This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In the current implementation of Tadewtwytyblet PC, the change is in software sense more than in hardware.
Digitizer is the single only most important component of Tablet PC. Other hardware features such as rotatable screen, hardware button are often optional.
There are a lot of touch screen technology used in PC monitor before, but none of it is called Tablet PC. Why?
Tablet PC is more than a Laptop computer plus a stylus. Microsoft really brings much change in Tablet PC Edition of Windows XP.
The new OS creates the new kind of object called ink, and defines its corresponding behaviors including recognition. It ensure that user can finish all kinds of operation without keyboard.
So when we talk about Tablet PC, we inevitablely see one that use the Windows XP Tablet PC Edition.
Maybe sooner or later we will get Linux powered Tablet PC, who knows?
See http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,112743,00.asp for the first Linux tablet. Also, Linux can run on most tablets with digitizer support. However they all lack many of the nicities that make tablets usable under Windows. -- Tyler Colbert
-- such as ability to run MS Windows?
Most "Tablet PC" run Linux, in fact all did until Microsoft came along.--KH Flottorp 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"Tablet PC" / "tablet PC" distinction
This article combines the topics of the Tablet PC initiative started by Microsoft and supported by several OEMs and software houses, with the general concept of a "tablet PC," which have existed in various forms prior to the Microsoft initiative (eg the old Fujitsu pen-based slate form laptops). This is confusing and erroneous, as most of the comments in discussion have already indicated. eg while it is possible to run Linux on a tablet(-form) PC, running Linux on a "Tablet PC" is a contradiction in terms, as the Microsoft Tablet PC initiative necessarily includes Microsoft software components, including the specialized OS.
I think there needs to be a clear distinction made between "tablet PC" as refers to the general concept of pen-based computing and "Tablet PC," the Microsoft et al initiative announced in 2002 which refers to distinct specifications that Microsoft's software and hardware partners conform to.
Microsoft is the first company to get a tablet PC on the market with any success. Some it's to be expected that the article be about them. If you feel that it should be reorganized to include a history of older tablet PC attempts, be bold in your edits. PPGMD 15:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
What? Really? Well, if you say so. I don't really see what the fuss is about. Are we really providing useful information to the encyclopedia using public when we explain some oddity of nomenclature? What happens when "tablet PC" appears at the beginning of a sentence? I certainly don't think Microsot Tablet PC deserves special attention in an article about the tablet PC. Perhaps just mentioned as a disambiguation. Tablet PCs (see, are you confused because it has a capital T?) are just what English calls computing devices that have the power of personal computers, but have a touch-screen interface and are shaped like a tablet. Nuff said. Doesn't matter if you call the pen a "chisel". The point is the interface, the size, and the computing resources included. No one is confused. Some of you just work for Microsoft's advertising agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.206.157 (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Microsoft describes a Tablet PC this way: "Computers powered by the Windows XP Tablet PC Edition operating system, and equipped with a sensitive screen designed to interact with a complementary pen, are called Tablet PCs."[1] while the thesis to this Wikipedia article does not mention WinXPTPCE at all (and when it is mentioned later it is described as a non-necessary component).
Wikipedia instead describes it this way: "A tablet PC is a mobile computer shaped in the form of a notebook or a slate with the capabilities of being written on through the use of digitizing tablet technology or a touch screen. A user can use a stylus and operate the computer without having to have a keyboard or mouse." This generic definition not only includes older slate-form and pen-based laptops (like the old Fujitsus)... but it would also class Smart Displays and almost every PDA device as a Tablet PC!
I think the general (ie non Microsoft Tablet PC initiative related) "tablet PC" information ought to be removed to a separate article about Pen Tablet computers, while the "Tablet PC" article should describe primarily and foremost the Microsoft Tablet PC initiative and specification; though Microsoft did not coin the term "tablet PC," they are responsible for popularizing it and entering it into mainstream use. (Similar to the term "PC" itself, which usually refers to the "IBM PC-compatible" set of personal computers rather than all personal computers inclusive.)
What's odd is that, in my vernacular, "PC" means a unit with a separate tower and monitor, contrasting with "laptop." As I greatly prefer that sort of PC to any tiny laptop computer, I'm forced to wonder if actual tablet -PCs- exist, with a large monitor that has a drawing tablet/touchscreen built in. If so, I'd be quite interested in purchasing such a monitor...
Oh damn, I've found it, and it's 2500 dollars.
The Not Invented Here Syndrome.
Several Tablet PC have been presented on trade shows long before Microsoft or rather Bill Gates showed any interest. In a sense, Microsoft derailed the entire notion, as they relied on a disk being present in the device for secondary storage. Most of the Tablet-PC use Linux - and not Windows at all, because here you have a full TCP/IP stack, and also more flexible device management. These were the days where IrDA was at its end, and USB had been introduced, while not for memory yet.
This develops into "somethings is not because Microsoft has not invented it" - like "To or or not to be is up to Bill Gates to decide". I doubt Bill Gates likes that definition. To allow technology in general to develop, you need to remove the tie to Microsoft. Also just as "Computer" is an American English term, I doubt it makes sense to discuss "Computers" in the context of computers running Microsoft Windows. If the Europeans had kept their research by themselves - you would not be reading this article - as this is based on technology developed on a Norsk Data computer (yes - not made in the US) located outside Geneva by a team of scientists, lead by a British(not by Al Gore).
The cost of system maintenance has not been focused in the US as in Europe, hence you also find that the first "Tablets" and "Slates" were made in Europe. To reduce management cost, no storage is held on the Tablet - only on the server - once you start pushing things out - and allow preliminary storage on the device you violate some of the fundamental properties of the tablet - such as that it need not be personal - but will then be equipped with a device to authorise access and identify the user (e.g. a SmartCard). With any disk - beside a USB device, you introduce the required backup and application management. The purpose of the device was to get rid of these, and when Microsoft comes years later an "introduces" their device with "mass storage and personal character recognistion" it is just obvious to the rest how little they understand and care about the problems and cost issues with their customers. However, they had seen something, decided it was time to make their version - and derailed the technology entirely.
Tablet PC such as Siemens Gigaset SimPad was available in Europe since 1998. They have been succesful used in several building management projects even by US companies such as Honeywell --KH Flottorp 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Yeah, you're right. How dare Microsoft attempt to make a technology usable by people who aren't working in an environment with a central wireless server. They obviously don't understand usability at all.
v.s. Laptop Computers
I just added a section called "v.s. Laptop Computers".
