getting the apps would be killer, but I haven't been convinced.
I find I spend as much time web surfing as any other entertainment, and often doing it in front of TV or with family. This would be a great solution for that use, but too expensive for that use alone.
However, I travel alot, and have seriously considered a kindle, to pt of almost ordering one, but it was too single tasking. iPad offering books nearly seals the deal, as the capabilities add up to a good device. The iPad seems to provide a good mix: a kindle replacement, cool iPod touch/iphone apps, music and nice web browsing. Looks like a great travel companion and general surfing tool.
Combine iPod touch and netbook money, or perhaps kindle money, and this is an easy purchase. I don't really want 3G except for rare occasions where I won't have wifi (get wifi at airport and on plane for example), and since I travel internationally, its too pricy anyway. I don't need a laptop replacement, I have one of those (from work). I have an iMac, where I do photos, etc. This would be a good device for all the other times, basically what a netbook would do.
I am always in areas that do not have WiFi - so the 3G/4G solution would work for me. And with the iPhone and/or laptop I am doing several tasks at a time. So this was looking like a great alternative. What I really need is multitasking with 3G (4G would be better once it hits the DC area).
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
I think that's a strength. I have enough things to distract me from reading. Plus, I like reading the e-paper more than a backlit display. But that's me. Plus, the larger Kindle and the iPad are both too large for my taste, I like the smaller, cheaper Kindle just fine.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I'd be fine with this, but I just can't quite believe you can't listen to music and do other things. That simple level of multi-tasking seems like a no-brainer and a big step back from the iPhone/iPod Touch.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
My point was that for a 1st gen design, I understand the lack of multi-tasking, but to not even be able to provide what you can get on the iPhone seems ridiculous.
I do think multi-tasking would be awesome. It's far from the most important thing Jobs has done, no matter what he says.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
you can listen to music and other things at the same time, but only music within itunes (or iPod as it is called on iPhone). What you can't do, and some folks are griping about, is play music from Pandora and work at same time.
I don't have an issue with multitasking, provided it is managed correctly. the iPad, and iPhone avoid presenting multiple windows, which is critical on the small screen,and makes the device much simpler...no need to minimize, move or dismiss windows. So, since there is no ability to view two or more apps at once, multitasking is only a technical issue, or would only come into play if in quitting an app, it lost its context. So if you are playing a game, and say need to jump to a stock quote app to check a stock price, if when returning to that game, it was not where you left it, but started over, then indeed, single tasking would suck dramatically. But if singletasking preserves context, you won't notice the difference. In my experience, this is exactly what the iPhone does. If you leave Safari, and do something else, when you start Safari again, it is on the page you were on when you left...but of course the iPhone doesn't multitask, right?
David: right you are regarding the Kindle. it is good because it is a multitasker. I will be thinking this thru for some time to come, and likely handle an iPad before I decide. Reading on a backlit screen is not something you can do for long periods of time.
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
The other thing is the swipe to turn pages. I read on the iPhone as well as the Kindle, and I much prefer a button. My finger never moves, just clicks. It's much less distracting.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
It might be, though, eventually. Just not this first one. Which I am not buying. Probably not the second one either.
I did have the reaction, after looking at the iPad site, of turning back to my laptop and saying "Hey!! That's just an old-school mashup of a typewriter and a TV." The tablet as human media device goes back thousands of years. After Apple perfects the iPad, which won't happen for a few years, it may become the standard form (again) and laptops may be seen as the short-lived historical aberration, from the time when the only reason you had to access your computer through a keyboard and "pointing device" was because our technology was too primitive.
I have to say, I find the iPad fairly lame in its current configuration. When the obvious faults are corrected and the price comes down, it might be appealing to some but it won't be compelling without a complete ecosystem like Apple built with the iPod/iTunes Store. I don't underestimate Apple, but I wonder whether they are powerful enough to put together a proprietary content delivery system that's going to make the iPad as appealing as the iPod/iPhone.
But, that is the problem here: we, computer users, are trying to view this as a traditional computer. it is not, and hopefully, it never will be.
I, like many of you reading this, probably act as IT administrators (what i call Dadministrator) for your family and perhaps friends. I personally manage 11 computers among family and friends (oh and I recommend the free Logmein, but thats another post). And THIS is the problem: computers are just TOO HARD. Normal, otherwise very smart people (think doctors, lawyers and such) just can't figure out their computers. Its not just viruses and other threats, though that is a significant part of it: they can't figure out how to send a photo to a friend, or where the Word doc they just wrote is on the hard drive. If you don't get computers and their file system and workings, then its really hard. And this includes Macs. Granted Mac makes things simpler, but when things go wrong, better break out Terminal, right?
But WHY should we humans have to GET computers to use them? What went wrong? This doesn't really make sense: computers should make things easy to do. Why can't taking and sending photos be TOASTER simple? Why should I have to know that my photo is in the C:/My Documents/My Photos/2009-01-14/Graduation directory? And why should I have to know that if it is a large JPG that it will be HUGE on Grandma's old monitor, so I need to reduce the image size before sending? And when I get a photo, that I need to download the attachment, save it to a new directory, and then make sure my photo viewing tool has put it in its database? Who came up with this?
I can not tell you how many phone calls I get from these family and friends that go like this: "Ok, so click on Start, then Programs. Now you should have Picasa because I put it there over Christmas. No?. Ok. Click, Start, Accessories, Windows Explorer. Ok, what do you see? Desktop? Ok, now, go to My Documents. No, in Windows Explorer, on the left hand side...should be under Desktop. Oh right, it is called Documents in Windows 7, I forgot...." . And so on. These are smart people, people with masters degrees, and who have owned computers for 10+ years.
I think this is the problem the iPad is trying to solve. This in fact is what the iPhone did solve: it eliminated file systems, attachments, directories, file types, data mode, etc etc. When you download a map, or a photo from an email...where does it go? Does it matter? No, it goes where it should, and that isnt for the user to know or care. When sync'd or docked, there is no data or files to drag: they just sync and go onto your PC (yep the one you don't get). This is truly RADICAL, don't underestimate it. Folks who don't get their computer or Blackberry, understand and use their iPhone almost immediately.
The iPad is a large iPhone, but this is exactly what it should be. It isn't a computer that us computer users are familiar with (and want), but one for EVERYONE else. It doesn't require you to learn the computer, it only asks you to do, what you do. Write an email, attach a photo. Don't worry about where the photo is, because it is where is should be. This is how the iPhone works: each app has its own directory for data storage. There is no common storage. If data is to be shared, this is published and shared internally. So if you should be able to email a photo, the email app knows about the photo app storage. In other words, photos are where they should be, no where else.
Now, this is achieved by essentially closing the system. But in fact, I think it is closed more to computer users way of thinking than anything. Sure, I can't add an app without Apple's permission, and that does chap my ass a bit, but the result is remarkable.
So, (wow this is long), in the end, I think the iPad is a completely new kind of device, one that provides the kinds of things one does on a computer, without having to LEARN or USE a computer, in the traditional sense. This is, for lack of a better term, the closest we have gotten to the computer as a toaster.
And that is a good thing.
Is it a computer for me? No, because I am a computer user that GETS computers, so it doesn't answer all my needs, and never will. My only complaint about it currently is that it still essentially requires you to have a computer: it depends on syncing. I think for some it can be their only computing device, but truly syncing photos and other docs will have to wait for future versions, that can allow more connection options.
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
See...you really do need a bigger screen.