Talk:Tablet personal computer/Archive 2

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

Tablet PC is not "just about Microsoft". It's about Tablet Personal Computers

Anyone who is familiar with the Personal Computer should already know that PC is not a term specific to Microsoft, despite what Apple ads may make you believe. But here are a few links of interest to those thinking that Tablet PC is an old foldable tablet running Windows:

  1. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1292428.1292445 -- Refers to tablets running Linux as Tablet PCs
  2. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K1HD20100721 -- ""We want the tablet PC to be compatible with our LePhone smartphone, which is why we're using Android," Wu said."
  3. http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2010/8/19/rim-use-qnx-os-blackberry-tablet-pc/ -- Refers to Blackberry running QNX or Blackberry OS as Tablet PC
  4. http://www.littleabout.com/Techno/stamp-android-tablet-pc-india,98266.html -- "the new Android $ 50 Tablet PC"
  5. http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-770-Internet-Tablet-PC/dp/B000CSVZTU/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1284531090&sr=8-12 -- "Nokia 770 Internet Tablet PC"
  6. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Linux+Tablet+PC&x=0&y=0 -- Amazon search results for Linux Tablet PC. Yields many tablet system entitled as Tablet PCs

It is obvious from the above that Tablet PC is not specific to MS. Readers looking for Tablet PC information from Wikipedia should not be misinformed to think that Tablet PCs only run Microsoft Windows.

Furthermore, anyone looking at archived sections of this discussion will find editors complaining that the article was too focused to Microsoft and moved to rectify the problem by adding information about Linux tablets. This now seems more important than ever with the evolution of Tablet PC Operating Systems such as Meego and Android.

For those reasons edits that relocate sections from this article to Tablet Computer should stop. It's bad for the readers. Vyx (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Duh, the question is if not "tablet PC", -what- should the article be named that really does talk about those Microsoft tablets PC's from yesteryear??????? Mahjongg (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
A section of course. I did propose that when I wrote many months ago: 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)
This proposal was formed after a long debate with User:Ancheta_Wis, was supported by User:Labattblueboy and User:Kevin_Beckman and was recommended by User:Ucucha Vyx (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
And if this becomes the general article, per the above consensus it has to be merged with tablet computer - iPad and all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
You mistake your viewpoint as consensus. While you may be in agreement with some editors who are startled to see that "the iPad is not in this article" -- the only consensus regarding that, is from the Move Request (which I restored from the archive you set to 90 days twice you had reverted my edit) which clearly states

no consensus for move

In your consensus, you never provided any reason why tablet personal computer systems entitled as Tablet PCs by their manufacturers and the retailers must be in a Tablet Computer category unless they run Windows. That seems absurd to me and from carefully reading this talk page I am suspecting that neutral participants had not realized that you had ~that~ in your mind; but I have to thank you for providing an insightful comment in your talk page:

The move request was conducted on 15 February 2010 which was before the iPad was released. And the iPad has changed the whole tablet PC/computer/whatever market.

Which is of course wrong for reasons I've stated there, but it also makes it clear: it's all about the iPad really. And since Apple refuses the Tablet PC both as functionality and title, you actually believe that their market success entitles them to have Tablet PCs redefined in Wikipedia. I find this unacceptable; it's an encyclopedia, it's meant to inform readers not update them to "what's hot". I have proposed instead to insert an iPad section about jailbroken iPads in Tablet PC -- if they actually exist and are supported as the ModBook is -- but you have ignored that as well. Vyx (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope I've made my views clearer in the section below: -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Issues as I see them

For clarity there appear to be two issues here.

  1. That there is an article called tablet computer and one called tablet PC, both of these are about very similar topics so per the above consensus should be merged. Following a pre-iPad consensus on the matter is silly as the iPad is hands down the most successful tablet device and thus cannot be completely excluded. Ditto Android tablets etc. I really am not bothered what this article is called.
  2. It is probably worthwhile having an article on the specific product Microsoft Tablet PC, I really am not bothered as to what this article is called either - and this is less important than the first point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Anyone can read that "pre-iPad consensus" debate and see that it was made for the imminent release of the iPad. There is no specific product named "Microsoft Tablet PC". You made this in your mind. For the rest, see above. Vyx (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no specific product named "Microsoft tablet PC"? Really? I guess Microsoft then never made a specific version of Windows for them in 2002, oh wait... [1]. Sorry I'm no specific fan of Microsofts Tablet PC's, but to claim they have never existed is a bit strange. Note that this product was simply called "Tablet PC", as there simply then were no other tablet PC's to distinguish them from. In this talk page we have started to add "microsoft" in front because we now have other products that use the same name, but the original term explicitly meant a system running this version of Windows. and at the least for the last eight years or so the term "tablet PC", has been in exclusive use for the systems using "windows tablet PC edition" from Microsoft. Mahjongg (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft never made a product called "Microsoft Tablet PC". You are referring to "Windows XP Tablet PC Edition" OS. Microsoft created the Tablet PC term as a loose set of requirements. It's not a product. Claiming that Tablet PC is an exclusive term for MS for the past years is wrong: This 2007 publication refers to Linux Tablet PCs as "Tablet PCs".
Tablet PC is as exclusive to Microsoft any longer as Personal Computer is exclusive to the Apple II. Vyx (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But Microsoft has made a tablet PC product (as XP tablet PC edition and later stuff built into some editions of Windows Vista/7) and there is enough to talk about it for it to be worthy of it's own article. If not it can be merged into the main tablet article. And while in January the iPad had been announced we didn't know whether it was going to take off or be another Apple TV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
PS by consensus on a merge I mean that everyone whose commented on the matter in the past couple of months thinks tablet PC and tablet computer should be merged other than Vyx. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is already an appropriate Tablet PC section in the Windows XP editions entry. Since your request is about the Windows operating system (I thought it was about a non-existing Microsoft product called Microsoft Tablet PC), I believe you should discuss that request there. I doubt you will because that wouldn't make any difference on the iPad Tablet Computer issue.

You mistake consensus for acclamation. Here are some excerpts from those who commented on the matter in the past couple of months :

  1. 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. -- encyclopaedia is not a public opinion anthology.
  2. 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. -- either an exercise to oxymoron or not aware of this technology and its progress. Funnily the proposed solution to this objection is 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.
  3. RFC: Merge table PC and tablet computer -- you and Mahjongg agreeing again on the same arguments you've repeated on the Apple iPad section a few weeks ago.