Can we get more information about the advantages and disadvantages of using a Tablet PC v.s. a Laptop? Laptops seem to have been around longer (or at least used more) so this may be helpful to people who are new to the concept of a tablet PC. 66.92.144.74 18:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
--> This section is only correct with respect to slate (i.e. non-hybrid tablets); I edited it a little. --Ninjagecko 9-1-05
Can someone compare Tablet PC to a PDA? They seems to work pretty much the same these days.--Sueng 9-13-07
Smaller Size is not an advantage
The general laptop market has products of all sizes, covering the same sizes as Tablet PCs do, and more. Size is actually a disadvantage for Tablet PCs, as there are no (from what I have seen) convertible Tablet PCs with screens bigger than 14 inches. Of course, bigger laptops may defeat the whole purpose of a tablet, but that lessens the disadvantage, but does not eliminate it. And of course, the utility of each screen size is relative to each person and scenario. So I will delete that advantage, and put the lack of big screen laptops as a disadvantage. I also rewrote the introductory paragraph and added the disadvantages section.
Smaller sizes can be an advantage though, I'm a user of a Tecra M4 (a 14.1") and I often find it too bulky for general note-taking unless I rest it (in slate mode) on my lap, compared to the 12" M200/M400 which looks better for note-taking (albiet, with a smaller-resolution screen). The Tecra M4 has often been described as a "proper laptop with tablet functionality thrown in" (see C|Net's review) rather than a proper tablet-pc. W3bbo 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I use the notion that my pockets are no larger than a 5" screen to illustrate one aspect: You need to be able to carry it around with you. So check out (those of you who allow Linux Tablets) the Nokia 770 - this is a mobile phone tablet PC. Well, it does not run Windows, and never will. --KH Flottorp 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC).a
GO Corporation & PenPoint
The Momenta was not made by GO Corporation. GO Corporation made the PenPoint operating system which involved handwriting recognition. GO spun off EO, a hardware company which made the EO 440 and EO 880 personal communicators which were based on PenPoint and therefore included handwriting recognition. Other licensees of PenPoint included NEC and IBM. In fact, IBM came up with the name ThinkPad to refer to its tablet computer based on PenPoint, before using it for their popular line of laptops.
Momenta was something different, a hybrid pen computer with a keyboard. 71.141.138.30 18:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think someone added your corrections to the article. One correction: GO didn't spin off EO. AT&T founded EO to make a personal wireless communicator using their low-power Hobbit chip running on GO's PenPoint OS. When GO ran into difficulties it was folded into EO (GO's founders left), abandoning a general hardware-independent O.S. supporting third-party apps to focus on the software for EO's next-generation communicator. -- Skierpage 08:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
PARC "did" or "did not" support its development?
The History section says "did," but the context indicates "did not." Somebody who knows, please fix it or disambiguate it. Lou Sander 14:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
PARC did definitely NOT participate in the development of the Tablet PC developed in Europe 1995 - 2002. The people at PARC joined Apple, and complete the design here - though with the small screen.--KH Flottorp 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Missing word
A not seems to be missing from the sentence: "Alan Kay of Xerox PARC proposed a notebook using pen input called Dynabook in the late-1960s. However, the PARC management did support its development." - SimonP 21:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
07/08/2006 - Corrected missing word "not" - Carlos Cavalcanti
12/07/2006 - The PARC management did halt the Dynabook, it was another from PARC that brought it to Apple. The problem was the screen --KH Flottorp 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Disadvantages not clearly disadvantages
Some of the items listed as disadvantages (screen size, and typing crutch most notably) are very subjective in nature. Some people prefer the screen to be smaller to better enable the usability of the Tablet PC in situations where it would be impractical to use a conventional notebook PC. Some people prefer handwriting to typing as it is more comfortable to them.
Additionally, programming is just as practical on a convertible as it is on a notebook. For example, it is a great platform to develop programs intended for use on other Tablet PCs.
Battery life concerns can be alleviated in the same way as with other notebooks - additional battery options. I personally own a Gateway CX2618 which has the capability to add a battery in place of the optical drive and an extended primary battery. When combined, the two batteries offer me over 10 hours of continuous use (read: no sleeping) until the next need to swap the battery or recharge. Electrovaya Scribbler models also offer exceptional battery life by default, as the company was primarily a battery manufacturer before entering the Tablet PC market.
I think that the advantages/disadvantages section should be expanded to note the subjectivity of certain properties of the Tablet PC platform, and any workarounds or solutions if applicable.
I can add about programming, that where you program parallel execution, you will use something like a Tablet PC to program, because you need to be able to represent things in a 3D coordinate system. This is easier to "draw" using arrows between "nodes for execution". To type and then connect is not very efficient.--KH Flottorp 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Battery: Mobile phones is the clue, they were around in Europe, so we had the battery technology that allows a Tablet PC to last at least 14 hours without a recharge. I see that you suffer.... so I refer you to the "Not Invented Here Syndrome" section.--KH Flottorp 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
* * *
This statement re. retention of information should be referenced:
"Note-taking — taking handwritten notes and drawing diagrams at a class or conference increases productivity and retention of information"
Pricing
While I agree that on average, the Tablet PC is a bit pricier, the higher price tag generalization no longer applies to every Tablet PC. Certain models are priced competitively in regards to their non-tablet counterparts (if applicable).
Heh. I'm not so sure. Every tablet I've ever seen has been overpriced. Usually (as mentioned in the article), the digitizer adds about $300 to the price. alphaChimplaudare 02:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Most tablets do not even have non-tablet brethren, so this statement of the digitizer adding $300 to the price cannot be reasonably proven. For example, if one were to actually do research into this statement, they might find the HP TC4200/TC4400, vs. the NC4200/NC4400. In this case the non-tablet models are actually more expensive. flurffmeister 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Higher Education Implementation
I believe it is worth mentioning in the article the effort of some higher education institutions to implement Tablet PCs into their education systems. I've gone ahead and added a section under external links pertaining to higher education, could someone add a section to the article on the progress of higher education institutions?
--Atlanta800 18:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Very good point. I know that Grove City College, for one, is giving tablets to all of their students (2400 total, ~700 each year). Think that bears note? alphaChimplaudare 02:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Panasonic Advertising suspected
The article has a strong intention for advertising Panasonic Tablet PCs, which is not considered as a neutral point of view in Wikipedia.
I found three examples, and I want to delete them according to the policy of wikipedia.
Attempting to keep neutral information, while providing pertinent illustrations. Panasonic is a leader with tablets and portable touch screen technologies and has been for many years, so they are a logical point of illustration.Blathering1 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1.In "Thin-Client Slates" section
"The Panasonic Toughbook 08 is representative of the application of thin-client computing to tablet PCs."
