Talk:Tablet computer/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Tablet personal computer requested move

As an FYI, there is a move discussion currently taking place relating to Tablet personal computer at Talk:Tablet_personal_computer#Requested_move. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

History of tablet PCs

How is it not a reliable source the article by Frank Spillers, about the usability problems of first Tablet PCs? Frank Spillers has been "recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Labor as a subject matter expert" [1], which makes him an an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. [2] I think his explanation about problems of the original tablets hurting market adoption gives valuable insight, and should be restored. Diego Moya (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. Take it to WP:RSN or see what we get with WP:THIRD. I see no independent sources verifying he's any expert of any kind. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't find anything relevant to UX in a quick Google News search mentioning Frank Spiller. Without seeing something that suggests otherwise, I'd say he hasn't been published by reliable third-party publications. --Pnm (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
His work appears here(chapter 14) and is cited here, so yes he's been published by reliable third-party publications. It didn't take more than five minutes to find. Diego Moya (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but that doesn't make him an expert. Please take it to RSN if you feel otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

RSN discussion here --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we've got as much from RSN as we can expect. How shall we continue? --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, the Frank Spillers' article is not the only source for the paragraph. We can use the Ars Technica article as the basis for verifiability. Since it's a bit imprecise, we can still take care using the Spillers article and include his opinions as a refinement to the points where both articles agree.
Allow me to say that I don't think this attention to the Wikipedia bureaucracy will help to improve the article in this case; giving more weight to Peter Bright's (a C++ and C# developer) opinions over Spillers' (a usability consultant) only because you seem to like Ars Technica better than Lawrence Erlbaum, doesn't make it the better source IMO. But given that you don't seem willing to follow the rule to wp:Ignore all rules in order to use the best information available, lets dive into the tiresome due process to distill the information bits that are actually supported by policy.
  • Ars Technica, the undeniably reliable source, states that "Tablet PCs, on the other hand, have had all the size and weight of conventional laptops" and lack the iPad's benefits like "the light weight, impressive battery life, and purpose-built software." Spillers, the published-in-the-usability-field professional, mentions that "The weight of most tablet PC's is enough to break your wrist after an hour" and "Battery and heat is enough to melt your arm, hand or legs after a few hours of leaning time".
  • Ars: "...with all the software of regular laptops, but without the human interface devices to make them useful". Spillers: "Hardware and software are not integrated and while both deliver the functionality-- they are so uncoordinated they make tablet long term adoption untenable. "
  • Ars: "Taskbar buttons and Start menu entries are big enough, but they're exceptional." Spillers: "The exception is the virtual keyboard located near the Start menu button. More of these shortcuts and "embedded" features will be need to trigger user adoption." "Users are left to hunt and peck for tiny icons to activate ink."
  • Ars: "the operating system does try to help with some of them—for example, opening a Jump list with a flick instead of a right click gives the items wider spacing so that they're easier to hit with a fingertip, and Explorer can optionally show a checkbox next to each item to allow selections to be made by clicking" Sp: "You can get a glimpse of the tablet context-sensing potential with the Microsoft Experience Pack add-On software that offers a Snipping Tool"
  • Ars: "To make Windows a touch operating system requires every single aspect of its user interface to be overhauled." Sp: "To achieve this goal, focusing on the total tablet user experience will be crucial. Hardware and software, tablet and regular computing interfaces will have to dance around each other"