As you can see, it's an attempt to acclamation. I don't boo with you, that's all. Don't try and make consensus out of it. Vyx (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Vyx it is quite clear on the above consensus that there is only room for one article on tablet computers, and its not just me and Mahjongg saying it, SnottyWong, Camilo Sanchez, Societyalum all agree too. Whether that article is called tablet computer or tablet PC isn't really worth arguing about - the reason the content was moved to the other article was that it was more complete. If instead we have an article here on all tablet computers that is fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree that Tablet PC and Tablet computer need to be merged. There is no discernable difference between the two. There is no "tablet" style computer (that I know of) that is not meant for consumer use. No one is using tablet computers for commercial or research purposes. All tablet computers are personal computers. Therefore, merge the two articles. The assertion that the term "Tablet PC" is Microsoft-specific has been thoroughly disproven. SnottyWong talk 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you propose that they should be merged under the Tablet Computer or the Tablet PC title ?
I have always recommended "Tablet PC" or "Tablet Personal Computer" as searching "Tablet Computer" on Amazon yields zero results titled thus, while Tablet PC turns out lots regardless of the OS. Apple is an exception because not only does Apple reject the term (by clearly stating that in their META description of the iPad page), but also in functionality: personal computers are defined as computers that work without an intervening operator whereas the iPad can't run applications not approved by Apple. This may seem a subtle detail, but it does have serious consequences such as rejections of Adobe Flash or Java or even Commodore 64 emulator implementations.
And therein lies the rub. Tablets are undoubtedly personal items. But the Personal Computer term is more than "personal property" and it may be the difference of accessing or not accessing a Flash page, a potentially huge difference in functionality, despite Steve Jobs saying the times they are a changin', and some traditional PC folks feel like their world is slipping away.
So the Tablet Computer entry was created after a long debate on the Move Request some months ago; it was created specifically for the iPad. Personally I find the current situation to be OK: Tablet Computer is a fine generic category for tablets that don't adhere the Personal Computer freedom requirements; Tablet PC is great for the many Tablet PCs out there. I believe the encyclopedia would suffer without this Tablet PC entry being vastly improved but staying focused on Tablets that abide by the Personal Computer definition. But my 3rd opinion request was a honest one; I've invested too much personal time on this debate and I am going to stand by your opinion whatever it is. Vyx (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I still stand that around 2002 Microsoft drew up specifications for "a new hardware platform" they dubbed a "tablet PC". Microsoft doesn't itself create hardware (not even the "Microsoft mouse"), but they can and do specify platforms, and try to get interest in those platform's, and support them with "special windows versions". that is what happened, and is simply a fact. Its also a fact that in the years after, when you mentioned "tablet computer" you were taking about systems built to these Microsoft specification, using the software Microsoft wrote. Yes, after a couple of years (5 in this case) there were competitors who to a lesser or better degree tried to create something similar, and used the same term for their product. I claim there was consensus at the time that when the term "tablet PC" was used, (without further specification) it was obvious you were talking about a system that used the Microsoft specifications. Thats simply a fact. Also, there is a difference between using the term "personal computer", and "PC". Mahjongg (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we focus on merging the two articles together and then, if there's enough content on Microsoft's tablet (which I think is likely), we can create a sub-article on the Microsoft tablet PC per WP:SUMMARY. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
sounds sensible to me: Mahjongg (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
@ Vyx I don't honestly mind the title for the new merged article, you may choose. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Tablet PC. Keep in mind, the iPad should not be in the merged article. Vyx (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Why in the world would we miss out the top selling tablet device of the year? As far as I'm aware Microsoft sell about 4 million tablet PC's a year. Given Apple sold over 3 million in the first quarter of the iPad it is definitely more than notable enough for inclusion even if sales have dropped to virtually zero after the first quarter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The argument is whether or not the iPad is a tablet PC or a PDA. I don't think the answer to that question is black and white. It would probably be worth finding some reliable sources which address that question rather than introduce our own opinions (i.e. original research) into the article. SnottyWong speak 01:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys I got it. The solution to this dilemma is very simple. I was browsing through the terminology and I have come to this conclusion. Tablet PC is a very confusing term if put next to Tablet computer. Many websites that sell tablet pcs refer to them as tablet notebooks and/or tablet laptops. I think what we need to do is simply change the name of this article to either Tablet Notebook (it could also be Tablet Notebook Computer, although I think it's redundant) or Tablet laptop and leave the other article as Tablet computer. I believe this makes a much better clearer distinction between both type of computers. I would like to add that I disagree on any distinction based on brand names (such as Microsoft). thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (edit conflict) Fair point. Lets look at some reliable sources:

  • Tech Radar spells it out quite carefully "Top 10 best tablet PC iPad alternatives: Looking for a tablet that's not an iPad? Then try one of these…"
  • CNet review bottom line: "The Apple iPad is the first affordable tablet computer worth owning, but it won't (yet) replace your laptop."
  • The Telegraph The headline says it all: "Apple iPad: 40 per cent of shoppers would ditch laptop for tablet PC, survey finds - Study by Kelkoo reveals that 4 in 10 consumers would swap their computer for Apple's iPad"
  • Arstechnica makes a direct comparison between the iPad and Microsoft Tablet PC "Microsoft still doesn't understand why its Tablet PC concept has repeatedly bombed over the best part of a decade. Apple sold more iPads in its first three months of availability than PC vendors sold Tablet PCs in the whole of last year;"
  • The Economist goes as close as anyone by saying "Consumers may buy a tablet as a “third device”, between mobile phones and personal computers" but they also say "GIVEN all the hype ahead of the arrival of Apple’s new tablet computer, the debut on April 3rd of the iPad in America" in their first sentence. (Note a subscription is probably required.
  • Syndey Morning Herald state "This is not a substitute for a laptop or desktop computer. The iPad is a completely new class of product which sits between the laptop and the smartphone" - so they think the iPad is a "third way" device though they do call it a 'tablet computer' not a PDA throughout.
  • Straits Times = "BERLIN - THE German maker of a new tablet PC is setting out to rival Apple's iPad with the promise of even more technology such as a bigger screen, a webcam and USB ports."
  • Engadget - its only post announcement and before the iPad was released but "Apple's iPad to demand lion's share of tablet PC market?" is fairly clear.

From these sources there is no implication that the iPad is a PDA, you could argue its a "third way" device, though where to draw the line is difficult. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

@Camilo Sanchez your idea is a good one, that is backed up by at least some of the above reliable sources. Though "tablet laptops" would have to run a full desktop OS - e.g. Desktop Windows, Mac OS X or desktop Linux. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead1, if am not mistaken, you are against the renaming of the article right?..I understand all the sources you are showing. I just think Tablet pc and Tablet computer are very similar terms and quite confusing to the average reader. Why are you so against it? (if you are that is). Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
@Eraserhead1 ..sorry bro, didn't see your response before. Guess we were edditing around the same time. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries :). For clarity the only reason I tried to make this article "Microsoft only" was because the other article tablet computer is now pretty general and the difference seemed to be pretty arbitrary - if we move this article to tablet laptop then the difference is clear enough for me :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, ok, so you are saying this is an article only about the Microsoft Tablet PC right? ..ok, well, I guess we have to create an article called tablet laptop and rename this one Microsoft Tablet PC and we move all the information relevant to non-MS Tablet PC to the Tablet laptop article..you ok with that? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have created the article Tablet laptop which is a redirect to Laptop#Tablet_laptop. I think some information in this article actually belongs in that section, but this article has been protected so there is not much I can do about it. Anyhow, Eraserhead1, since you have basically hijacked this article, is it possible that you add the term Microsoft to the article so we can reduce the confusion? Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Cool, I'll see if I can do some more work on that over the weekend. I suggest we wait until protection has expired to figure out what to do with this article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth I agree somewhat that this article is only about the Microsoft Tablet PC, but not about calling the main article "tablet laptop". Let me explain where I stand on this once more. My point was that the term "Tablet PC" was first used (and used for some time) for Microsoft Tablet PC's only, so if these tablets get their own article (which I think is logical) then the article should logically be named "Tablet PC", but to avoid confusion with other "tablet PC's" its a good idea to make the title more specific, so "Microsoft Tablet PC" is a good choice. Regarding the name of the article that encompasses all "tablet shaped computers", I wouldn't choose "tablet PC", as I honestly don't see how one would name the article so that it would artificially exclude the iPad from it. Even though the argument that the iPad isn't a PC "because you cannot choose the software you want to put on it, but are dependent on a third party", strikes me as a fabrication, especially if you say the iPad is not a "Personal computer" because of it. I have never heard that argument anywhere else but on these talk pages. Anyway, the "personal" in PC means its for your personal use, it implies nothing else. Still because the sentiment exists that "PC" is simply another term for a wintel system, I must conclude that calling the article "tablet PC" is objectionable. Also, I can foresee that this article will be used for many more and even more different tablet shaped computers in the future, so I would op for the most generic name, and that is "tablet computer", however I do accept that by nature any tablet computer would be for personal use, so I don't mind "tablet personal computer" If people want to stress the point. Finally, the term "tablet laptop" seems artificial! I never heard anybody call them "laptops", actually the term is also logically wrong, as the device is not designed to be put specifically onto your lap, you will see that most people will hold it near their face with one or both hands. Therefore I think as a title "tablet laptop" is wrong, as well as it is OR. Same holds for tablet notebook, that is also original research. Never heard it named this way. So concluding, I'm for calling the main article simply "Tablet computer", (or if must be "Tablet personal computer") and for calling this article "Microsoft tablet PC". Mahjongg (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an article called Tablet computer, and it is about the iPad-like devices that are coming up. Tablet laptop is another way vendors call laptop computers with the swivel thing. Just do a google search and look it up yourself. The problem is that they are making this article about the Microsoft product, so if they want to make it about the Microsoft Tablet PC as Eraserhead1 does then so be it. Just rename it. Also, what you are saying that the term Tablet laptop is artificial is your own POV and if you have never heard of it just google search tablet laptop and see for yourself. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I did "see for myself", and think I've not changed opinion, googling for "tablet laptop" mostly gives results like "tablet/laptop" or "is it a tablet or a laptop". "tablet laptop" doesn't seem to be a well known term, especially its not a term in general use for all tablet shaped computers. There is some misunderstanding going on about what should be the reason why "they are making this article about the Microsoft product", its because from the beginning its -was- only about the Microsoft tablet PC, so why should we move its content to another article? If the name is too generic now, just rename the article. All material that doesn't belong in the article anymore can be simply cut and pasted to the new main article ("tablet computer"), its not as if there is something magical to the bytes of this article, as if this article is the "holy ground" or something. Mahjongg (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The iPad is not a Tablet Personal Computer