This Toughbook 08 (just brought out to market to replace the MDWD) is the only thin-client slate made by a major manufacturer that I am aware of. The value of having a $60 billion company bring this market is critical to see the perceived value of this class of tablet. Blathering1 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
2.In Convertible section
A convertible design, the Panasonic Toughbook 19 is a fully ruggedized convertible. Completely sealed to dust and water, and designed to withstand temperature extremes and drops onto concrete; the convertible element does not detract from this unit being even less prone to failure than most notebooks. USAT Corp. cites a failure rate of 1.58% on these units versus an average of 24% on notebooks. Blathering1 —20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
However, after a detailed description of Panasonic pcs, other pc is mentioned as "One model by Acer" in short.
This would indicate a reason to delete the Acer unit (I do not have details on the Acer-- someone care to research?)-- I added detail and research stats on the model, and to illustrate that the failure issue was not universal across tablets.Blathering1 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3.In Disadvantages section
a long passage for advertising Panasonic followed
"Manufacturers have overcome this point of weakness such as the Panasonic Toughbook design which has a failure rate far less then most notebooks."
"Panasonic designed the Toughbook 19 to withstand the rigors of tablet use. The mobility engineering company, USAT Corp., cites the use of scissor shock absorbers mounted to the screen, flexible connectors, durable and replaceable screen overlayments that yield a failure rate on the Toughbook 19 far below that of other tablet form factor computers."
Do you agree with me? Should we delete these item? Please call me if you have your idea.
Agreed. Should be revised to remove bias. Doesn't help that four of the 10 references were from the usatcorp.com site (which isn't even the official Panasonic webiste). iamthebob(talk|contribs) 02:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I edited out a lot of the Panasonic bias. Removed the sections that specifically touted the Panasonic features, and removed the links to the usatcorp.com website. iamthebob(talk|contribs) 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I added notes as to why the illustrations on Panasonic were added. I am not with Panasonic, nor Matsushita, but I am broadly trained in the mobile technology space-- and Panasonic does lead this field. I used USAT as a point of reference as they provided me with a static address for the material (spec sheets) listed while Panasonic's addresses are dynamic. Also, I spoke with USAT and they agreed to be a reference point to validate the information provided. If the information is refuted, they would be a source to contact-- this is a standard Wiki practice-- provide references when possible. To be more objective we should add some better detail on Intermec and Symbol to keep the bias neutral-- I am adding to this and need to find a good reference point for these companies like USAT provided.Blathering1 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This all said, the significant edit work refining a very pieced together article is appreciated. My aim is to refine the document as time allows to keep it clean and improve it with current info. So much of this info changes by the day, and sections do sound biased. We also need good thorough, objective information written with referenced information and refined in to a smooth document. All this around a technology that is rapidly changing. Blathering1
Can you site evidence that Panasonic actually "leads the field"? It is a standard Wiki practice to provide references when possible. However, references need to pertain to the thing that they are trying to prove, I do not think that the advertisements that you are using do that (see below for more information). In addition, you said that sections sound biased, and that we need a good thorough, objective information written. However when I try to edit out the bias and make the article sound less biased and remove the subjective information, you revert my edits? Does that mean that you like having bias in the article?
Also, I still maintain that the page as it is sounds biased. Take these examples:
"A convertible design, the Panasonic Toughbook 19 is a fully ruggedized convertible. Completely sealed to dust and water, and designed to withstand temperature extremes and drops onto concrete; the convertible element does not detract from this unit being even less prone to failure than most notebooks." - This is irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is talking about the hinge design. We don't care whether it is sealed from dust water, or whether it can sustain drops onto concrete etc... we want to find out if there's a good hinge design or not. Plus, it sounds exactly like an advertisement, not like an encyclopedia.
"USAT Corp. cites a failure rate of 1.58% on these units versus an average of 24% on notebooks. [4]" - I looked at the source, it's a Panasonic advertisement that is cited. It doesn't focus directly on Tablet PCs, but on Notebook PCs as a whole. It also doesn't focus specifically on failure rate of the hinge, which is what the section is about. It doesn't state how the PC Magazine poll was taken because a 25% failure rate average seems highly implausible. In addition, Panasonic did not use the results from the PC Magazine poll for it's numbers but instead uses some other number—and we don't know how that number was obtained.]
"Manufacturers have overcome this point of weakness such as the Panasonic Toughbook design which has a failure rate far less then most notebooks." - Once again, the citation for this quote does not pertain directly to Tablet PCs or hinge design.
"The Panasonic Toughbook 08 is representative of the application of thin-client computing to tablet PCs." - Explain please? Why the Toughbook representative of thin client computing and not some other tablet PC?
"Panasonic designed the Toughbook 19 to withstand the rigors of tablet use. The mobility engineering company, USAT Corp., cites the use of scissor shock absorbers mounted to the screen, flexible connectors, durable and replaceable screen overlayments that yield a failure rate on the Toughbook 19 far below that of other tablet form factor computers." - Okay, at least this has some relation to the topic of screens. However, the source for this links once again to the page which doesn't specifically talk about Toughbook tablets, and that does not specifically show that its screen is better than other companies' screens. In addition, once again, this sounds like an advertisement. Aren't there any sources out there that aren't Panasonic advertisements or advertisements by Panasonic resellers?
In the Popular Models section I removed the links to the usatcorp.com website for the Panasonic spec sheets in the name of equity because none of the other tablets have links to them... actually, I think the whole section should be removed because "popular" is a subjective word, and there is no reference for what determines popularity.
I did probably jump a bit-- I have been putting in a bit too much time on these pieces, and doing them as evolutionary processes (some of my references are functional placeholders, as I have asked for whitepapers that validate the statements-- the reference helps but could be much less sales like and can be more accurate, so I list them).
My plan is to dig for direct quotable and online references for market share-- but I am aware that the Toughbooks have ~80+% of the public safety market for this kind of unit.
USAT is a very reliable source for the mobility space as they have thousands of deployments across the country and are (their claim) platform agnostic. As for Panasonic, they ship over 100K touchscreen enabled units each year (SBC, for example, bought over 30,000 units) which is larger than any other tablet manufacturer (third party reference) and are a major provider to the military who have a distinct need for both rugged/reliable units and for touchscreen input. They are the only major core manufacturer of tablet computers, or any notebooks for that matter. Twinhead for example is a major supplier of units for others. This is significant since non-core manufacturers must rely on off-the-shelf products to build units (eg use notebook hardware to build a tablet and so on). This is why failures occur often in tablets-- the units hardware is cobbled together from a bid sheet and frequently not designed to be a tablet.
I cite the Panasonic specific touchscreen units as they designed these units to function as tablets from inception. The fact that most convertibles do have a hinge related failure issue is overcome by this manufacturers approach to the convertible, which is very pertinent to the article.
The reference to the failure rate points to a brochure from them-- I have seen the independent SRI study that relates failures across notebooks (it is amazing! 20-35% failure in notebooks), but have not found it online. The pana 'brochure' is based on this study so this is the best I have at the moment.