As you see, the basic points included in the disputed paragraph are supported by both sources; it's just that they are better summarized and organized in the Spillers' article. I really can't understand your insistence in this case to drop that reference, given that all details used from it have an already established verifiability through the Ars Technica article. Diego Moya (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the usability problems associated with the (old) Windows based tablets, and how the integrated software of the iPad dramatically changed the concept of a "tablet computer", is almost the most relevant point that can be made at this times about tablet computers, so I support adding Frank Spillers findings to this article. Mahjongg (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
If we're only discussing the organization of material sourced from the Ars article, then Spillers isn't needed at all. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we're not only discussing the organization of material. We're discussing the specific assertions made by Spillers that are not included in the Ars article but which are in line with it and therefore have established verifiability. Those would be useful additions to the article. What irks me is that so far you haven't pronounced the least about the Spillers' article contents which at this point should be the main point of decision. The whole discussion has been a Bizantine exercise to revise the Wikipedia law about the source, not the content. What do you have to say about the specific claims by Spillers, not him as a person? (Besides, the organization of material in the linked articles is also important for people following the link to expand their knowledge about the subject, so don't dismiss it so lightly).Diego Moya (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Because Spillers is no expert, his blog is not a reliable source and should not be used. Maybe Spillers analysis is insightful, maybe not. We create WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems if we try to decide ourselves. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It is your opinion that this would create WP:OR problems even when the article satisfies wp:sps to the letter; many other editors have supported using it or at least keep debating its inclusion based on the articles' merits (something you really should address to keep in line with the majority), and you're the only one who directly opposes using it. I have shown how the basic facts are supported by other reliable sources and thus can't be judged as original research. (Now mentioning WP:NPOV is excessive, there are not "opposing views", "opinions stated as facts", "judgmental language" nor anything that would take the section away from neutrality. Are you sure you've understood the five pillars? Your's seem a weird interpretation).
But I'm tired of your immobility and of me being the only one to bring constructive steps up, so let's reverse the roles. I'll ask you to explain what is the next editing step you suggest, and how exactly do you think it would improve the article in its current form. At least this way we'll get you to address the article's content and not just Wikipedia policies and external considerations. Diego Moya (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Spiller is not an expert, so we shouldn't use information from his blog.
With regard to NPOV, I was thinking specifically of WP:UNDUE and SPS's, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
I've gone ahead and made a quick attempt to remove the Spiller source. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
After my edit was partially reverted, I've tagged the information not verified by reliable sources and once again removed Spiller as a source. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It is your opinion that this would create WP:OR problems even when the article satisfies wp:sps to the letter; many other editors have supported using it or at least keep debating its inclusion based on the articles' merits (something you really should address to keep in line with the majority), and you're the only one who directly opposes using it. I have shown how the basic facts are supported by other reliable sources and thus can't be judged as original research. (Now mentioning WP:NPOV is excessive, there are not "opposing views", "opinions stated as facts", "judgmental language" nor anything that would take the section away from neutrality. Are you sure you've understood the five pillars? Yours seems a weird interpretation).
But I'm tired of your immobility and of me being the only one to bring constructive steps up, so let's reverse the roles. I'll ask you to explain what is the next editing step you suggest, and how exactly do you think it would improve the article in its current form. At least this way we'll get you to address the article's content and not just Wikipedia policies and external considerations. Diego Moya (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Spiller is not an expert, so we shouldn't use information from his blog.
With regard to NPOV, I was thinking specifically of WP:UNDUE and SPS's, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
I've gone ahead and made a quick attempt to remove the Spiller source. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
After my edit was partially reverted, I've tagged the information not verified by reliable sources and once again removed Spiller as a source. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I was writing a justification for my revert. Since you didn't give enough time for me to discuss my point, I've reverted your last removal until you have time to ponder and respond to the arguments presented below.
1) UNDUE is for minority views occupying a large space; the fact that many consider the iPad showing the first good tablet experience is not minority, and the total information removed is 11 words at the end of the paragraph supported by ARS; that's not undue "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements". UNDUE weight would be given if Spillers were the only one supporting that MS Tablets had a badly adapted interface, which is simply not the case.
2) The information has been reported by others; the Ars article mentions features for tablets not being used everywhere they should ("though the operating system does try to help with some of them - it doesn't solve every problem. It doesn't even try"), Spillers just fills in the details - how is complementing that information a bad thing? Also your (first) edit left the last sentence without a verb.
3) I'm not convinced that your removal of relevant information improves the article, even in the case that SPS would not support it (which is still disputed) it should be included anyway: there are many sites explaining how the iPad offered a superior experience, but few describing the other side of the coin - the exact how and where of the well-established view that the MS tablets were worse. This is what makes the detailed information in Spillers' valuable and which would merit ignoring your extreme interpretation of SPS. Remember that Spillers *is* an expert under the to-the-letter interpretation that requires published sources in the relevant field. Diego Moya (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Can we at least agree that there is no consensus that Spillers is an expert? --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I said. Now do you have any opinions at all about the ideas expressed, and not only about the applicable policy? Diego Moya (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Then it should be removed as a source and rewrite from the Ars Technica reference. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You're still discussing how policy applies to the text. So we can agree that you don't have ANYTHING to say about the ideas themselves? (including both the ideas at Ars and those at Spillers' article). Diego Moya (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Are we talking past each other? Sorry if we are.
I believe we've established Spiller's blog is not a reliable source, since we do not agree that he's an expert.
I don't see anything but problems from continuing to try to incorporate anything from Spiller into the article or discussions. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Whether we focus on the expressions voiced by Frank Spillers or not, the case is that what he has said is just what other people also thought, and "expressed by their feet", by not buying windows based tablet. What he said is just the compression of the reasons of why windows based tablets suck. Whether you like these facts or not, its why such tablets will continue to fail, and why a completely new synergy of available technologies doesn't suck but is a success. Whether ostrich methods are used or not to suppress these truths or not doesn't matter in the long run. I'm Sorry to be so blunt, it's just (not so) my humble opinion.. Mahjongg (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's original research. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources representing these views, as it should. If you are only open to really wanting to know why it is that all the previous slates utterly failed. One only has to look for some of these sources, and they are not at all from Spiller, seems he is just a red herring. Here is just one I found under three seconds [3] here is another [4]. Mahjongg (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ars Technica article

I've removed the disputed material. Any problem with just expanding slightly based only on the Ars Technica article?

I'm travelling abroad, I'll answer in about 10 days. Diego Moya (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. There's no rush. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
So what would you add from the Ars article? I've added a need consensus tag to show that yes, there's a problem with just expanding with the Ars Technica article and that there was no consensus for the removal. What was wrong with leaving the content tagged with [unreliable source?] until consensus was achieved? Diego Moya (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to expand upon the information, the Ars Technica article is all we have to work with at this time, and does contain detailed information that I don't believe would be problematic to add.

