Talk:Early tablet computers

Ultra-Mobile PC (aka Project Origami)

Is it a new (third) form factor ?

Eh. It's a semantics issue, I think. Origami devices might be thought of as small slates, or as a third form factor. Too close to call, in my opinion.

One-sided?

I've been a Tablet PC user since early 2003, and I don't own anything but Tablet PCs right now. I write commercial Tablet PC software, I give presentations on Tablet PC programming, and I teach Tablet PC programming. I'm a serious Tablet PC fan.

And yet this page seems to me to be pretty one-sided in favor of Tablet PCs. In particular, there's a section on advantages vs. laptops, but none on disadvantages. And there must be disadvantages, or Tablet PCs would be all that's selling.

While I'm not an objective observer, I'll add a discussion on the disadvantages I hear most often: power, price, durability, and utility.

Apple iPad

Should the Apple iPad even be in this article? This is for Tablet PC and the iPad is not running OSX it is running a mobile PDA/Phone OS. If the iPad is in this article than so should the iPhone/Touch and every other smartphone out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.67.253 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The ipad entry in wikipedia describes the ipad as a tablet computer and links the reader to this article. The iphone's primary purpose is a smartphone; the ipad is not a smartphone. It is a tablet computer; it will have word-processing, spreadsheet, and powerpoint functionality, which are absent or limited in the iphone/ipod touch. ShinobiNoKami (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)ShinobiNoKami

Agreed. The ipad is vastly more akin to a ipod touch (personal media player) and is not a tablet computer.

I guess you would then have to determine whether on not Mac OS, Windows or a Unix derived OS is required for a tablet style device to be considered a "Tablet PC"... It does meet the requirement for a computer, it is "personal", and it is of the tablet style. Interesting that nowhere on the apple site does it declare it being a "tablet". [1] --Travis Thurston+ 09:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The iPad is not a Personal computer because it fails the definition of "any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end user, with no intervening computer operator." While the iPad is operated directly by an end user, there is an intervening computer operator which determines which applications get installed. I believe all references to the iPad should be removed from the Tablet PC entry. If the iPad remains, then the Kindle should be considered a Tablet PC as well. Vyx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC).

Let's hold off including it in the article unless solid refs are supporting the classification. I image we'll get many people adding it to the list in the next month. With each revert, we can point to this discussion. --Travis Thurston+ 02:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think definitions might need to be broadened here. While the iPad and similar devices may not be PC's, they are "computers" in the sense that they are electronic devices capable of performing various kinds of tasks. So, why isn't the article called "tablet device" or "tablet computer" instead? Since when is the PC anything of a measure of what a computer should necessarily be? Indeed the iPad has some features greatly different from other tablets such as, but not limited to, a very closed operating system (lack of an accessible file system), and lack of multitasking ability. But these "features" or "limitations" (choose one) are mainly software limitations because of the OS that is (mandatorily) on the iPad. I don't see why this should leave the iPad or similar devices out of this article, and I wonder if it wouldn't be sensible from an encyclopedia perspective to broaden the definition for this article and at least mention all of such devices in this article too. And as a bonus: if we necessarily all must agree to *not* include the iPad in the article "because it isn't a PC", (which as I explaind I think is a rather strange criterion); then wouldn't it be an easier way to solve the whole issue to at least mention this decision in the article and explain *why* it doesn't fit the definition. A short explanation and a wiki-link to the right article under the "Apple" section will do. After all, many people *will* come searching this article for a reference to the iPad; I'd say at least give them an explanation and a reference to the right article. This will also prevent some edit wars. RagingR2 (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right in that the Personal Computer should not define all tablet devices. There are many tablet devices which are computers as well: mobile phones, smart phones, advanced scientific calculators, ebook readers, multimedia tablet computers and tablet personal computers.

This article is about tablet personal computers. It is an important article as personal, unlimited computing is very important to many people. The Personal Computer was created precisely to define the difference between controlled mainframe terminals and computers that would allow personal freedom to users, such as installing the operating system or applications of their choice. Amazing how we have come back to that: the difference between an iPad whose software installation process is centrally controlled and any Tablet PC.

I second the notion of disambiguating between tablet PCs and tablet computers or tablet multimedia computers or whatever is necessary for the iPad to fit in. But to remove the PC attribute from this article would deprive the readers of the realization of an important distinction between free and not free computing.