On the popular models-- I agree that this is a can of worms-- we have a types of units section, and refer to the 'popular' manufacturers in the article. If anything, we could have a major manufacturers sections if they are in Wikipedia and no models. The only hesitation is the convertible and the slate stand relatively apart in design, reliability and (for the slate) function. Pictures are copyrighted, so I added the links. I am studying the creative commons licensing and seeing if I can pitch someone to contribute copyright free images-- but I haven't gotten this sorted out yet.
I plan to get at the documents cited by those brochures and list a link (they are copyrighted, so the link need to go external) to these as this would be most illustrative for the purposes of the article. Blathering1 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
One other item-- why the Toughbook 08 is a particularly representative of thin-client computing. I am not aware of any other major slate manufacturer doing this-- but the technology is very cool and very pertinent to this article. A bit like a throwback to the mainframe days. I added this piece to the article because of its value to pure tablet computing. The slate processes graphics, input, and output, and then has a permanent wireless connection to a host. The host may have hundreds of slates, and the connection today is campus limited to WiFi, but tomorrow can be WiMax or WAN (I believe HSDPA has just about enough bandwidth to permanently carry a session link to the slate) and so nationwide. The 08 uses a series of proprietary algorithms to compress the data stream and parse the tasks. With Larry Ellison's hosted applications dream (salesforce.com, Netsuite, Oracle E-business, etc.), Google's online free application push, and pervasive wireless-- this is a vital technology for the future of tablet computing. Blathering1 19:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see where you're getting with the Toughbook. I think eventually some of the stuff you say should probably be moved to the Toughbook article, but perhaps we should leave it in here until you finish getting the 3rd party sources etc. Thanks for enlightening me about the Toughbook situation. Don't forget that there is a consumer for tablet PCs as well though; we can't just focus all on the commercial/industry/military market. iamthebob(talk|contribs) 06:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, now we have two opinions debating , my suggestion is that debating is good for a healthy Wikipedia, so why not let more people join our discussion? In order to do so, I placed a "spam discussion" tags in the wikipedia, please DONOT remove them. --Walter Smith 02:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it looks like spam and should be deleted and rewriten. I've seen alot of sources on the internet, so rewriting the Convertible section isn't impossible. We should stay away with using one company as the scource of information, Panasonic, isn't the only company to make convible notebooks.. I'll do some research and try to clean things up later. Usefull help is welcome. --69.24.160.124 21:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Nokia as major
Is Nokia really a major vendor in this market? or does it just want to be major? What constitutes major?
(Note: I'm note sure I disagree, and in fact it was a good thing that it was here otherwise I wouldn't have been able to use this page. - However, I'm not sure that it qualifies as major.)
08:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful
I would love too have one!!!!!111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.105.202.194 (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Rumor?
....i heard things about getting tablets fer lyke $200 or $130
so is that true? and if it is-where could i get one T-T
look at it, it's ridiculous. Not every pair of sentences should have its own subheading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.19.114 (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Which input technology?
I found not really much on the input technology of tablet PCs. Which ones use the Graphics tablet-screen hybrid and which ones are touchscreens. I think this is as important as the hybrid-slate difference. --Yamavu (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Screen Resolutions available in tablet pc
Give me various screen resolution in tablet pc and also the maximum resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.85.47.1 (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Huge mistake about the Axiotron ModBook
The whole paragraph about the Axiotron Modbook is false. Axiotron does have an agreement with Apple to make its tablet. It's not a PC-based tablet, but a modified MacBook. Only the bottom case of the MacBook is preserved, with a Wacom Intuos Tablet on top of it, and a modified screen on top on the whole thing. As it's a MacBook, after all, this is a real Mac, though really modded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.68.210.8 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Origins of Tablet PC term
I've removed a paragraph from this article that asserted the this term originated in speech by Bill Gates in 2001. For a start this claim was not backed up by the reference cited in evidence - the reference used the term within it, but did not claim it to be a freshly coined term. Indeed, since the project had got as far as the development of prototypes it must have existed under some moniker prior to that speech. There's no evidence of a change in name and therefore the term must have existed prior to the speech.
However, I also have evidence that directly contradicts the assertion made. In my loft I have several copies of Pen Computing from the late nineties. I haven't bothered to dig them out but I chanced upon the October 1997 edition lying around last night. What is clear is that at that time there was no consensus on what to call these devices - "pen computer", "pen PC", "slate" and "tablet" were all in use, along with even "Windows tablet" or "Windows 95 tablet". Look a little further though and you do find references to the key phrase. For instance in the buyer's guide section the Ricoh G-1200S is described as "First tablet PC with internal CD-ROM" - clear evidence that the term significantly predates the speech previously given as the origins of the term. CrispMuncher (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft trademarked and capitalized the term "Tablet PC", and issued a hardware specification for Tablet PCs (as their trademarked term). The Tablet PC OS was only permitted to be used on hardware which conformed to Microsoft's specifications -- the specifications were particularly narrow, and essentially required vendors to use digitizers from Wacom, as those were the only commercial components that met the digitizer part of the specification.
I have edited the entry to cite to the Microsoft "Tablet PC" specification, instead of saying that Bill Gates coined the term "Tablet PC".
I assume this is a feature that won't get my fingers sticky, but shouldn't there be a description in this article or a link to whatever article might describe it? Jim.henderson (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Advertisement
The durability part on the toughbook sounds a bit like an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.242.163 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Features section - daylight readability
The reference on daylight readability is wrong in this article. "Sunlight readable displays (800 nit display) are clearly readable even in bright and direct sunlight.[9]"
Contrast ratio of an LCD used outdoors is computed as 1 + (emitted light / reflected light). Average sunlight is about 10,000 nits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettgilbertson (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Low screen resolution trend
Changed this section to incorporate the Motion LE1700 which has a 1400x1050 resolution... but does this section belong? Doesn't seem very nuetral / encyclopaedic.
"Almost all major tablet PCs makers cut costs by selling only 1200x800-resolution tablets. For example, as of October 2009, only the Motion Computing LE1700 (1400 x 1050) has a resolution greater than 1280x800." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettgilbertson (talk • contribs) 04:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Inaccurate comments about availability of windows support?
The current text of the article indicates that versions of Windows with Tablet PC support are not available for commercial purchase (and machines must be sent back to "re-image"). This sounds completely bogus--it's my understanding that Tablet PC features are built-in to Windows 7 (though I haven't researched any limits in the different available versions of 7 (home, professional, etc.)). I would assume that you can install Win7 on any tablet PC and, acknowledging the normal issues of hardware and driver support, get full tablet functionality. I have heard demos of the Beta of Win 7 being sucessfully installed on old tablets and running well.
I'm not in a position to research this and edit the article correctly, but if anyone is closer to the topic to make such a substantial change, I'd welcome it. Does anyone know the status of this for sure?