For reference, the RSN discussion has been archived here. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

History needs to mention "pod" devices

It's fairly clear that iPad is much closer related to iPod than to iMac. Yet the history section doesn't mention this. Similarly, Android pads have their heritage from Android phones. Ketil (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Should note Windows CE devices as early tablet precursors

More emphasis could be made on the Windows CE devices eg, CE 1.0 started earlier, in 1996 The HP Jornada 300LX is not mentioned, even though it is much older than the 820 The concept of the touch screen, the tablet-like operating system, and the capability of network communication make these devices as valid pre-cursors to the modern tablet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.185.216 (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Non slate WinCE devices are only marginally relevant but there were a number of slate WinCE devices too - e.g. the Fujitsu PenCentras which were released in 2002, touch screens, ran WinCE, an undoubtably mobile OS (although that 'requirement' for a PostPC tablet is stupid - the UI is the important thing, not the OS) but very little before the ipad even gets an honourable mention here.
In particular, this is nonsense:
"Since mid-2010, new tablet computers with mobile operating systems forgo the Wintel paradigm,[15] have a different interface instead of the traditional desktop OS and have created a new type of computing device."
The 'new computing device' talk scattered throughout the article is more reminiscent of apples advertising ('this changes everything') than an encyclopedia that takes the long view. A much more encyclopedic approach is to acknowledge the amazing effect the iPad has had on the market, but to trace its very obvious roots in PDAs, MIDs, WebPads and PMPs. The improvements on the past were large in many dimension (responsiveness, simplicity of UI, battery life, screen resolution, turn on time), but it was essentially an evolutionary merging of the well established Full-PC style tablets and the well established (but dying) PDA style devices. Microsoft in particular has had an obsession with tablets for an extremely long time to little effect. 94.31.32.54 (talk)

Expansion of Tablet computer#History

Should the sentence: "Tablet PCs failed to gain popularity in the consumer space because of unresolved problems" in Tablet computer#History be expanded? Is there value in explaining which unresolved problems were there in early tablets, or is that clarification unneeded to have an encyclopedic article? What can we do to improve the description of the topic?

What content can be added from the available sources? Can you find another source giving a description of the main problems in early tablets, and in particular a detailed account of the existing usability problems?

I've created a request for comment at the content noticeboard with these questions. I'm asking you to focus on the content available since it has not been discussed in detail yet; to discuss the reliability of the available sources please create a new section. Diego Moya (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the statement should be clarified if at all possible. In its current form it offers almost no informative benefit. A complete list of faults isn't necessary, but a list of 2-4 of the most significant ones would suffice. That being said, the sentence is not in any way represented in the Ars Technica source provided and should be resourced or removed. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The Ars Technica article is not the only one available. The following links has been proposed or used as sources for the proposal:

For the record, this is the proposed addition that was reverted:

Some of the problems adduced are that the existing devices were too heavy to be held with one hand on extended periods; they had legacy applications created for desktop interfaces which made them not well adapted to the slate format; and the specific software features designed to support usage as a tablet, such as virtual keyboards, digital ink and pie menus were not present in all contexts.

Diego Moya (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I still support adding this addition, as I think it is important in a historical context to understand why earlier attempts to popularize tablet personal computers failed so miserably, while the iPad succeeded. Mahjongg (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Post-PC Tablets

This section contains five sentences may give a false impression, depending on how you read it.

1.) Many tablets do not use a traditional desktop OS or use the Wintel paradigm,[11] nor are x86 based. 2.) Most often their OS is a Unix-like OS, such as Darwin, Linux or QNX.

My interpretation is that no Tablet computers use Wintel, if they do, they are Tablet personal computers. There are of course borderline cases (installing Debian on a Galaxy Tab, say), but with some judgement, I think this separation is sensible and fairly clean. Ketil (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

3.) The first was the iPad with iOS, and others continue the common trend towards multi-touch and other natural user interface features, as well as flash memory solid-state storage drives, and 2-second warm-boot times. 4.) Some use ARM for longer battery life versus battery weight. 5.) Some have 3G mobile telephony capabilities.[12]

This paragraph should be rewritten to be clearer. My main confusion stems from sentence 3, which claims the subject (iPad) was "the first" to implement (A) multi-touch and other (B) natural user interface features....

cite needed, IMO. Ketil (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Given there is an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch that cites multitouch devices (none of them tablets) and the article at http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Articles/FreePad-Norways-alternative-to-Swedens-Screen-Phone/ showing a Linux-based tablet with natural user interface, this claim should be amended.

Perhaps "The iPad was the first tablet to use the combination of multi-touch, a natural user interface features, and flash memory solid-state storage drives. Tablets come in a variety of hardware configurations. Tablets may employ such operating system such as Darwin, Linux or QNX. Some tablets use ARM processors to achieve longer battery life relative to battery weight. 3G mobile telephony is an option on various tablets."