Vyx (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we create a 'parent' article for Pen/Touch Computing and have 'child' articles for PCs, Smart Phones, PDAs and Consumer Gadgets? It could probably save us time on these issues later.Kevin Beckman (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What category should the iPad be in if not tablet PC? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a plainly silly, and a very much concocted argumentation, the original definition was written this way to exclude mainframes that were operated by "men in white jackets" who you could give a stack of punch-cards to feed into the mainframe, they were the intervening computer operator. The iPad clearly falls under the denominator of "Personal computer", (the operator can install and use all available applications all by himself, "with no intervening computer operators" needed, but its a new subcategory, so it might merit a completely new category of its own, it wont be the only one for long. Mahjongg (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"the operator can install and use all available applications all by himself". But they become available only after the decision of an intervening operator (Apple). If you think that no software is available besides what is being approved by Apple, search the web for the iPhone C64 emulator. This has been discussed extensively in the name change proposal below. Vyx (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty damn tenuous... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The iPad is likely to become one of the most popular tablet computers, and just because you can only get software from the AppStore doesn't mean it isn't a PC in the same way that a car which you have to get serviced by a garage isn't less of a car than one you can easily maintain yourself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This entry is not about "tablet computers" but about tablet personal computers. Your car analogy is therefore irrelevant. Yes, a car is a car whether you service it yourself or not, but a personal computer is not personal when you can't install software without an intervening operator's approval. See the discussion regarding the name change request. Calling the argument tenuous or "plainly silly" as Mahjongg did before, doesn't help the discussion however. Vyx (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What's not personal about a computing device that you can operate it yourself, because that is the crux of the "intervening technicians" argument. It was never meant as meaning that you were limited in whatever you wanted to run on your device, because that didn't play in peoples minds at the time, only that you could operate it yourself. To give a new meaning to intervening computer operator just to find an argument to deny the iPad the status of Personal computer is indeed very tenuous. Mahjongg (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC on this

I think we need to have an RFC on whether the iPad is a tablet PC or not, its not clear to me at all what the consensus is. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is the iPad is a tablet computer and everyone agrees on that; consensus was formed by the discussion regarding the name change request 2 months ago. Please read it carefully. We've wasted too much energy for this which could be used in improving both Tablet PC and tablet computer entries instead. Apple itself states in their official iPad page description:

meta name="Description" content="The iPad. With a revolutionary, 9.7 inch touch screen, and amazing new apps, it does things no tablet PC, netbook, or e-reader could. Starts at $499."

I think that puts the "iPad is a tablet PC" argument to rest. If the iPad was a tablet PC why would Apple say it "does things no tablet PC could" ? -- Vyx (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Because that is just Apple's propaganda...-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also an exclusion from the tablet PC category. -- Vyx (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

At the very least its clear that Apple doesn't consider it to be a "Tablet computer", as they go to great lengths to avoid the term. Yes, I know that Apple doesn't have the power to dictate what to call it, and yes there is an element of "propaganda" in it as they don't want the iPad to be associated with "tablet computers" of the past, but there are also rational reasons not to call it a "tablet computer". For one, it does not lean on the pen computing paradigma, nor does it attempt to be a "tablet computer" in the sense that its is simply a computer (in the sense of a Linux, Windows or Mac OS X system) in tablet format. It is not a (tablet) computer that runs the same software as a normal computer (PC). Its something different than that altogether. Mahjongg (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If iPads are considered tablet computers, does that mean Kindles will also be considered tablet computers? The iPad doesn't have an operating system; rather, Apple's webpage for the "specs" does not list an operating system [2]. Similarly, Amazon's website does not list an operating system for the Kindle (I can't post a link because Amazon is blacklisted?). To be considered a TPC it has to have an OS, yes? (Sorry if I'm late to the party, but I wanted to put in my two cents and have citations!) biancasimone (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)biancasimone

HP Slate

Searching for "HP Slate" redirects to this page, it should not. A new page for HP Slate should be created.

Gestures

It is not clear what is meant by "gestures" in the context of this article. I was going to link the first occurrance of this word to either the article for gesture, or gesture recognition, but neither really describes what is meant by a gesture in the context of Tablet PC's; they are about waving your hands around.

Not sure of the best way to address this: adding a link to the gesture article, and then adding a section for that article about what it means re: touchscreens? Imogenne (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the context of "gesture" in this article is any non-handwriting movement made by a stylus, digital pen or finger. For example, if you have a laptop with a trackpad and you move your finger from the top right corner to the bottom right corner, that is a gesture which causes pages with a scroll bar on the right side to "scroll down" on the screen. Reference.com defines gesture as: A motion of the limbs or body made to express or help express thought. I think we're just used to using, say, limbs to gesture. biancasimone (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)biancasimone

Auto archive

Can we setup 90 days/5 threads remaining auto-archiving? The talk page is getting a little long. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Tablets vs Traditional Notebooks

Given that the page for Laptops/Notebook Computers is uses "Laptop" as the primary name, should this section use the same title for consistency? The section doesn't seem very encyclopedic currently, even more so with the lack of citations which makes it feel more like it's mostly original research. I do think that a comparison section with laptops could be beneficial to the article if it was written properly. I also think that a history section that discusses why tablet PCs were created (the need for the touch interface over keyboard/mouse interface of laptops) would greatly help, though whether that belongs in this section or the more general history section, I'm not sure. UncannyGarlic (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)