Any mention of Apple's foray into this consumer product? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.160.8 (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The ipad is a personal media player, not a tablet computer.
On the contrary, The New York Times page 1 (January 28, 2010) calls the iPad "a slender tablet computer". For example, I am seriously looking at it to draw and sketch on, which you cannot do with a media player. The drawing feature which sold it for me is instant replay; that means I can undo and redo a part of my sketch, which is important for this amateur. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality
I put up a neutrality warning on the Applications of Tablet PC's in Business section because I felt its tone was heavily biased. The information in the section is (mostly) good, but I believe it would benefit from a more neutral tone.
On 2006.07.03 the Apostrophe Police removed all offending apostrophes from this section. It was otherwise not altered. Removing all traces of bias from this part would be very difficult as you would have to delete most of it.
You were right to issue the warning. See my frustrating notes. --KH Flottorp 20:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the section. There was no information in that section that isn't elsewhere in the article, and not written like a gushing editorial. Look in the history if you want to see it. 68.167.249.143 07:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object to the pro-Microsoft slant in the article, particularly the passage regarding the "popularized in a press release by Microsoft,..." and the discussion of a discrete graphics processor, which seems to be derived from the need for Microsoft OSes to have more powerful hardware to do the same job as their open source counterparts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.150.251 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Severe bias/POV issues - Linux
"While the advent of improved handwriting recognition and additional applications have advanced the appeal of Linux tablets, the open source nature of Linux hampers Linux tablets featureset and innovation. The Linux Operating System's Tablet functionality is a poor carbon copy of Microsoft Windows XP or Vista's Tablet functionality. Linux significantly lacks creativity, R&D and most noteably, good developers."
I've rewritten the paragraph to remove some of the bias, but someone with more knowledge of Linux's capabilities on a tablet PC should add to it. -- 05:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Linux has significant tablet PC software available. It is quite right to remove the above mentioned bias. I have further edited both the Linux and Microsoft sections to remove bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.150.251 (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ultra-Mobile PC (aka Project Origami)
Is it a new (third) form factor ?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.246.234 (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
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.
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.
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
In my defense for adding the iPad link, the iPad should be called a tablet pc because it can be used to opperate as a tablet pc. The only difference is Apple's patented multi-touch graphic user interface. It is a tablet pc without a stylus. You use your finger(s) as a cursor and it navigates you through the interface. You can go online, check email, all the things and probably more that you could do on any other tablet pc. Cessna315 (talk) May 25,2010
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". [2] --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.
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)
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 [3]. 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)
Sorry for echoing Vyx. Anyhoo, I found an article which interviews a former Apple exec, and he says:
The iPad is not a tablet, it's another addendum to the iPhone, the iPod Touch
I'll stop talking now biancasimone (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to drudge this topic back up again, but all of the arguments presented here seem to revolve around the definition of a PC, rather than the definition of a tablet, which I think is more important in this situation.
A touch screen is a piece of hardware that registers simple physical contact for pointing or gesture purposes. A tablet is a digitising implement on which one writes/draws. You cannot write or draw on an iPad, nor does it have related digitising capabilities, so it is not a tablet by definition. Even Wiktionary's article on tablet computers states that to be classified as a tablet computer, it must have a digitising tablet input but may or may not have a touchscreen as well. If it holds true that any touch screen computer could be called a tablet computer, is it accurate to say that touch screen ATMs are tablet ATMs? Touchscreen ≠ tablet, and vice versa. iPads are not a tablet anything, they are a touch screen device using a restrictive operating system that more resembles integrated operational firmware (as found in car dashboards, for example) than an operating system. Mitchells00 (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
HP Slate
Searching for "HP Slate" redirects to this page, it should not. A new page for HP Slate should be created.
This appears to be complete. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
One of the issues for a tablet computer, including a tablet PC is the handling of strokes -- The Chinese character meaning "person" (, Chinese: rén, Korean: in, Japanese: hito, nin; jin). The character has two strokes, the first shown here in dark, and the second in red. The black area represents the starting position of the writing instrument.. Since the Chinese-Japanese-Korean PCs have had to deal with this using keyboards, a graphics tablet will open up some vistas for the OS to deal with. I would be very impressed if the new tablet PCs get this right in the upcoming months, given that it's been 8 years already. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. There are various divergent opinions, but there is no clear consensus for any one title. I suggest examining the alternative tablet personal computer that Labattblueboy proposed. Ucucha 17:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
A Tablet PC is a device running a Microsoft OS (such as PenDOS, PenWindows, Modular Windows, WinCE, etc). All those Apple commercials about PC vs Mac show that PC is Windows in common conception. So this should be moved to the other term that is not strong connected to Microsoft. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Nay
Oppose -- PC is the acronym of Personal Computer and it is not connected to Microsoft. The Apple commercials aim on selling products and are not a good source of information on definitions; Apple has used the term Personal Computer on its own systems in the past: http://www.shanemhale.com/assets/blog/20060212_AppleIII-email.jpg The tablet PC is a PC which, per Wikipedia, "refers to a slate shaped mobile computer device, equipped with a touchscreen or stylus to operate the computer" -- entirely irrelevant to the definition you provide. Retaining the PC suffix is important because "Tablet PC" produces many more results in search engines than "Tablet computer" and more importantly because the definition of the Personal Computer helps clarify the difference between the iPad and any tablet PC which can be freely used with a variety of operating systems without being locked by an intervening computer operator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyx (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for now at least. The motivation for this is presumably the Apple iPad and we shouldn't be redefining a whole class for the sake of one product that doesn't even exist in buyable form. Tablet PCs have existed for decades and now as evidenced by recent edit activity here, it is as if people consider that Apple have single-handedly invented the platform overnight. We need to keep that attitude in check rather than pander to it.
Finally, as Vyx points out, who cares what popular conception holds? We are interested in facts here, not pandering to common errors. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose -- This kind of redefinition would also include touchscreen smart phones and media players. That would be far too broad. Kevin Beckman (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe you have misunderstood the requested move; it is whether the Tablet PC entry should be renamed Tablet computer -- not whether the iPad is a Tablet computer or not; of course it is. What it is not, is a personal computer, for reasons discussed in the iPad section above, unlike all other tablet PCs mentioned in the article. You argument underlines the importance of the distinction between a Tablet Personal Computer and any Tablet computer, not the renaming/merge thereof. Are you sure you meant to support the move? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyx (talk • contribs) 21:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Now that you have demonstrated that you are comfortable communicating downward, have you considered that there just might be other options? :
Please remember that 'tablet computers', 'slate computers' etc. can be considered to be targets for deployment of software. In other words, a hosted cross-platform development system just might not be identical to a target system. If one were to insist that the target system must be developed using an identical development system, then your position would be correct. That would be the case for the Windows world and has a quarter-century track record. However, that was not the case in the previous half-century, and there are in fact viable systems that use hosts that are not the same as the targets. The cross-development platform model of development was in use before PCs existed, is being used today for some very successful products, and will be used in the future as well. It is quite revealing that articles in Wikipedia about this method are so sparse. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the point about "communicating downward".