Not sure that multi-touch is that significant, nor the 2-second warm-boot time, to define the tablet architecture, but certainly there is public demand for it and other tablet manufacturers have followed this feature set. Sean729 (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Who thinks "Post-PC" is a good description, and why? I tried to change this, but User:Jeffnailen reverted it with no comment. I don't think the term is commonly used, and it gives the wrong implications (that iPad etc are somehow replacing the PC or tablet PCs). Moreover, both tablet PCs and tablets are post-PC in that they are predated by the IBM PC. Ketil (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
People keep changing this back, I'm going to undo those changes until some rationale or discussion is provided. Ketil (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Form factors and tablets?

My impression is that "tablet" refers to a "slate" type of device. I'm not sure the term is commonly used for e.g. a wall-mounted touch screen or a Palm Pilot PDA. Thus, I think the form factor section should go, and be replaced by links to these other kinds of devices: tablet PC, PDA, mobile phones, etc. Ketil (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest removing the subheadings in this section, and starting with stating that the tablet usually is the slate form factor, and then discussing alternative form factors, linking to examples. Any objections? Ketil (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think removing the subheadings is a good idea. The term tablet has been used in the past to describe all the elements in that section (booklets, convertibles, detachable keyboards). It's OK to say that the slate is the most common (preferably with a reference) and adding links to other articles, but having the subheadings shown in the TOC is useful. Diego Moya (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Tablet computers and tablet PCs

Is the tablet PC definition still relevant? The Tablet computers and tablet PCs section begins with a dated "as of 2010..." to describe the existence of two kinds of tablets. But all analysts in 2011 coincide in that the iPad has been a turning point in the market for tablets (which is what they refer to when they call it "Post-PC"), and that the "general computer without a keyboard" that Microsoft attempted to create is obsolete nowadays. So, shouldn't we relegate the tablet PC description to the History section? Diego Moya (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Handwriting recognition

It says in the article that handwriting recognition is important for Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Very true for Chinese, partly true for Japanese, as it uses Chinese characters, but untrue for Korean, which is alphabetic. Koreans are quite accustomed to ordinary keyboards. With regard to Chinese, it is only true in China, whereas in Taiwan keyboard input methods based on zhuyin are preferred both with computers and portable devices including tablets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.14.125.57 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

While I agree that a tablet article separate from the tablet PC entry is necessary, I'm not sure the term 'tablet computer', as distinct from 'tablet PC', exists outside of Wikipedia. Sources?theBOBbobato (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The "Research" is as original as is the distinction between Computer and Personal Computer, entries you should read as sources for a better understanding of the issue. Also, see the discussion on the move request for tablet PC.
The request of merge is almost as meaningful as would a request for merging the above two, be.
To make things clear for people who still fail to understand: in a Personal Computer, Adobe (as an example) is free to write a Flash Player application (as an example) and distribute it to any owner of that Personal Computer. However, Adobe doesn't have the privileges to do so in *any* Computer such as the iPad (as an example).
Hence the distinction. Vyx (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
So when android tablets and chrome os tablets come later this year, they will be called personal computers? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes; software installation & programming in these is not controlled by a central provider I believe. The WeTab is already included in the Tablet PC entry.--Vyx (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not think a separate article from tablet PCs is necessary to be honest. 24.240.67.71 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a weird subject. On the 'tablet PC' article's discussion page, there seem s to be a concensus that the iPad isn't a tablet PC because it can't be used on it's own.theBOBbobato (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It can't be used on its own? What kind of consensus is that? 24.240.67.71 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Read the discussion page of 'Tablet PC'. The main argument against defining the iPad as a tablet PC is, if you don't have a PC, you can't use it because you won't be able to back it up or get an music or video files on it. The iPad depends on PCs, in other words.theBOBbobato (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The separation between the two is also important due to a misuse of the term tablet, rather than the term (personal )computer. By definition, a tablet is an implement on which one writes, such as a stone/wood tablet, or "a writing pad" (Collins Australian English Dictionary). You cannot write on an iPad as you would on a tablet computer such as those described in the Tablet PC article. An iPad is actually a touch screen device with a slate form factor. Also on the note that the iPad isn't a tablet pc, due to it's use of a personal computer as a "home base" in which it synchronises and updates, cannot be considered a personal computer, rather a portable internet/media device.
Because a Tablet PC's main function is the ability to write on the screen with a stylus, it is completely different from a finger touch based input, and as such deserves to be categorised separately. Unfortunately due to the popularity of the term tablet computer used for the iPad, there most likely will never be any serious discussion on the terminology used, and makes sources scarce. However, this doesn't mean that it is not a valid point. Mitchells00 (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that they desperately need merging. To the average computer, a tablet pc is a tablet computer - for the simple fact that a PC is a computer - the confusion between the names seems to be entirely based on a single piece of literature from Microsoft - and seems based on Microsoft's Tablet PC version. If need be, merge them and include a section about how Microsoft considers the difference - but this article is very short and won't grow. 193.60.83.241 (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree, they should be merged. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
As of iOS 5.x the iPad will be able to be operated "PC-free" out of the box, with no tethering needed for activation, software updates, or backups, making moot any arguments based on it not being able to be used on its own. (Media files can already be downloaded to it directly without a separate computer via the included iTunes app or 3rd party media and/or file transfer apps.) (Lun Esex (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC))