Eraserhead1 points above at 8 reliable sources which he thinks make the iPad appropriate for the Tablet PC entry. I will agree with his points on The Telegraph and possibly Techradar. But for the rest, I think that he misses the point which is in fact the reverse of what he thinks:

  • CNet review bottom line: "The Apple iPad is the first affordable tablet computer worth owning, but it won't (yet) replace your laptop."

The article also states:

"Summary: Non-customizable, non-flexible, non-accessorized closed-architecture, restricted 'user experience' and Classic Steve Jobs at his most 'I will tell you what you want'. [...] The iPad is just a platform for purchasing content, like video, magazines, books, apps and games. And conveniently, iTunes and the App Store don't provide comprehensive lists of apps you've bought for your iPhone or media you already paid for, so you'll probably be re-purchasing content. Snap. People are far better off with one of the newer Windows tablets or just about any Netbook, that is, unless they're utterly computer illiterate, have poor eyesight, etc."

Which is exactly not what a Personal Computer is; the strengths and weaknesses of this approach can be debated, even inside the Tablet PC or the Tablet Computer or the iPad article -- but the CNET article definitely echoes my thoughts on why the iPad should not be in the Tablet PC article.

  • Arstechnica makes a direct comparison between the iPad and Microsoft Tablet PC "Microsoft still doesn't understand why its Tablet PC concept has repeatedly bombed over the best part of a decade. Apple sold more iPads in its first three months of availability than PC vendors sold Tablet PCs in the whole of last year;"

The article continues as "in fact, the number of iPads sold in that period is likely to eclipse the number of Tablet PCs sold both last year and this". Which means that the author doesn't consider iPads to be Tablet PCs, although he may consider Tablet PCs to be a Microsoft-specific platform. But then Ars Technica also has this article in which the Modbook is titled as Tablet PC, Mac style. So the point here is moot.

  • The Economist goes as close as anyone by saying "Consumers may buy a tablet as a “third device”, between mobile phones and personal computers" but they also say "GIVEN all the hype ahead of the arrival of Apple’s new tablet computer, the debut on April 3rd of the iPad in America" in their first sentence. (Note a subscription is probably required.

This is exactly the point of not including the iPad on the Tablet Personal Computer category. Ditto for the Syndey Morning Herald: The iPad is a completely new class of product which sits between the laptop and the smartphone

  • Straits Times "BERLIN - THE German maker of a new tablet PC is setting out to rival Apple's iPad with the promise of even more technology such as a bigger screen, a webcam and USB ports."

Yes, the iPad is a rival technology to Tablet PCs. But it's not a Tablet PC because on a personal computer one would never have to "have any particular software, Ankershoffen said - a blow to Apple's devices that require particular Apple software like iTunes" as the article states.

  • Engadget - its only post announcement and before the iPad was released but "Apple's iPad to demand lion's share of tablet PC market?" is fairly clear.

The article also states:

Problem is, the iPad isn't really a tablet PC is it? As Technologizer astutely points out, "the iPad isn't a traditional PC –- it's more of an appliance. You don't tinker with your television; you turn it on and consume services."

My thoughts exactly. The iPad should *not* be in the Tablet PC article. A Tablet PC is a Personal Computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyx (talkcontribs) 17:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


Wrong arguments again........., the iPad should indeed -not- be in the "tablet PC article", because ideally we shouldn't -have- an "tablet PC article"!, We should have a "Tablet computer article", which encompasses all "tablet PC's" The "Microsoft tablet PC", the "iPad" and all other (upcoming) tablet shaped computers there are or will be. Its idiotic to create an article about tablet computers that doesn't also list the iPad, or the upcoming "one tablet for all" (One laptop per child XO-3 tablet computer, or for example the Sakshat. Its a very strange argument not to call the iPad a Personal computer, it -is- a computer, and it -is- a computer for personal use. I think its extremely non NPOV to try to exclude the iPad from what has to become the main article about tablet shaped computers. Mahjongg (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to help on the issue

This is my proposal, it doesn't get any clearer than this. I would like to add that i disagree on making any kind of classification based on whether the device runs a full OS half OS whatever..that is pointless. In the future this devices will probably be capable of running everything. The criteria should be 1. Is the device part of the laptop family, 2.Is the device part of the iPad-touchscreen-type family.

Name

Characteristics

Notes

Image

Tablet laptop :

Laptops with a swivel that can be folded all the way, they usually have a stylus.

Tablet laptop is a distinctive name. It is by definition a computer (no need to include the word computer) and it gives the reader an easy and logical idea that the article refers to computers with a full keyboard. Tablet PC would redirect to this article.

HP Tablet PC running Windows XP (Tablet PC edition) (2006).jpg

Tablet computer :

iPad like devices. Usually with a touchscreen.

Tablet computer is an article that already exists and it refers to iPad-like devices. It leaves no room for confusion among readers. Is a completely different article from Tablet laptop because it implies a mobility-oriented kind of device. Regardless what kind of software it uses. This article should refer only to Tablet devices with a touchscreen (no keyboard). Furthermore, I disagree with having an article called Tablet PC and one called Tablet computer. Is too confusing for the average reader to discern quickly which is which. People refer to their PCs as Computers.

100px

Microsoft Tablet PC :

A proprietary product by Microsoft.

This is apparently a proprietary device that goes by the name Microsoft Tablet PC. A user by the name Eraserhead1 has been staunchly trying to make this article (tablet PC). Only about such device. I support his decision as long as we move on into separating the terms for the sake of the reader.

Link

Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


No problems with this, except that many tablet PC's won't have a folding screen and keyboard, so that might be a cause for confusion for users of the Tablet PC redirect, its a good attempt to naming this category though. And you are right that the first category was overlooked, but do note that by including this category, you lean on to another kind of system, the Ultra-Mobile PC. Mahjongg (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe its an idea to create a sub category in "tablet computers" for "Personal computers that use a tablet", a category that includes, tablet laptops, UMPC's tablet PC's and the Microsoft Tablet PC. All these have in common that they are simply PC's (personal computers) that use a touch tablet as an entry/display method instead of the normal display/keyboard/mouse system of a classic PC. Mahjongg (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned thats pretty close to my third way. So I'll go with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Camilo Sanchez -- this is original research

Camilo Sanchez thinks there should be an article for "Laptops with a swivel that can be folded all the way". I believe he has not read this article which already contains a section called Convertibles which is for those tablets in which "the base of a convertible attaches to the display at a single joint called a swivel hinge or rotating hinge". So Camilo Sanchez proposal is to remove this section and make a new article out of it, called "Tablet Laptop". On what established grounds ? Where does he find the info that make this necessary ? Any reliable sources that refer to these "Tablet Laptops" ? Anyone selling them ?

Camilo Sanchez thinks that if you remove the keyboard from a device, it then becomes different as would then imply "a mobility-oriented kind of device". Once again, original research. So, the Nokia N900 is a Tablet Laptop but not a Tablet Computer ? And the Fujitsu U1010 is not "a mobility-oriented kind of device" ?