Software development, whatever the means, is not limiting the personal computer category. You can have a personal computer whose applications have been built on a University mainframe. Actually all applications of the first personal computers were built on mainframes. The big difference is when the operating system relies upon, or requires credentials of, a centrally managed host. It is then that the target is no longer a personal computer but a client or a smart terminal. This is a too important difference to be missed by renaming the Tablet PC to Tablet computer.
You may want to explain further because the history of personal computers section of your link agrees with Vyx. Kevin Beckman (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The hardware started in the New York-Boston axis ie (IBM -think mainframe computer, NY) vs (Boston, the PDP Programmed Data Processor which was not marketed as a mainframe). Now examine the MITS Altair, built in Albuquerque, NM (the home of atomic weapons testing). Now consider why Bill Gates started Microsoft in Albuquerque, NM. He wasn't building operating systems then because they didn't exist yet. That's right, you can run a computer without an operating system or even a BIOS. Those were afterthoughts. What mattered was the medium which stored the software. In NY, it was punch cards for input and mag tape for output. In Boston, they branched out beyond cards and used paper tape for input. You might now want to go back to the links and re-read. Especially examine the pictures. All that you need is to start the program. Why do you think that they spent the previous decades studying the halting problem? That's right, all an operating system does is support the events needed to run the software. That does not imply that one must have an OS in software. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course you don't need an OS in software (or even BIOS) to have a workable personal computer. The Altair is a good example; also games in early home computers were written in plain machine code, circumventing the BIOS (for copy protection) and totally ignoring the cassette or diskette-supplied OS (usually CP/M). But the difference between a personal computer which allows you to do that and a non personal computer (which would fall into the generic "Tablet computer" category) such as the iPhone/iPad is that the latter doesn't license you to do that at, neither at the machine not at the BIOS level and not even at the OS level since they are blocking emulators such as a C64 emulator or application platforms such as Flash.
In other words: try to handle a non-personal computer such as the iPad like you would an Altair and kiss goodbye to your warranty.Vyx (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and groups like Symbian platform (for mobile devices and not necessarily tablet computers) are trying to create another kind of platform, based on the Eclipse license, to make their platform more hospitable for outsiders. Even they are trying to open up their platform. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The New York Times (accessdate=2010-02-04) has an Opinion piece "Microsoft’s Creative Destruction" on the history of the tablet PC at Microsoft, written by Dick Brass, a vice president at Microsoft from 1997 to 2004. He states "To this day, you still can’t use Office directly on a Tablet PC. And despite the certainty that an Apple tablet was coming this year, the tablet group at Microsoft was eliminated." This was because the event processing from tablets was specifically not supported by the Office software in 2001, directly due to the internecine warfare between internal groups at the company (see the link). I believe this will be addressed, but you can see that they blew a half-decade lead. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think the above belongs in the article itself rather that this particular discussion? I do see it related to Tablet PC software, but I don't see it related to renaming the Tablet PC to Tablet computer.Vyx (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you and others now willing to allow edits of a larger scope? When I innocently added detail about the iPad, and saw it reverted, it was clear to me that the current owners of the article have a slightly different mindset than the one I was expecting. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I invite all editors to respond to the proposal of opening-up of this article beyond an obsolete (even within Microsoft) marketing concept. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of the current move vote, I think it makes sense to split the current redirect of Tablet computer away from this article so that the editors can restart from another beginning as I have outlined above. Would that be alright with everyone? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)a
I support both proposals: a generic tablet computer article that would include non-personal restricted devices and the opening of this article outside the scopes of the Microsoft OS (for example the Nokia N900 would make a perfect candidate for inclusion as well as Symbian which you point out) Vyx (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Vyx's proposal is pretty solid. Kevin Beckman (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Support I think tablet computer is a far more sensible category to justify an encyclopedia article than tablet PC. PC is a limitative term, and it necessarily excludes all devices that are not considered "PC's" while these devices are not necessarily very much functionally different. And yes, indeed this would also resolve the issue of the iPad and other similar devices that are now excluded from the article because they are not "PC's". This in response to the reply directly above me, I'm not sure that person misunderstood things; I think the issues are very much related and can be solved by the proposed move/renaming. If we are interested in facts rather than public conception, as someone above so cleverly pointed out, which is indeed exactly what an encyclopedia should be doing, then from that perspective I'm very curious what would be the groundbreaking rational reasons the uphold the limiting definition of the "table PC" and not broaden the article to include *all* tablet computers and/or tablet devices?? Greetings. RagingR2 (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Support We generally avoid acronyms (WP:Name). I believe this is an appropriate move, particularly given tablets are not exclusively known as Tablet PCs. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that there is no shortage of reliable sources that use “Tablet computer”. Even if Tablet PC is the marginally more common name, I believe abandoning the acronym and adopting an descriptive name is of greater value.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Marginally ? "tablet computer" yields 1.5 million results in Google while "tablet PC" yields 12 millions. Vyx (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, straight google searches are not normally reliable on their own (WP:GOOGLE). A search of reliable sources (For example: Google book, Google scholar and Google News) show a lead for "Tablet PC" but no where near the 9:1 ratio that you are espousing. Google Books: Tablet PC - 890 hits[4] Tablet computer - 631 hits[5]. Google News: Tablet PC - 4183 hits[6] Tablet computer - 8807 hits[7]. Google Scholar: Tablet PC - 13800 hits[8] Tablet computer - 4440 hits[9].--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
And these results are marginally different ? Vyx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
"Tablet computer" has more news hits and the scholar hits for "Tablet PC" contains a disproportionate number of hits relating to Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and the book hits have approximately 25% difference between them. So yah, I think, marginal is exactly the word I was looking for.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
How disproportionate ?