Citations for Windows 8

There are currently cn tags for the mentions of Windows 8. Now that there are some Windows Developer Preview downloads available, it might be argued that these are citable. But Windows 8 is not a product name, it is a project name, ala Jupiter or Windows Next. The next problem is that the WDP downloads are for an unstable, pre-beta concept; for example, a scheme for tiled windows is mooted to be the next interface, a concept which dates back 25 years to Windows 1.0, and which was superseded by Windows 2.0, etc. It is difficult to believe that these implementations will last into the beta stage of the Windows 8 project. As such, the material is ephemeral, and on the verge of non-notable. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Tablet personal computer

I reviewed the older discussions, which seem to date to 2010, and I notice there was no consensus on the merge back then. A year has passed, and in the digital word, this is a long time - long enough that I'd like us to revisit this. Microsoft era in tables is increasingly an ancient history, most people don't know or care for a difference between TC and TPC that once existed, the terms are increasingly used to mean the same thing, and last but not least, even our articles are increasingly coming to resemble one another. I think it's time to end this mess and merge them once and for all. We can have a section in the tablet computers discussing the history of the tablet pc term - and that should be it. Having two separate articles is simply confusing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, is it that time of the year again? :-) You haven't look hard enough the old discussion if you didn't find that there are at least four generic articles about tablet-like devices, namely the two you identified for merging, plus Microsoft Tablet PC and E-book. Also let's not start with History of tablet computers; and arguably, PDA also have some overlap.
I wholeheartedly agree that one article should be axed, but I disagree with your conclusions about which one. A good case has been made than iPad-like devices in the '10s and Microsoft-style tablets in the '00s are different beasts, enough for the later to have a stand-alone article. It's very wrong to delete it just because it's no longer in vogue.
Actually the current mess was created when Microsoft Tablet PC was split in two because 'there were tablet PCs that were not following the Microsoft definition', so Tablet personal computer was born. Then the iPad happened, and some vocal Wikipedians tried to exclude it on the basis that it didn't allow for unrestricted development, so we now have the current Tablet computer. In my view, this second split removes all the reasons for which the original "MS-PC" vs "tablet PC" were separated, so these are the ones which should be merged back.
So, I propose this classification of device types into articles:
  • Tablet computer: everything from the iPad hereafter.
  • Tablet PC: devices in the 2000s decade (Microsoft or not), maybe also merged with...
  • History of tablet computers: historical devices of all ages, with a section about PDA, and another brief section about post-pc tablets at the end (with a Main link to Tablet computer).
  • Ebook: devices with a e-ink display, with a section about LCD e-readers at the end (with a 'Further information' link to Tablet computer).
I think the sources provide enough support for each of these articles to stand on their own, and they provide a much clearer separation than the muddy categorization we have in place. With this change maybe Tablet computer could be then renamed to Tablet (computing), since nobody call the current generation "tablet computers" anyway. Either way, definitely the made-up term Tablet personal computer must disappear. Diego (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The structure should be like portable computer, which includes all the various styles of computer which are portable. Just like it doesn't make sense to say netbooks are not portable, it doesn't make sense to say that Microsoft Tablet PCs are not tablets.
(1) There should be a main article for a descriptive term which includes all tablets. The outline looks like this:
(2) The choice for the main article between Tablet computer and Tablet (computing) is a between a descriptive title (tablet computer) and a disambiguated common name (tablet). They're both debatable options. (My opinion right now is that Tablet computer is clearer.) Added: Considering the stylus-based input device is also called a tablet, I oppose using Tablet (computing) for tablet computers.
(3) If we can reach consensus on #1, the remaining problem is that Tablet personal computer is a confusing title for a sub-article. My preference is don't merge. Instead move, replacing the historical name "tablet PC" (and its expanded version "tablet personal computer") with the descriptive title "Early tablet computers".
--Pnm (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
A move to early tablet computers would clear the current confusion, so it gets my support as a possible option. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I have my reservations, but I'll go along with this in order to build consensus - with the condition of a thorough restructure of all articles to avoid duplicated content. The Early tablet computers title is a good one. Diego (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring articles

These are the current sections in each of the articles involved:

Tablet computer Microsoft Tablet PC Tablet personal computer History of tablet computers
Tablet computers and tablet PCs History System software 1)Windows 2)Others Timeline
History Form factors Display size trends
Touch user interface System software - Windows Timeline of tablet PC history
Other features Windows applications
Form factors Comparison with laptop computers
System architecture Features
Operating systems and vendors: 1)Traditional 2)Post-PC Popular models
Developing software for tablet computers Application software
Comparison with laptop computers Screen size trends
Tablets in developing countries


After the redesign, merging some sections and removing those that are repeated, they could end up like this:

Tablet computer Microsoft Tablet PC Early tablet computers History of tablet computers
Tablet computers and tablet PCs History (Windows) Operating systems and vendors(=system software): 1) Traditional