Camilo Sanchez thinks there is a product named Microsoft Tablet PC. For that he links to the image of an old Gateway Tablet Personal Computer. Is he aware that you can run Linux on that ? Or he is pointing at its supplied operating system, Windows XP Tablet PC edition which is already covered in the Windows XP editions entry ? Either not or perhaps he doesn't care as he has stated that he disagrees on "making any kind of classification based on whether the device runs a full OS half OS whatever..". Apparently system software is not an issue for he thinks that "In the future this devices will probably be capable of running everything." But this article is not about the future, it is about the present where these devices are either not capable of running everything or more importantly they have been engineered (and that includes system software) to prevent running everything.

Is Camilo Sanchez aware that Wikipedia is a reliable-source backed encyclopedia instead of streams of consciousness adhockery nonsense ? Vyx (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are you getting carried away? It's just a proposal to rename articles in a logical way so Tablet PC and Tablet Computer are not two confusing terms for the average reader. (Nice speech though). --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What about Internet tablet? This appears to be missing from your table and seems to describe the iPad. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Just saw this news story today. I thought their use of "tablet PC" for a non-Microsoft device was interesting. SnottyWong squeal 21:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course it's a Tablet PC. There is no confusion here and the Tablet PC article (or Tablet Personal Computer) is the natural environment for all those devices. Just because Apple did something very different by controlling which applications are available on the iPad doesn't mean the Tablet PCs should be redefined in Wikipedia. Thanks for the point. Vyx (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Excellent example. Another reason why it is imperative to do something about the names in this articles..usually I don't care much for stuff like that, but I really believe this is overly confusing for the non-technical person. (Am sure we all know someone who has a hard time understanding technology).--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the media is just as confused as anybody else about this issue, so lets keep it as clean concrete and simple as possible, and steer far from "special interests" that want to pervert the process. At the moment there isn't much wrong with how things are, but the speed of these developments means we need to come up with a well structured framework for a main article, we can fill in smaller details as we go.In fact the terminology is developing as we speak, so there isn't much use to go into details too much at this point. I simply propose to go ahead and rename the main article to be as broad as possible,logical for experts and interested non-technicians, put in all these systems, and give them sensible names, as the market names them, and logic dictates. If a subsection seems important enough, from historical or other P.O.V. then link to its (logically and unequivocally named) own article. Mahjongg (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Article reorganisation

So we can move forward I've moved 'tablet PC' to Microsoft tablet PC. If people want a tablet Personal computer article, please take the content from this revision and split it into a new article.

Hopefully everyone is then satisfied and this vaguely matches consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Tablet PC should redirect to Tablet Personal Computer. The correct title for the disambiguation should be Tablet (computer). Vyx (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
No. There is no consensus for that - see Talk:Tablet PC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok yet a new device has come up and yet we still don't define the name of this two articles! . When are we gonna fix this people????!!! -- --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC) 23:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok my bad I hadn't noticed the changes, this is much bettah! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, its shaping up great, as I had hoped. Good work people ! Mahjongg (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Except i'm not talking about -this- copy of the article (and talk), i was talking about the original "Microsoft tablet PC" article, -this- article is confusing and unnecessary. Mahjongg (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This is too confusing for words, this move of "Microsoft tablet PC" to "Tablet personal computer" is a senseless an vandalistic action. What should have happened if a separate "Tablet Persoanl Computer" was really needed was to copy and paste stuff from the original article to the new one. Mahjongg (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
To make clear why I think the move made by user:vyx was unfortunate, is that he knew that the original "Microsoft tablet PC" was a valid article, if he was so desperate for a "tablet Personal computer" article the right course for him would have been to create that article, not to move (rename) this ("Microsoft tablet PC") article, thereby destroying it. The right action for Eraserhead1 would have been to revert the move, then to create the "tablet Personal computer" article. Now we have a nice mess, we need a redirect on the "Microsoft tablet PC" talk page to continue our discussion about "Microsoft tablet PCs". That is just silly. Mahjongg (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Content on the Mee Go

Per the above discussion the reason I suggested this article was because it was to have a clear line in the sand over tablet computer (i.e. the device runs a full desktop OS) otherwise all the people who raised concerns about the name tablet PC still apply and it isn't a compromise.

Content on the MeeGo should be removed as it clearly doesn't run a full desktop OS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tablet Personal Computers don't have to run what you call a "full desktop OS". This is your idea and it is not backed up by reliable sources. Considering that MeeGo does not prevent the user from installing applications such as OpenOffice.org, your idea is obviously irrelevant to the Tablet Personal Computer article; Furthermore you should read the MeeGo introduction and you'll see that a core fact is that

6. Enables all players of the industry to participate in the evolution of the software platform and to build their own assets on MeeGo

This is clearly a Tablet Personal Computer OS. It has nothing to do with the iPad and should not be on the same article with the iPad. Vyx (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I still doubt the wisdom of already having a separate main article about "Tablet Personal Computer"s, the small amount of data that isn't simply lifted from "Microsoft Tablet PC" doesn't allow for a separate article yet, what is there could easily be incorporated into "tablet computer". This duplication of the article, which seems to be a solo action by user:vyx, is very confusing for the user. Mahjongg (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
A solo user who backs everything on reliable sources is better than 3 users who just agree between themselves. Dismissing my reliable source-backed arguments as "wrong" with not a single piece of argument or reliable source as you did before or calling me a "serial pain in the arse" as Eraserhead1 did means nothing to me. Vyx (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
"back everything with reliable sources" is your POV. Listen, I really care less about this tug of war about who OWNS the original article. There is something to be said for both views. And really both "Tablet personal computer" and a "Microsoft tablet computer" are valid and distinct topics, so in principle they both deserve an article. What I'm bothered with is the utter confusion that has arisen now. Really a redirect in a talk page? Really two articles with virtual identical content? This isn't in anybodies interest! Mahjongg (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
"back everything with reliable sources" this is not *my* POV, but Wikipedia's POV. The fact that you believe this sentence to be my own point of view shows that you have not really understood what this is all about. I do agree about your point about the problem of two articles with virtually identical content. It is because content from this article has been copied over to the Tablet Computer article, mainly by Eraserhead1. Tablet Computer should refer to but not be about Tablet PCs or the iPad. It should mention the difference between tablets designed for simplicity, security and performance at the cost of freedom of choice vs tablet PCs. Job's argument against allowing iPad users from installing Flash, Java, Firefox, OpenOffice.org is that. Let this be known. There is already a great deal of verifiable information that could find its way on a Tablet Computer article that *would* make sense. Copying content from Tablet PC to Tablet Computer is not a solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyx (talkcontribs) 11:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
"back everything with reliable sources" is your POV means that its your POV that you are the only one that "backs up his POV with reliable sources", implicating that all other editors that disagree with what you are doing do not. That is your non neutral POV. Its clear from edits like this [2] that your single drive seems to be to permeate Wikipedia articles with your POV that the iPad isn't a Personal computer because Apple doesn't allow some software to be installed, to that end you are acting like a zealot. I don't care that you want to express this opinion, but I do care that it results in disruptive behaviour, please remember that wikipedia isn't a soapbox. If you think that I'm unfair, and what you did wasn't driven by that goal, I do apologize, but I do still think your actions are disruptive, as you did needlessly destroy the "Microsoft tablet PC" article. Mahjongg (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Again you are talking without facts from reliable sources. I have provided many sources which refer to non-Microsoft tablets as Tablet PCs in the The iPad is not a Tablet Personal Computer section. Your response there was: "wrong argument again". And nothing else.
It's not my point of view that the iPad "isn't a Personal computer because Apple doesn't allow some software to be installed" -- it's what the definition of personal computer and reliable sources claim. The edit which you have linked is backed by two reliable sources. One of them is Steve Jobs himself, stating that the PC era is coming to an end while defending the iPad's controlled installation process. The other is from a Popular Science editor who claims exactly that: the iPad is not a Tablet PC. And then, David Worthington from Technologizer states: The iPad isn’t a PC. It is *not* my point of view. You could try inserting an Apples section to Oranges and I would object that as well. But the solution to our disagreement is simple: find reliable articles stating that the iPad is a Tablet PC instead of attacking me.
But when you say that I destroy the "Microsoft tablet PC" article, you really exceed the boundaries of common sense: There wasn't a Microsoft Tablet PC article; Eraserhead1 simply renamed this article to Microsoft Tablet PC, ignoring the move request I've made (which you have supported) to rename this article to "Tablet Personal Computer", even while the main reason was to avoid confusing Tablet PCs as Microsoft's since they also run non Windows systems such as Android, Meego, QNX or OSX. It makes no sense to me to support this move request and then say nothing when the article is brazenly renamed to Microsoft Tablet PC, ignoring a properly discussed move request. Vyx (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
yeah yeah yeah, I know what your opinion is, and that you found reliable sources that support it. That is not my issue with your move, my issue is that you knew that the "Microsoft Tablet PC article" (in whichever way it came about) was a valid article. So there was no reason to remove it, by renaming it to the only article -you- wanted to exist. The proper way would have been to simply start your own new article then to copy content from the old article to it, leaving the original article intact. Now you forced someone else to re-create the original article. That wouldn't have been so bad, if it wasn't for the fact that the talk page also moved to your article, forcing the need for a redirect on the re-created "Microsoft tablet PC" talk page, so users who wanted to continue discussion, expecting it to still be on the "Microsoft Tablet PC" page, would be directed here. In the end it doesn't matter, both articles now exist, and I couldn't care less what you want to write in the "tablet personal computer" article. If its supported by reliable sources, you can write it, as long if it's not given undue weight. Mahjongg (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I can certainly go with that. I only renamed tablet PC to Microsoft tablet PC as I wasn't sure my tablet personal computer idea had consensus :o - and something had to be done as the discussion hadn't been closed on time. I am more than happy for this article to exist separately from Microsoft tablet PC, and I have changed that pages talk page to no longer redirect here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What the hell just happened???!!! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename Tablet PC to Tablet Personal Computer