In scholar.google.com "tablet PC" -Microsoft or "tablet PC" -Windows returns about 8500 results. But let us apply the same measure in news.google.com where "tablet computer" -Apple returns, unsurprisingly, just 68 results. The same search minus Microsoft or minus Windows returns ~3000 results. This isn't marginal. Vyx (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think an almost 40% difference (5300 hits of 13800 hits) is certainly notable. I don't think I was completely off by saying a disproportionate number of hits relating to Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, although I didn't think it would result in a 40% reduction. I'm not sure why you would trying to present a windows vs. apple theme. The only reason for removing windows as a search term is to remove the operating system because the article is not about the operating system but the equipment. What's the explanation for presenting results without apple? Anyway, as I said before WP:COMMONNAME was never my point of argument. My argument was that the search results show the term tablet computer is used sufficiently in regular affairs that abandoning the acronym (which wikipedia generally likes to do) and adopting a descriptive name would not be detrimental to people's understanding.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If you are against the usage of the acronym, you could simply request renaming the article to "Tablet personal computer" which is fine by me. My argument in removing Apple from the search terms was to apply the same logic you did in "relating to Windows XP Tablet PC Edition" to your argument. While a 38% difference is notable, the 98% difference is even more and the fact that "Tablet computer" in google news clearly relates to Apple and only Apple (instead of Tablet PC which seems a much more neutral term) is yet another reason to resist removing "Personal" from the article (in acronym or not). If you think that the article is only about equipment then perhaps you need to read the article, especially the "System software" section before participating in a renaming request that could result in major changes (see the debate with Ancheta Wis above) in the article.Vyx (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe your reasoning is flawed, but that is neither here nor there. I think I could supporttablet personal computer as an option.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
RFC: Merge table PC and tablet computer
I think the tablet PC and tablet computer articles should be merged as having them separate just seems to cause difficulties. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but the term "Tablet PC" is coined for, and therefore is connected in most peoples mind, to tablets in the form of full Microsoft Windows PC's in tablet form. It is therefore a "poisoned term"! Not at all applicable to Apple iPad's and other strongly different but still tablet based systems, like the tablet computer XO-3 from the One Laptop per Child project, and other upcoming tablets that bear no resemblance to a Tablet-PC. So the articles should merge to an article named tablet computer, NOT to an article named tablet PC. Mahjongg (talk)
No, we already discussed this and I see no new arguments. Tablet computer and tablet PC should be different, just as Computer and Personal Computer are different articles. Vyx (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain your view in more detail? Currently the tablet computer article is very small and doesn't have much detail and there is constant edit warring over what to include here. The differences over whether any particular product is in either camp are pretty small. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I, actually "we", have explained our views in great detail in the moving request above. I must suggest reading it instead of removing it from the talk. I don't like the Tablet Computer article either -- it seems to me as if it was created only to categorize the iPad somewhere. This isn't a problem that merging will fix; the Tablet Computer article should be improved instead. There are no camps here; it is just different categories, and as it is true in the various categories of Computers, the differences in particular products are often quite vast indeed. Vyx (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain your case again as the move closed with 'no consensus' which doesn't make it clear that everyone is against. Besides the differences between a tablet computer and a tablet PC (whatever they are) are far more subtle than the difference between a PC that sits on your desk and a mainframe. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The difference is not subtle. That one's iPad won't run a Java application such as Open Office Base or a Flash based website is not because the iPad doesn't run on good hardware -- it's because the iPad is not a personal computer. For the rest of my "case" please read the discussion above. Your request of explaining it *again* (!?) is unacceptable. Vyx (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
By similar logic any computer running Linux cannot be a PC as they don't run either Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer - two of the most popular applications for Windows.
And with regards to your case is it that Apple forces you to have use the AppStore (though circumventing that is legal) on that device which is the decisive and clear difference you are talking about? It doesn't really seem like that much of a fundamental restriction to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft is free to develop and distribute their software for Linux. However Microsoft is not free to distribute either Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer for the iPad OS; they must get Apple's consent first. That's because the iPad is not a personal computer and I find it hard to believe that you consider this restriction non fundamental. As for the second argument, see this: http://www.slashgear.com/apple-despite-dmca-jailbreaking-will-void-your-warranty-2795415/Vyx (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is Dell Streak in this article and iPad not?
I think it is bizarre that this article doesn't mention the iPad or a number of the upcoming Android, Windows 7, WebOS "tablets" that are coming to market this year. It seems clear to me that whatever the technical definitions of "personal computer" and "computer" are, these devices all compete with each other in the eyes of users, businesses and therefore should all be grouped together in one article. For example, Steve Ballmer has recently said Microsoft will be creating Windows 7 "tablets" explicitly designed to compete with Apple's iPad.http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20012123-56.html?part=cnn-cnet. I don't know if these upcoming tablets will fit the definition of "tablet pc" or "tablet computer." However, it's clear the devices will perform similar functions a an iPad, have similar capabilities and will compete with the iPad in the market place. If we can't list them together under "tablet pc" or "tablet computer," maybe we can just have a new article called "tablets (computing)" with includes both categories.
Societyalum (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Tablet PC , Tablet Computer?
What is this? Tablet pc and tablet computer? this is wrong. I don't see it makes sense to separate the both. We either put them together or make an explicit distinction between both. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Quite. The difference I believe is that the iPad doesn't let you install 100% of the software you might want too :eek:. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The term tablet PC is much older than tablet computer, tablet computer is more generic, while the term tablet PC, like PC's is heavily attached to Windows based systems only. About Ereaserheads comment, I don't think there exist any personal computer (or for that matter any computer) on which you can install "any software you might want to", yes in theory any turing complete computer (like any PC or Mac, workstation or mainframe), can run any other turing complete computer's software, but that is in theory, not in practice. In practice no computer can run all software that has ever existed for any platform. Its a moot point, although I understand the cynical thinking behind it :eek:. :-) 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Taking out all the non Windows related content from this article and moving it to tablet computer (and adjusting links accordingly) would be a step forward on this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, a Tablet PC is (now) a sub-subject of Tablet computer. It should be inserted into a "history of tablet computers" section. Mahjongg (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look at doing so over the next couple of days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I was checking the articles and I thought that maybe the term Tablet PC is not really appropriate. To begin with, I think tablet PCs are at heart fully foldable laptops with ability to respond to a stylus (and by now probably to one's fingers). So I think they belong to the laptop class. The terms tablet pc and tablet computer should be the ones that qualify under the iPad class (without a physical keyboard). Besides, the reality is that as the computational power increases in the future there won't be any difference between a tablet PC and a tablet computer. So I don't know, but I think maybe the one that has to be fully renamed is the Tablet PC article (or we could even make it part of the laptop computer article) and then let the Tablet computer article focus on iPad-like devices. Thanks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
For clarity my plan was to remove all content referring to tablet PCs which don't run MS Windows and to make sure it is included on Tablet computer instead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I was just checking and I see that there is an ongoing debate about the naming of the two articles. I definitely think this needs quite an overhaul. I think that for a non-technical person both concepts will be very similar and confusing.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I've discussed it before and at length :p. But there is no article on Windows tablet PC's and it seems reasonable for there to be one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This has been Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Your distinction is entirely arbitrary, you could land up with, say, an Android Tablet which is unlocked in one country being on the tablet PC article and locked in another and thus "only" being on tablet computer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
How it is arbitrary when it is backed by hard facts ? Wikipedia readers will browse this article to be informed about Tablet PCs. Why should they form the opinion this is "just about MS" as you've stated ? That an Android Tablet can be sold locked doesn't mean that buyers don't have the freedom to buy an unlocked version -- unless they live in North Korea in which case they wouldn't buy an Android at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyx (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
If they want to learn about non-MS tablets they can read Tablet computer... And if you're going with the 'north Korea' argument then the iPad must be 'free' too - as you can always jailbreak. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What, you repeat the same arguments again ? See above in regards to jailbreaking voiding the warranty. See above in regards to Tablet PC not being about just Microsoft. Vyx (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Except that in Europe (as well as several US states I'm sure - and probably most of the rest of the developed world) jailbreaking doesn't void the warranty. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
You both are getting a bit off track here, with obscure non-relevant issue's. The whole "problem" here is again (again, see Personal computer and IBM PC compatible) caused by the fact that "PC", and "personal computer" are NOT two interchangeable terms, as is often expressed in the dichotomy of "PC versus Mac". Because although a Mac is a "Personal computer", when talking about computers its normally not called a PC, because the term PC has been adopted exclusively for (windows running) "IBM PC compatible" personal computers only.