(Those discontinued: Linux, Nokia, Meego, WebOS)

History (general)
Touch user interface System software-Windows Display size trends=Screen size trends Timeline
Features=Other features Windows applications
Form factors Popular models
System architecture Application software
Operating systems and vendors: Post-PC (those with support)
Developing software for tablet computers
Comparison with laptop computers
Tablets in developing countries

Or, with a little more effort, all the content at Early tablet computers could be put as a subsection of History of tablet computers, which makes more logical sense. Diego (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've moved around the History sections so that for the most part they're now under the History of tablet computers article, leaving room for the other articles to be studied more clearly. What do you think of the other section movements I propose? Diego (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time following what changes you wish to make.
  1. Where it's section titles, go for it.
  2. Delete section Tablet_personal_computer#Timeline_of_tablet_PC_history - sure. Add to See also instead.
  3. Delete unreferenced section Microsoft_Tablet_PC#Screen_size_trends - sure.
  4. Duplicating Tablet_computer#Comparison_with_laptop_computers to Microsoft Tablet PC - Doesn't make sense to me.
  5. Delete History section from Tablet computer - don't make sense to me. Summarizing it maybe?
I'm going to take a shot at rewriting a couple of the leads based on how I understand the consensus for the structure. --Pnm (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Tablet device is currently a disambiguation page, but it's not really in the spirit of WP:DAB which is to assist the reader when a term refers to more than one topic. There's just one topic: tablet-shaped electronic devices, which are slates, tablets, and PDAs. I can see either (1) converting this page to an article (as a parent to Tablet computer) or (2) converting it to a list. Any preference? --Pnm (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a list would overlap with Comparison of tablet computers. So (2) is out. Instead we could (1) convert it to an article or (3) merge it with Comparison of tablet computers and redirect. --Pnm (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Any opposition to converting Tablet PC from a redirect to a disambiguation page? --Pnm (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's what I just wrote:
  • Tablet computer, a tablet-shaped mobile computer, usually having a touchscreen or pen-enabled interface
    • A tablet personal computer, a class of tablet computer which runs an adapted version of a desktop operating system
Most of the incoming links to tablet PC are about tablets in general, or about Microsoft tablets. (Often they're ambiguous even in the context, and I look at the usage in sources.) Converting this to a dab page will help with getting these disambiguated in general. The change is necessary to make sense of the new article structure. But there are still a lot of links to tablet PC, so I wanted to work toward a consensus before converting the page. --Pnm (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems fine to me, but I wouldn't used the progressive indentation - there are only one item at each level of the hierarchy, so there's no need for a tree structure, a simple list of three items will be clearer. Diego (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, makes sense to me. --Pnm (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It often uses an onscreen virtual keyboard, a passive stylus pen, or a digital pen[citation needed].[1][2]

This goes beyond being a citationista and enters the realm of almost certain trolling. No one would dispute that tablets have onscreen keyboards that are generally operated and supplemented by a stylus, e.g. an HTC Scribe. I mean how do you THINK they work? 174.62.208.249 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thinkpad 700T

I think there needs to be a little talk about the Thinkpad 700T, one of the first thinkpads that was a slate tablet. Also in the area of slate tablets, back around 2004 there were many many slate tablets that had a 8.5x11 screen or around that size so the notion of them typically being small as is said under the slate topic should be changed.

Only as of OS 5 and the new pens that allow you to write on it can we call ipads tablets. If an ipad is a tablet then so are all the old PDAs that had a stylus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.236.14 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Android

The Android section is woefully out of date, speaking of Honeycomb in the future tense, and speculating about "future" developments that are now ancient history.DrHenley (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Apple Newton?

Wouldn't the Newton be categorised as a tablet computer? I know it is classed as a PDA, but the page states that tablets can come in the form of PDA's, or at least in the size. What's the difference?137.111.13.167 (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How can "Tablet computer" have a "Slate" subsection when the "Slate" subsection describes the main defining characteristic of the tablet computer?

This whole topic needs considerable work. "Slate" was a name for a tablet computer coined by HP and Microsoft to describe an Apple iPad competitor Here. The main feature that differentiates a tablet computer from a notebook computer is the removable or non-existent keyboard.

There are different types of tablet computer but they all share that defining feature - the lack of a (permanent) physically attached keyboard.

So "Slate"="Tablet". "Slate" was the later marketing term, therefore should be deleted and this article cleaned-up to reflect that.X4n63r (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

PC Magazine's definition of "Tablet Computer" Here.

PC Pro magazine lists reviews of "Tablets", not "Slates" here.

Gartner's definition of "Tablet Computer" here mentions the defining characteristic of the "Slate" in the Wikipedia article.