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: page moved. Already moved, just cleaning up. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)



Tablet PCTablet Personal Computer — not only according to policy but more importantly because the PC acronym might be confused as a Microsoft-specific term while Tablet Personal Computers also run non Windows systems such as Android, Meego, QNX or OSX --Vyx (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This is like discussing whether you should say 100 milliliters or 100 mL. Totally pointless. We should be focusing in determining whether this article is about laptops that swivel all the way or this is about a Microsoft specific product. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this a little more - especially given the above comments and I think I have a possible compromise. Tablet computers which run a full desktop operating system get classed as tablet PC's tablet computers which run a simpler OS such as Android, iOS etc. are tablet computers. Then you can have a notice at the top saying that 'this article is only about tablets which run a full desktop operating system' which gives you a line in the sand - and one that should be understandable to the general public and certainly not confuse technical people like myself. In which case I support the new name as then tablet PC can be a disambiguation page which should allay others concerns.
I'm also going to create an article on the Microsoft tablet PC on their tablet efforts. In the future, in say 6-12 months if there isn't an decent amount of unique content here then it can be challenged at WP:AfD and we can see whether people are interested in this specific topic rather than about Microsoft's efforts and general tablet computers - lets see how it goes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The new name being what? Tablet personal computer? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not that fussed about the name though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
But dude, the whole point is to make both articles clearly different. Tablet PC and Tablet computer is the same thing. If you are making it about a Microsoft product just call it Microsoft Tablet PC. There should be information about the Tablet laptop (laptop with swivel), tablet computer (iPad - like devices) and YOUR Microsoft tablet pc..meaning this article. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we basically agree, for clarity what I'm saying is that this article could be made the 'tablet laptop' article to cover all tablets which run a full desktop OS (or are tablets with a swivel, there's not much difference IMO) and another article could be created on 'Microsoft tablet PC' to just cover Microsoft stuff. If one/any of the articles becomes redundant then we can have a content discussion on its future which is much less wishy-washy and this way we create some lines in the sand. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok cool..so the Request for Move should be to tablet laptop. The current request is to Tablet computer. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - PC is an acronym, not a Microsoft-specific term. While it is sometimes used to describe Microsoft products, it is not exclusively used for that purpose. Microsoft has no trademark on the term "PC". If you do a search for "tablet PC" you will find non-Microsoft products, products which are not running a Microsoft OS, and products that are capable of running non-Microsoft OS's (even though they might ship with Windows). SnottyWong soliloquize 20:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Only because using Tablet PC will again be used as an "argument" to ban the iPad from it because its not a Wintel "PC". Mahjongg (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • semi-support but I think tablet computer would be better. As PC does connote IBM, DOS or Wintel computers, or their inheritors (ie. Linux x86 systems) 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • How about Tablet (computer)? Simply south (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Given tablet computer is a different article that would be very confusing - unless of course the two articles were merged. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


Hmm, I see how this quickly can become very confusing. There are two issues that seem to have to be tackled simultaneously:
  • 1) There must, in Wikipedia, be a general article about tablet shaped computers of all kinds, including a "history section" with older tablet computers, like the Microsoft tablet PC, (with in it a link to the main article about these systems, which happens to be the article of the second issue discussed here) and offshoots that also call themselves "tablet PC's", like those Linux based copycat "tablet PC's" from around 2007, but also all the new and upcoming tablets like iPad, and android based tablet computers and other (future) tablet shaped computers. This article already exists, and is currently named tablet computer
  • 2) There is an issue whether there should be a "Tablet PC" article only specifically for the "Microsoft tablet PC", or also for all the older "Tablet PC's" that explicitly call (or called) themselves a "tablet PC". That article also already exist, and is currently named tablet PC.

Some people (Vyx) argue the first (main) article must be called "tablet PC" (and want to exclude the iPad from the article, on the ground that its not a PC), others want to give it a generic name like "tablet computer", "tablet personal computer", or "tablet (computer)".

About the second article there seems to be discussion whether to simply call it "tablet PC", or the more specific "Microsoft tablet PC".

I argue to keep calling the first (main) article) "tablet computer", and renaming the second article to "Microsoft tablet PC" (with only the Micosoft specific information in it, while other "tablet PC's" incorporated in the main article) but all this is my opinion.

By the way, in fact this is almost the current situation, the remaining arguments then seem to be whether the iPad has a place in the main article, and whether non Microsoft "tablet PC's" have a place in the second article. I hope this helps solve some of the confusion I seem to have noticed. Mahjongg (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also a third option - which so far only primarily appears to be supported by serial pains in the arse (Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs)) Though I think Camilo Sanchez (talk · contribs) may well support this too which is that we keep tablet computer about all tablet devices, then we have tablet PC (or ideally tablet personal computer) about tablets which run a full desktop OS and also have an article (say Microsoft tablet PC) which covers Microsoft's tablet PC efforts. This has the advantage that we can see at a later point which articles to keep, but maybe its not the greatest idea ever. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You mean we would have a main article, with a (history) section specifically about those tablets running a full Windows (or Linux desktop OS), The section would have a pointer to a main article "Tablet PC". and in the same section also a subsection of a yet more specific case, namely the true Microsoft tablet PC's starting with perhaps a link to its own article of the same name?
Is that what you want? I do not consider that a -third option-, just a variation. But yes, we could do that. I think that the main article would by nature organize itself in sections that describe different types of "tablet computers", with links to "main articles" about the variations anyway.Mahjongg (talk) 00:10, 20 September 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.

Why was this moved?

Can anyone tell me why was this moved from Microsoft Tablet PC to Tablet Personal Computer when there was consensus that this article would be about the Microsoft Tablet PC? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is my interpretation. There was a user (User:Vyx) who was hell bent on the article having "personal computer" in its title, who simply renamed the article (against consensus) to "Tablet personal computer".
Because we still needed a "Microsoft tablet PC" article user:Eraserhead1 reacted to the disappearance of the "Microsoft Tablet PC" article, not by reverting the move, but by re-creating an article from scratch naming it "Microsoft Tablet PC", then basically copying over material from the original article. Because he couldn't copy the talk page he (initially) made a re-direct to here.
Basically if you want to know why we have two identical articles, look at first sentence of the lede of both:

Tablet Personal Computer

A Tablet Personal Computer (Tablet PC) is a portable personal computer where its screen functions as a primary input device and software installation is not controlled by an intervening operator.