Similarly, the term "tablet PC" was invented by Microsoft to mean a very specific thing, and until a very short time ago the term had a clear and undisputed meaning, although somewhat of an obscure term as almost nobody used Microsoft tablet PC's.
Since tablet/slate shaped computers that have nothing to do anymore with the "Microsoft Tablet PC's" of old have suddenly become in vogue again (due to several factors, including the iPad), many new marketing entities have found a need to bring a "Tablet Personal Computer" on the market. And obviously "Personal Computer" is often simply abbreviated to PC by people who have forgotten, (or never knew about) the ill fated Microsoft product. So these do NOT have anything in common with the old Microsoft "tablet PC", they are "tablet personal computers", not "tablet PC's".
As is obvious, looking at the articles history, this specific article is about Microsofts Tablet PC's, not about all those tablets that call themselves "tablet personal computers". I know it's confusing, but that is simply the situation.
Maybe the solution lies in better names for the articles, now that the old one clearly has become confusing, So perhaps we should call this article "Microsoft tablet-PC", and the new "tablet computer" article "tablet personal computer", but I already can predict that people will claim the iPad isn't a "personal computer", so it shouldn't be in that article (that by the way, is also exactly the reason for the current name of the tablet computer article). Mahjongg (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well tablet computer being shorter than tablet personal computer is another reason. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Difference between "Tablet PC" and "Table Computer"):
A third opinion on this discussion was requested at WP:3O, however it seems that a lot of discussion has already taken place on the subject by several different editors (both in this section, the move request above, and several other sections on this page). So, I'm not sure how much weight my "third opinion" will carry, as it will really be more like a "fourteenth opinion". In any case, here is my opinion: I don't see any evidence that Microsoft has a stronghold on the term "Tablet PC", nor do I see any evidence that the definition of a "personal computer" includes a requirement that it must be running a Microsoft operating system. Wikipedia's articles on Personal computer and Computer sum it up quite nicely: A personal computer is "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." Personal computers are simply a subset of computers: all personal computers are computers (but not all computers are personal computers). PC is simply an acronym for "personal computer". Microsoft holds no trademarks or copyrights on the terms "PC" or "personal computer" or "tablet PC". If editors are claiming that anything described as a "PC" must be running Windows, then I think that assertion needs to be backed up by reliable sources. Therefore, my opinion is that the articles should be merged, since I don't think there are any "tablet computers" which are not also "tablet PC's" (given the definition of "personal computer" found in the first sentence of Personal computer). In other words, there are no tablet computers which are not intended to be sold to and used by individuals and/or end users. Therefore, "tablet PC" = "tablet computer" in all cases, and there should only be one article. — SnottyWongchatter 22:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
If there should only be one article maybe we should move this article to Microsoft tablet PC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Basically what I'm saying is that Microsoft may have been the first company to develop a tablet PC (although I'm not even sure if that is accurate), but that doesn't mean that any other similar pen-enabled personal computer made by a company other than Microsoft can not also be called a tablet PC. "Tablet PC" is not a trademark name, it is merely a description of a type of computer, which can be manufactured by any company. I have no objections to making a statement that Microsoft was the first company to develop the tablet PC (if that is in fact true), however I think it's inappropriate to say that a "tablet PC" must be manufactured by Microsoft, and any other non-Microsoft pen-enabled personal computer is a "tablet computer", not a "tablet PC". As far as I'm aware, there are no sources to back that statement up. SnottyWongsoliloquize 23:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to renaming this article Microsoft Tablet PC (unless there is a better, trademarked product name for it) and making it specifically about Microsoft's failed tablet PC, and renaming Tablet computer to Tablet PC. SnottyWongsqueal 23:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting the 3rd opinion request. Despite what you see with a first glance, there aren't many opinions on the subject. There are only two:
The iPad should be added to the Tablet Personal Computer article because as a tablet it's personal item and it's also a computer.
The iPad should not be added to the Tablet Personal Computer article because according to the definition of the Personal Computer, the owner uses it without an intervening software operator. However this isn't the case for the iPad where an intervening software operator prevents the installation of readily available software such as a Commodore 64 emulator or even Adobe Flash or Java. This limitation is too drastic for the popular definition above to take place.
I believe those on the 1st argument don't really care whether the iPad is a Tablet PC or not. What they want is to include the iPad with the rest of modern slated tablet devices. They had also ripped entire sections of this article and moved them to the Tablet Computer article, despite the fact that modern tablets running Linux *are* in fact called Tablet PCs by Amazon. Renaming this article to "Microsoft Tablet PC" and then retaining a "Tablet Computer" article would have allowed them to do so. But they are not going to like your proposal in renaming the "Tablet Computer" article to "Tablet PC".
As I said, your contribution is valuable as it injects some common sense to the issue. I will propose the following in hopes of ending this issue which has cost us so much time:
Rename this article to Tablet Personal Computer, keep it as the main source of Tablet PC information and create a Microsoft section to accommodate for the MS specification.
Include "jailbroken iPad" in the Apple section in Tablet Personal Computer. The Apple section already has a modified Apple notebook there.
Keep the Tablet Computer article as a quick guide to all Tablet Computers: personal and controlled; refer to the official iPad there.
The real question (IMHO) is whether Microsoft Tablet PC's deserve their own article. If so it doesn't really matter what the name of the article is, as long as the name fits the content. Mahjongg (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The general notability guideline is pretty low. Microsoft Tablet PC hasn't done that badly so it is notable enough for an article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
, Chinese: rén, Korean: in, Japanese: hito, nin; jin). The character has two strokes, the first shown here in dark, and the second in red. The black area represents the starting position of the writing instrument.
Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Difference between "Tablet PC" and "Table Computer"):