Consumermate's glossary doesn't mention slate either here.X4n63r (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

IIRC the first Microsoft tablet PCs had non-detachable keyboards that could be hidden behind the touch screen (here called the "Convertible" format). So the main feature is not as much the absence of keyboard as the ability to work in full touch mode. Diego (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Quite. But that's a "Convertible Notebook computer", not a "tablet computer". I don't think it belongs in this article. It's already covered in the Laptop article under "Tablet Laptop". The world has moved on quite a bit since Microsoft put basic touch support into Windows. My main problem was with the word "Slate" because it isn't one widely recognised outside Wikipedia as referring to a device form-factor (were there ever any references cited for the use of this word?).X4n63r (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Tablet book

Hi, I think the article Tablet book should be merged into this article. It contains little information and is mostly covered here. --JetBlast (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Then what is this

http://www.cnet.com/laptops/fujitsu-stylistic-st5030-tablet/4505-3121_7-31518030.html This page on tablets is completely inaccurate. The iPad was not the first tablet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.125.98 (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Uses

Despite the fact that tablet PC's have very powerful CPU's mounted nowadays (over 1 Ghz[1]), the tablet PC is not generally used for any serious work (rather, it's used for leisure). For example, according to bit.ly.ipad-top5 , there are only 5 serious applications (Brushes, Keynote; QuickOffice Pro, bento, Dragon Dictate, for the Ipad at present, and 5 serious applications for Android (ES File Explorer, Google Docs, Color Touch Effects, Adobe Photoshop Express, Cam Scanner ). This approach by the software producers makes that a additional computer is needed for serious work, and thus actually generates excess material/waste (tablet PC's end up as e-waste).

Add in article 80.200.238.94 (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tablet PCs, sure. But for post-PC tablets & other mobile devices like iPads, iPods, etc., there are other uses: for example, VPN and remote desktop apps are part of yet another category, which differs in character from the list above. A tablet used in conjunction with a phone serve to expand the use cases beyond the desk. It becomes possible to contribute, criticize, debug, and monitor much more conveniently. Imagine a sysop walking through the racks of a data center, or a picker walking through a warehouse, or a store clerk watching the shelves of a convenience store, or a librarian, or a pricer, or a parent reading to a child, ex tempore. Or a doctor, nurse, caregiver, or soldier. It is easy to project new roles, once the restriction of a desk is lifted.
To push to an extreme, several dollar calculators on any table, paper, pencils, a wifi, a tablet, and Brushes on an iPhone in the hands of a skilled user, make for very rapid, informal creative responses that are not yet part of our current repertory. Not just e-waste like obsolete office equipment, or an obsolescent industrial factory.
The encyclopedia welcomes contributions with citations. You are welcome to select a username and contribute. (See the talk page for your anon. IP address.)
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I saw there is a citation needed in the History section about Star Trek's Padds. I believe these two articles could be helpful http://www.inventinginteractive.com/2010/01/26/star-trek-padds/ and http://www.startrek.com/database_article/padd Zalunardo8 (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Move With Technology

Has this article been partly copied from Softmov.com? Jim.henderson (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim, if you can provide diffs of the questionable parts of the article and Softmov, it would help. I get a blank screen when displaying the Softmov URL. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Jim,some of the text at Softmove came from this article. I know because I wrote some of that text, some years ago. They are free to reuse it if they credit the source: Wikipedia, this article. See, for example, what they wrote about the use of accelerometers. (We first mentioned them in 2010 -- my specific edit was to replace 'device' with 'tablet', and their usage exactly mirrors my edit) But the copying pervades their use of this article. It's OK if they credit us. note: The Softmov author does not credit Wikipedia, as of 03:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC) . --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Glad to know it. I asked because at first glance that article seemed better organized and especially better illustrated than ours. Life would be easier if outsiders would properly credit Wikipedia, but the Wikimedia Foundation won't pay lawyers to hound them, so if they don't want to do the right thing, they don't. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Jim - Your correct, the article, dated 26th Aug 2012, appears to have lifted the History and System Architecture text I added to this and the History of tablet computers pages between the 16th and 20th Aug 2012 83.104.51.74 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Xperia Z

Hello everyone, Sony announced they are releasing a new tablet 6.9mm thick. This is the thinest technology available nowadays, I think it would be a nice information to put in this article. However, I am not sure where this could be introduced... What do you think? Source: http://presscentre.sony.co.uk/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=8342&NewsAreaId=2 Thanks! Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Look for the list on form factors. It's only worth a sentence in this article, and is likely to become outdated soon. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your help Ancheta Wis. Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

MTR needs work

The MTR section has no citation, and begins with the Finnish word for martyr. It looks questionable to me. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Three-in-one

After copyediting, I would like to know if the new three-in-one devices can support interlocking apps. What I mean is 'can you edit spreadsheet A under Android, and then calculate something in A under Windows 8' without shifting focus (other than hitting some Windows key etc.). If so, this approaches the theoretical VM feature of IBM mainframes, changing OS from clock cycle to clock cycle. Is this in the citation? Otherwise I will remove the 'seamless' wording. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Logistic growth curve

Logistic growth

Lew Kowarski introduced us, his students, to the logistic growth law, and assured us that we were subject to it. Since it appears that for tablets the rapid growth apparent in the curve above, say at x=-2, is slowing, as reported by John Paczkowski perhaps a section on tablet market saturation might be included in the article? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: can one make a call using a tablet?