Microsoft Tablet PC

A Microsoft Tablet PC is a product announced in 2001 by Microsoft, where it was defined as a pen-enabled computer conforming to hardware specifications devised by Microsoft and running a licensed copy of "Windows XP Tablet PC Edition" operating system or a derivative thereof.

If you also know that "the intervening operator idea, and that therefore an iPad is not a Personal computer" is Vyx's "hobby horse". You can guess why he wanted "Personal Computer" to be in the title.

Mahjongg (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I reject your accusations. I am not driven by zeal or hard feelings and I do not have a "hobby horse".
I respect the pillars of Wikipedia and I've debated all my actions, eg. when you accuse me of renaming the article to "Tablet Personal Computer" you obviously ignore the move request I've made which you had supported.
I also tried to support my actions by reliable sources to the best of my ability. You haven't -- you've never posted a single link to a reliable source, ever in any section of the discussion. Vyx (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I earlier said if you really were not driven by this then I apologize for the suggestion, but it makes your blatant disrespect for consensus even more strange. As I also said, this is my interpretation of your action, I let others decide what to think of it. You know full well that I only supported your move request because using (the term) Tablet PC will again be used as an "argument" to ban the iPad from it because its not a Wintel "PC". So there is nothing contrary to my supporting the move at that time, and my opinion now. I haven't made any edit containing a fact in this dispute or in this article for which I needed any reliable sources to back it up, so its a red herring you say I did not. I also never claimed you didn't provide reliable sources for your "The iPad isn't a PC" claim. I don't oppose that part of your edits, just the way you handled the renaming of the article, which you did while you knew consensus was against it. You claim that you have no special interest ins spreading the view that "the iPad needs an "intervening operator", and that therefore "an iPad is not a Personal computer" , well here are a few edits you made that contradict that: [3] [4] [5] and this is second edit you ever did about computers or programming in general on wikipedia , [6] The first one was about a programmer. (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
My reasons for renaming the article to Tablet Personal Computer were presented in the request and were 100% honest: it's better to avoid acronyms in Wikipedia and since this article was already about all Tablet PCs and not just those running Windows (there was a debate about that a couple years ago), it would be best to avoid an acronym that may sound like what you call "Wintel". I am truthful and that's why I resist removing MeeGo from this article; besides tablets running MeeGo such as the WePad *are* in fact advertised as Tablet PCs.
My reasons for removing the iPad from this entry has nothing to do with it not being a Wintel PC. It is simply because you need to pay Apple to run code and you need Apple's approval (and pay more) to publish your software. That makes Apple an intervening operator between you and the computer. That's exactly what personal computers were created against for in the first place. I stand by my edits.
If you believe that the iPad should be included in this article, I can eagerly and openly discuss that on the grounds of size and mobility hindering programmability expectations. I would have quite a few objections of course. But I see no reason for fragmenting and destroying this article and I will not accept your greater numbers as consensus; I would not disrespect the designer of the Aster CT-80 by accepting his opinion without foundation from reliable sources as Wikipedia requires. Vyx (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh my God this is just getting ridiculous. Let us not be so single minded here!. I thought the consensus was to have an article about the Microsoft Tablet PC and then one for the Tablet computer !!!. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree this is getting out of hand, lets leave it with this, and return to trying to write good articles about tablet computers. In fact I think the general hierarchy for this should be (from most abstract to most concrete) Tablet computer => Tablet PC (aka Tablet Personal Computer) => Microsoft tablet PC Mahjongg (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
OK Vyx..what's up? you are playing the "reliable sources" card for something so obvious. Your argument is like: "show a reliable source for why a television set is called television set and not TV set". The goal here is not to prove whether the articles are sourced or not, or whether the information is true or not..It is true!. Those devices are called tablet pc, tablet computer, tablet laptop, tablet, etc, and everybody knows it and furthermore there is not clear definition of which is which...it isn't written on stone what the names should or should not be. Instead we should be focusing on simply organizing the articles in a way that can make it easier for the average reader to find the specific differences (which in my opinion is to separate iPad-like devices from Convertible laptops). The move of this article to Microsoft Tablet PC was the right one, because now we could have focused on the Tablet computer article. I think we should take a look at the article "Television" which is a good example. Television can have several meaning (Television set, Television studio, Television medium, etc). Can we please apply the same rationale on this articles already please!? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft Tablet PC is an SDK or a specification. It is not a product. Provide me one link of anyone selling a Microsoft Tablet PC. This article is about products that are tablet personal computers. So I don't think that turning this article to Microsoft Tablet PC would be a good move. Vyx (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
We already have an article on Microsoft tablet PC. Why not keep all three for now? If any become redundant a WP:AfD request can be filed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's include the iPad on Tablet Personal Computer and merge Tablet Computer and Microsoft Tablet PC here

Honestly, I can't stand this wasting of our time over this tablet computer, tablet pc, microsoft tablet pc nonsense. Here is a proposal that will hopefully end this, so that we may turn our attention in improving the article.

1) Work on the lead paragraph to define what a tablet personal computer is. Include a second paragraph to define Apple's approach on the iPad. Specify the reasons of inclusion of a device that doesn't conform to the personal computer specification on the grounds of its mobility and size making a greater impact than programmability and software variety on a large group of customers.

2) There is no need to create a category for the iPad. The iPad is the iPad and it's something very different, possibly game changing, possibly a gadget that will be forgotten. If another manufacturer (or group of manufacturers) follows Apple's approach on the iPad, create a new category. Two different systems of this kind are enough (I think) to call for a new term and leave Tablet PCs alone.

3) Let's work on the article instead of this endless debate.

I propose that the title is kept as Tablet Personal Computer since Tablet PC is the most popular term on the web. This is what most users will be looking for and this is the most precise term for most systems here. Vyx (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To begin, the debate is long because the articles are good enough as they are. The problem is not the articles, the problem is the name of the articles and hence their organization. Now, as far as your proposals, I disagree with them on the basis of their complexity. In fact I disagree with the PC vs Mac approach in which PC automatically relates to Microsoft. Take for instance: A PC in my home can be used by all my family with different accounts, does it make it more "personal" than my iPad or Tablet device which is intended to be used only by "me"?. I think we should have a general to specific approach as some users have agreed here. So, I still stand by my original proposal. Let the article Tablet computer be an article about iPad-like devices. Let this article be EITHER about a Microsoft software or hardware (whatever it is people are proposing here) OR ;et this article be about Convertible laptops ONLY. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to at least give the Microsoft tablet PC article a try to see if we can write enough content about it - if in a few months there it hasn't gone anywhere I won't be offended in the slightest if you file an WP:AfD request to merge it back.
If you wish to merge tablet computer and tablet personal computer, or to keep them separate as they are now - I'm easy - I'd rather be working on content than this discussion :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
That's right , but I do agree with Vyx..is that Microsoft Tablet PC a real thing? you seem to be the only one pushing for it. I kind of look it up and it says it's just a software implementation, I mean, at least provide some links so you can shed light on it. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Take this article by Arstechnica or this one by PC World or this one by the BBC - it is just the software implementation - maybe it needs a better title, I'm up for that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I just took a look at them. I have mixed feelings on whether such device deserves its very own article. I guess it is a real product as you have sourced. But see, the funny thing is that this confuses the hell out of me even more. Apparently that device can be both a Convertible and an iPad-like tablet. So that could potentially make it part of the Tablet computer and Tablet laptop perspectives. I think you should work on that article as an existing device but not mix it up here with the generic articles that I think is what we are trying to pursue, that might be also a reason of confusion for all of us. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, its not supposed to be a general article at all. Sorry if that has been unclear :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with Camilo Sanchez that this discussion is so long because in fact the current situation is "almost good enough", and we are in fact mostly bickering over the naming of things, and thus its mostly about semantics, with just a few misunderstandings getting in our way. Maybe we should start with trying to get good definitions for things first. Let me try:

  • "Tablet computer", this should be -any- kind of computer that has a "tablet" shape (that is, its shaped like a slate, or writing tablet. Could be a convertible laptop when used in tablet mode, but I think is't a bit far-fetched. An iPad is definitively in this category, as is a OLPC XO-3. Tablet computers have a long history that pre-dates Microsoft's attempt of defining one. This is the top hiarchy, (main article) as all other tablet systems are subsets of this category. Basically there are two of these subsets.
    • "PC's with a touchscreen as input and display device, instead of keyboard/mouse, and obviously a "tablet shape". "PC" here means that they use the "Personal computer" paradigm. that is, in principle the device is still a general purpose personal computer, (a windows/Mac/Linux system), with all its capabilities intact, only with a a tablet shape & touchscreen. One of the first big players to try to create such a device Microsoft, who drew up a set of specifications for such a device so that it could run its specific Windows variety (Later incorporated in the "normal" Windows) They coined the term "Tablet PC" for it (I think that fact warrants a short article). The term was later adopted by manufacturers who "ran loose and fast" with the specifications, but still called their product a Tablet PC, even though it may not be specifically designed to run Windows, but maybe another desktop based OS instead, still with full personal computer capabilities, including the ability to run all the software for the specific personal computer OS (such as OS X, Windows, Linux) The device is thus probably x86 (wintel) based, and in principle able to (also) run Windows, although when its using full Linux (not an embedded Linux, but the normal desktop variant) it may be based on another CPU architecture that full Linux supports.
    • Tablet computers, that are computers, with a touchscreen as input and display device, instead of keyboard/mouse, and obviously a "tablet shape", but are not based on the personal computer paradigm, so they do not need to follow wintel, but are free to choose another hardware/software platform (often ARM). As there may be many different such systems, its almost impossible to give this category a name. Sometimes (but maybe not always), the device uses some kind of "gated community" system, with a "censor" who decides what you can run on it. This category includes (obviously, as it almost defines the category at the moment) the iPad, it also includes other similar devices.

Can we all agree on this hierarchy and naming definitions? Mahjongg (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mahjongg, again I have to disagree as I did with Vyx on terms of complexity. See, my whole point is to make the access to this differences more clear to the average users. Having Tablet computer and Tablet PC does not achieve that. Now, if you mean to put everything that is called Tablet computer and Tablet PC in one article am all for it, as long as the user doesn't have to go scratching his/her head. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, a Tablet PC, is just a kind of Tablet computer, so it shares space in the main tablet computer article. That said, there can and will be (as in any article about a larger more complex subject) sub articles that describe one particular aspect in more detail. That is why I called it a Hierarchy. The proposal about the main article i'm actually making is that it has more or less this structure:


--Lede--

--History--

--Variations of tablet computers--

  • Generic Tablet PC's
    • Microsoft tablet PC
  • Internet and media devices (like the iPad)
  • All other tablet using systems (like the OLPC XO-3)

Mahjongg (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


Isn't the ipad an Internet tablet? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, above, I kind of agree, although the internet tablet article does not list the iPad as one. Its not only an internet device, its also a media consumption device. Mahjongg (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tablet Computer is too generic and Tablet PC would be too large to be fitted inside. The problem with the hierarchy above is that

  1. Tablet PCs would take the lion's share on the article since the variety of hardware, manufacturers, and system software would definitely take a lot of space; that would call for the split to the situation we are right now
  2. The broad meaning of a Tablet Computer would allow for devices such as Kindle (which now runs a webkit browser) while this is obviously too different from Tablet PCs/iPad.

I believe the Tablet PC term is accurate for Wintel and non Wintel systems that allow for personal computing. Within its low power hardware limitations, the WeTab and other MeeGo systems can do anything my PC does. Personal Computer is a neutral term. Internet media devices is an interesting proposal for the iPad category, but I can't think of any other Tablet to be included there. So why create a category when we can simply use the iPad name ? It's not that I am against it -- I just don't think the iPad editors would like the idea. Vyx (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Do I correctly understand that your opinion is simply that the main article must be named "Tablet PC" instead of "Tablet computer"? Why is the broad meaning of "tablet computer" a problem for an article about tablet computers? If there is a lot of material about one system, then it would be natural to split it off in a separate article, which is referenced in the main article, that happens all the time in wikipedia.

like so:

As has been said many times before its simply inconceivable to have a main article about tablet computers/Tablet PC's/Tablet Personal computers, or whatever you want to name the article without mentioning the main tablet computer of the moment, the iPad Mahjongg (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this is what I mean:
Tablet Personal Computer
  • Lead (define Tablet Personal Computer, specify Microsoft and the invigoration of the market by Apple, define the iPad)
  • Types
  • Hardware
  • Software
  • iPad
The iPad doesn't have to be in a category, it is a category by itself. Vyx (talk)
Well, that at least I do agree, that the iPad is in a category all by itself, at least for the moment. But I do predict it won't be for long. It has proven to be such a success formula that its impossible for other manufacturers not to come with something very similar. Can't predict what the resulting category will be named at the moment, but it will happen, I'm sure. Mahjongg (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is critical that we have one article that includes both "categories" of "tablet" computing devices. The "tablet computer" ARM paradigm is attracting a lot of attention, with iPad, Galaxy Tab, Playbook, etc all entering the market. On the "Wintel" side, the older models included in this article are relevant; in addition, Microsoft has mentioned further Windows 7 "tablets" that will be launched early 2011. According to Microsoft itself, these Windows 7 tablets (which I assume fit into the "wintel" "personal computer" definitions) are meant to compete directly with the iPad. Regardless of the technical differences, these devices appear to occupy the same computing space and should be included in one article. Devices like Kindles, PSPs, etc (which are essentially single purpose devices) need not be mentioned. Societyalum (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Where would you classify a MeeGo tablet?
Initially obviously In the *All other tablet using systems, together with all future "unclassifiable until they get their own class", that why I mentioned such a class. If tablets based on such OS'sas Android and Meego become mainstream, which is to be expected, the market will work out a acceptable term which Wikipedia will adapt with a "reliable source" to go with it.Mahjongg (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I gather from your view that it is a "tablet computer" along with the Galaxy Tab,
You gathered wrong, I simply don't know (or care) at the moment where to put it, To be perfectly honestMahjongg (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
but considering that it is running on standard Linux kernel it is a also a fully programmable personal computer.
No, actually a kernel alone doesn't make it a full Personal Computer OS, but I get your drift, but what about it.....Mahjongg (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
And then I wouldn't see why Android should not adhere to the definition of a personal computer either.
Anything that is a computer, and for personal use is a personal computer, don't make anything out of that, that it isn'tMahjongg (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Firefox for Android is on its way. I understand some users consider "PC" the wintel desktop, but I believe an encyclopedia should rely on a more solid foundation of definitions and sources. Vyx (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If you believe that, then why has the original definition of PC been significantly changed for this article? The "no intervening computer operator" clause meant only that the computer is operated directly by the end user, nothing more. The part about "software installation" has been added to the definition in this article for the sole purpose of excluding the iPad. Even with it there, the iPad still fits the definition, because software installation is still controlled by the user - Apple does't force installation remotely or deny installation of an app chosen from the app store. However I hold out no hope this contribution will make any difference to the article, as this talk page is a perfect example of how one person with an axe to grind can ruin Wikipedia for everyone. I expect you'll just add another clause to the PC definition to make sure the iPad is properly excluded. "Where choice of software available for the OS is not restricted by an intervening operator" maybe? Anything as long as we can avoid this topic being presented usefully or meaningfully to the reader. 195.226.146.249 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the iPad is not operated directly by the end user since you need Apple's approval to install applications, eg Adobe states: We do want to point out that Apple’s restriction on Flash content running in the browser on iOS devices remains in place. So don't be angry with my efforts, I mean to improve the article so that it informs confused people like yourself. Vyx (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If the user is touching an icon on his iPad to launch an application then he is "operating" his iPad. That is what "operating" means in this context. He is not confused, you are confused in thinking that the general public shares your view to a degree that they think the iPad isn't a tablet based computer for general use, and share your view even to such an extent that the iPad should be excluded, or ghettoized, from the main article about tablet computers on wikipedia. If we really would do such a thing (excluding the iPad on such grounds) there would be no understanding at all for that POV, they would rightfully see that it's not a neutral point of view! Wikipedia isn't there to "change confused peoples views" you know, its there to reflect their existing views. I know that can be hard to swallow, but its the rightful basis of wikipedia's policies. Mahjongg (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
And this is why I didn't drop this cause ages ago. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── An encyclopedia reflects reliable views -- not everyone's views. Thus I don't care what the general public thinks since reliable sources and logical appliance of the definition dictate that the iPad is not a personal computer. Logical appliance of the definition is easy as long as one avoids fallacies such as equating "launching an application is operating" to "operating is launching an application". Software installation is also part of operating a personal computer.