41.77.3.241 posted this comment on 8 November 2013 (view all feedback).

can one make a call using a tablet?

Any thoughts?

Yes, but not as you would on a regular smartphone. You have to download a phone app (Skype, or others) and use your internet connection (wifi or broadband). If yiou do not have a internet connection, you cannot make/receive a call. Ken (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Ken (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes but it depends on the Tablet computer like for example tablets such as Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 8.0, Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0, and LG G Pad 8.3 which in some of the models offer full phone functionality built in (Yes, including the call function). These kind of tablet models are marketed just like an enlarged Mobile Phone. So yes, but it depends on the tablet make and model. JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Informative, & useful comparisons

Contra some of the people above, who seem more concerned about technical minutiae (which of course is better if accurate/up-to-date but no reason to slam the writer(s)who are rightly more concerned with camels than gnats),I feel what I need and want to know has been answered in the article. The net is full of advertisements & enthusiast material about tablets but not much that clearly (and what seems to be largely accurately in this article) describes features and the evolutionary history and more importantly critically compares tablets with desktop/laptop capacities and limitations for the generalist reader. My compliments to the writer(s.)Neilaus (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC) You find comparisons of Tablet PC here

Generally nice, yes, but I must have missed it, perhaps it was removed? What section "critically compares tablets with desktop/laptop capacities and limitations for the generalist reader?" Indeed, if I had not seen the below (quoted) under Software Development, I would have assumed a tablet would accept my PC's freeware utilities from all over, such as Winamp, a very old version of Paint Shop Pro, Audio Recorder For Free, my audio editor, Eudora email, my Mozilla browser, on and on.... Not true?

Their "strategy became especially notable following pronouncements by [their] executives criticizing the [seemingly now common] walled garden approach, which they contrasted with [their] emphasis on user choice. Specifically, in a mid-December interview, [their] CEO called [another's package] a "deficient" media tablet designed as a "vending machine for [another system]'s services", and a device aimed to "lock consumers into [another system's] ecosystem". ...."these restrictions on software installation and lack of administrator rights [means that tablets], in their view, cannot be properly named "personal computers"."

I'm not alone in assuming that "cell phone apps" (that's what the above sound like,) were not needed in tablet computers. Seemingly, we were wrong. This article should educate us. Do we need a laptop instead? Again, what are the limitations of the imaginary common, popular generic tablets? Can we just plug in the above real computer programs? What is moving files around like?, Editing RTFs, etc? The same, or another, alien world?
--68.127.92.198 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford
It looks like this controversy caused by walled garden approach of tablet operating systems needs to go into the lede (intro) section of this article. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). In part, it says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Among those controversies is: What is a tablet, toy (entertainment console) or PC? While early criticism was leveled against the ipad, today it seemingly applies to all tablets:

"....Ask yourself why the [tablet] isn’t running [an actual personal computer Operating System]. Yes, performance.... But the real reason is that [any real] OS is too open. You can download and install any program you want. You can watch TV shows and movies from a variety or sources. You can purchase and listen to music however you prefer. Heck, you can poke around a file system. But you can’t do any of this on [a tablet's] OS, and thus not the [tablet]. You can do on the [tablet] only what [the manufacturer] allows. And if you are allowed to do something, you have to go through [the manufacturer's "store"] to do it. [Tablet manufacturers] makes a nice chunk of change on everything you do, but more importantly they gets to play gatekeeper. ...." Popular Science, 2010 (I swapped "ipad" with "tablet" etc. DB)

"“This is the beginning of the end of the walled gardens.”" ...seems like a good idea anyway.
--68.127.92.198 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford
...except that when you swapped out iPad you introduced some significant errors: you CAN poke around in the file system ; you CAN buy/download from other 'stores", etc on Android tablets. most of the limitations mentioned are valid ONLY for Apple tablets.Ken (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


PLEASE I AM HERE TO INFORM YOU THAT YOU TABLET IS NOT GIVE ME NEW WORK IN INDIA PLEASE I NEED YOU HELP OF COMPANY TO SEND SOMEONE TO HELP WITH THAT I AM LIVING IN NEW DELHI please contact me +919958276312 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.91.89 (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Linus section: bad sentence

"Many desktop distributions include tablet-friendly interfaces smaller device." In context, I think this intends to say that you can emulate tablets on some desktops - assuming you have a touchscreen or whatever, as implied by the next sentence. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardFloyd (talkcontribs) 20:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Internet tablet

I've blanked and redirected the obsolete Internet tablet page here. Diego (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Market research

A market research firm has published an apparently exhaustive study here: http://www.marketresearchmoz.com/market-research/tablet-pc-market-us-industry-160472 . Does anyone care to plunk down $4500 to share its findings with Wikipedia? IsaacAA (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There is enough information in the current citations to provide a synoptic table of year-over-year results, up to year-end 2013, already. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The 4th paragraph of the lede should be updated or rewritten to include 2013 results. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ This amount of processing power seems little nowadays, but was quite impressive even for PC's about 5-10 years ago