But why are we repeating these points? On the grounds that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to improve the article even by including the iPad which I am against of, I have created this section and proposed to include the iPad and not exclude it. But since this is an encyclopedia, it has to be clarified that while the iPad does not adhere to the personal computer definition, mobility and ease of use make a greater impact than unrestricted code execution on a large group of the Tablet Personal Computer customers. Vyx (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are clear, the article should give a balanced view of what is happening in the outsize world, with no undue weight for "special interests", such as the view that the iPad's designers (Apple) must be "punished" for their "attempt to take freedoms away" through people declaring that their product isn't "a personal computer", so not eligible for its due status in the main article (That is why I was against it to be named "tablet personal computer", just so they could make that point, the main article should not have "PC" or "Personal computer" in its name, but simply "computer", that and because there will be many more tablet computers in the future that simply cannot be compared with the old PC paradigm).
You want to give undue weight to this ("freedom killing") aspect of the iPad in the article, and that simply doesn't fly. Especially not because the iPad has re-invigorated the whole tablet computer market, which was nearly dead in the first place ,(as you said yourself). It should have an important position in the article, not a marginalized one, clouded with "but its not a personal computer", that aspect may be touched upon, but should not be given undue weight. The main article should give a fair and balanced view of the tablet computer market. Mahjongg (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't "want to give undue weight to this ("freedom killing") aspect of the iPad in the article". I simply wanted to end this peacefully. You assumed bad faith on my part and this is evident from your repeated accusations against me in this discussion. I won't stand up for this anymore. I am done debating with you -- and since you've never even once linked to any source out there besides your opinions, I am losing nothing.
This article is named Tablet Personal Computer because Tablet PCs exist by that title, they are sold by that title and they adhere to the personal computer definition. Live with it. Vyx (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I do "live with it", in fact I don't have any problem with the name of this article, why do you say that? As I said I would have problems with the main article about tablet computers being named something with "personal computer" or "PC" in it, instead with just "computer", or if this article would have been promoted to the main article (as the umbrella term for all kinds of tablet computers), which logically would be the same thing as naming the main article thus. The main article about tablet computers should be called tablet computer, I don't have problems with a separate article about tablet PC's as long as its only about tablet PC's, not about all tablet computers.
I want this "discussion" to end peacefully too, and I hate to assume bad faith with anybody. Someone asked why you did what you did, and so I tried to understand your motivations for acting the way you did. Maybe I came to my conclusion because at some level I can really empathize with what I assume is your "angst" and anger. But yes, its possible I simply read too much of that in your actions. If so I'm sorry if I'm wrong about you. Actions speak more than words, so lets just see what happens. Lets just write the best article that people can expect when they look up stuff about tablet computers. I already spent too much time writing here instead of in the different articles. Mahjongg (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I changed the opening line to better direct readers who are seeking information about the larger tablet computer market. It doesn't make sense that readers seeking to find out information on tablet computers (the bigger, more relevant segment of the market) may end up at this article and think Wikipedia doesn't have information on the broader market. Societyalum (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly why there is (should be) a more generic article called Tablet computer. Mahjongg (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I edited the opening line against the possibly non neutral use of "adhere" and to include "broader" in regards to Tablet Computer, but the Galaxy Tab does conform to the personal computer definition -- it allows installation of applications (see Firefox mobile above) without Samsung or Google controlling it. Furthermore, news are calling it a Tablet PC as well: 1 2 3 Vyx (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. Mahjongg (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC

The following Request for Comment is being added by me in order to engage editors into the resolution of the following issue: Should this article be merged with the content of the article Tablet computer. The endless discussion and the ambiguity of the terms have a number of editors with different perspectives and opinions. From the ones that support the loyal technical usage of the terms based on vendor and manufacturer definitions to the ones that believe the terms because of its generic use should be formatted to allow average readers find the difference in an easy way. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed improvements

I have improved the lead and I'll make more improvements in the next days/weeks:

  • I intend to delete the Popular models section. It may have had some use in the early Tablet PC years where models were scarce but this isn't obviously the case anymore.
  • Most of the history section is irrelevant and should be cleaned up and turned to prose.
  • Screen size trends is not referenced and un-encyclopedic.
  • There should be an expanded Software section; A variety of applications is offered for Tablet PCs which are of interest to many users, such as Mobile Firefox.
  • The Microsoft section is bad, a lot of it is written as an advertisement, and I know from first hand experience that some parts of it are wrong: "Service Pack 2 for Windows XP includes Tablet PC Edition 2005 and is a free upgrade." Not true. The section needs an overhaul.
  • The Linux section is badly written and shoud be split up in MeeGo and Android sections.
  • In regards to the Modbook, the Apple section should be renamed to Axiotron; Axiotron advertises modbooks by their own name and they have been reviewed as such. (This is not about the iPad discussion)
  • There is simply a lot of work to be done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyx (talkcontribs) 17:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I can agree with this. Kevin Beckman (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Idem. Mahjongg (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

New tablet computer receives push

Just an example of a tablet computer that doesn't at the moment fit in any category, is the OLPC XO-3. It just has found a great deal of funding [7] from marvell. Stay tuned for more news. Mahjongg (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any opinion on what should be done about devices running under Windows Embedded Compact 7? Should devices running under this OS be included on this page? Or perhaps under Microsoft Tablet PC, etc.? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not tablet personal computers, (or tablet PC's) these are "Windows CE" class devices. The only thing they have in common with Windows on PC's, is that Microsoft is using the term "Windows" for commercial reasons for this OS too. They do not run windows applications. If any devices really emerge with this OS, they should be placed under an "other tablet computers" category in Tablet computer. Mahjongg (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, according to MS, developing for Windows Embedded requires another workstation. Therefore software cannot be developed on the Windows Embedded device itself, and since personal computer operation also covers programmability or software development, I think they can be safely excluded from Tablet Personal Computer. Tablet Computer is probably a good category for them. Vyx (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge template added

I have added a Template. Please do not remove this template since the current ongoing and apparently endless discussion hasn't yield any results. I am trying to encourage the involvement of more editors into the matter. Thanks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The neutrality is being discussed together with the talk for merging at Talk:Tablet_computer#Merge_discussion. Diego Moya (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To all editors. This is holding up progress, as you can see below, see #End User Comments. There are readers who want information and who could care less about the disputes. I propose that the information be placed in whatever article seems fit to the respective contributors. If another editor wishes to exert editorial force, then I suggest that a helpful cross link be added to the opposite article. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Example 1: a contributor A adds some iPad feature here. Another editor B moves it. The protocol ought to be that B leave a link in this article to Tablet computer#Feature A
  • Example 2: click on the sort icon at the head of the column to sort the table by that column
Tablet computer features
× Weight (lb) Dimensions Type
iPad 1.5 lb 9.7" diag Tablet
HP Slate 1 lb 7" Slate
Samsung Galaxy Tab 1 lb 7" Tablet
Dell Streak  ??  ?? Tablet
etc. 5 10 etc.


What about placing a sortable table of products, illustrated by the following sample shown above, of the possible choices in a 'neutral location'? For that neutral location, I propose category:tablet computers --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with placing particular items in a neutral location like the above table. The problem I see with having two articles with cross links is that it makes difficult to form a coherent view of the contents by reading tablet computer or tablet personal computer, since most content cold be placed equally in either of them - so a new reader can't make sense of why the information is separated nor to which class of items it applies; this jumping back and forth with links won't help as it only adds redundancy. A single overall article would be better, and a separate article should include only content which is clearly separate by nature. Diego Moya (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)