I don't really understand why you would purchase an iPad over a proper netbook at the same price.

I don't really understand why you would purchase a vacuum cleaner over a proper netbook at the same price.  I mean, geez, the vacuum cleaner doesn't even multitask, won't fit in your pocket, and has no forward-facing camera!

(By the way, what precisely is a "proper" netbook, and how does it differ from a regular netbook?  Does it extend its pinky while sipping tea, and pardon itself when it belches?  If so, I want one!)

Do you remember if there was any effectively shared memory between programs? (ie. copy/paste, etc)

Copy and paste was an OS feature;  that was "shared" between programs even back in the earliest days when you could only have one program running at a time.

But the Mac had a shared memory space all the way up until OS X;  any program running on the Mac could effectively tromp over memory owned by another process (or hardware devices) at any time.  (I find it really interesting that despite this, in the mid-90s Macs were typically far more stable than PCs, despite having no security in place to try to keep programs from messing each other up.  Programmers had to be ultra-vigilent and careful, since the OS wasn't going to keep them safe at all..  whereas crap code on a PC would mostly work okay, regardless, because of the safety features automatically provided by the OS.)

On the topic of multitasking, I'm reminded of Apple's first foray into multitasking, on those original beige boxy Macs with 9" monochrome screens which have mostly turned into aquariums in this day and age.

The multitasking there (which wasn't available until the second or third major revision of the OS) was accomplished via a program called "Switcher".  It put a little double-sided arrow in the corner of the screen, and if you clicked on the left side it went to the previous running program, and if you clicked on the right side it went to the next running program.

While a program was in the foreground, it had complete control over the screen (apart from that arrow), and had complete control over the CPU.  In effect, it wasn't really true multitasking, but it did mean that you could flip between multiple programs quite quickly, without sacrificing any screen real-estate on these computers which had small screens.  I keep wondering whether, if Apple was going to provide multitasking-like functionality on an iPhone/iPad sort of device, if it wouldn't do it via this sort of mechanism.

Of course, I can't imagine that they'd do it via the little "arrows" icon;  they'd probably turn it into a big set of panes that you can cover flow through, kind of like how they do tabs in iPhone Safari.  And hell, with how quickly most apps launch on the iPhone, you probably wouldn't even necessarily need to actually have those other apps actually running in the background;  just present a "fast task switching" interface which is actually implemented by quitting one app and starting up the next.

There's actually ports of Monkey Island, Broken Sword and a few other classic adventure games on iPhone. I'm not really into adventures but I hear they're good ports.

They are.  And also, they both have hints/walkthroughs built-in, to avoid precisely the "switch out to the browser to get hints" problem.

Though Monkey Island's "shake to get a hint" scheme is maddeningly difficult to trigger.   

Also, no app i have used so far has taken milliseconds to open. I guess maybe that's the apps fault themselves though, which i accept. Often i have to sit through an intro screen, loading screen, start new game/continue. So, if i want to play a game and browse the internet at the same time it's really not as convenient.

Yeah, sounds like you're talking about games, here.  Which certainly _do_ usually take a couple of seconds to open up, insist that you sit through unskippable "A game proudly presented by..." movies every time you start them, and similar bizarrenesses.  I'm kind of at a loss to explain why that is.

Though to be fair, I've never programmed something for the iPhone that used lots of textures, so maybe loading the textures into OpenGL takes a long time.  But I kind of have trouble believing that would be the case.  It seems more likely that the developers are just doing something silly, like converting from a compressed format into an uncompressed, OpenGL-friendly format separately each time the game starts up.. and I can easily believe that doing something like that would take up a lot of extra time during startup.

the only universally bad thing is over-engineering

Kind of by definition, since that's what "over-" prefixed to anything means.

Or maybe I'm over-sensitive about that sort of grammar logic, and tend to over-analyse things overly much.  If that's the case and "over-" doesn't actually imply that it's bad, then, logically, it must be okay that I do it!  Yay, win-win situation for me!
 

Code:

FILE *file;
char filename[20];
int i = 1;
do
{
  snprintf(filename,20,"durr%02d.durr", i);  // build filename
  filename[19] = 0;                          // set string terminator (in case string was too long for snprintf to add it)
  i++;
  file = fopen(filename, "r");
  if ( file )
  {
    //process file here
  }
}while(file);

The magic is done inside snprintf, which formats the "durr01.durr" filename strings for each file in sequence.

I don't want to have to quit my text editor, find the icon for some other tool on my Springboard, launch it, wait for it to load state, make a small change, quit, and then find and launch my previous tool then switch back to another tool.

Okay.  Though again, those "waits" are measured in milliseconds on the iPhone (and presumably, therefore, the iPad) -- considerably shorter than the time it generally takes for a window to redraw under Windows XP -- so I'm a little puzzled that you're so upset over them.  I'm really not convinced that this is any slower than going through Windows' alt-tab interface, or swishing your mouse across the screen to click on the background window you wanted.

Or say I'm having a simple IM conversation with someone.  It is impossible to do this while working on something, and as soon as that person sends me a link: Boom.  Conversation over.  I'll need to quit the IM app to launch the browser and see what he or she is talking about.  It's not a real solution at all.

Bizarrely enough, many (most?) IM apps on the iPhone can run in the background already.  They'll stay logged in and send you an alert whenever you receive an IM.  (I use BeejiveIM, as one example that does this)

And again, they maintain state; so when you launch back into the IM app, you're right back where you left it;  same conversations open, chat history maintained, you never disconnected, you can keep receiving (and being notified of) messages while in another app, etc.

I have a feeling that some form of multitasking will make its way in eventually, but not in the first release of the operating system, and perhaps not until enough users and developers demand it (as was the case with the entire App Store itself).

It's been hinted at for iPhone OS 4.0 for as long as I can remember.  But really, the most critical sorts of multitasking (IM, app downloads, email, music, streaming internet radio, etc) are already there and working on the iPhone today.  

Currently re-reading Godel, Escher, and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (Douglas Hofstadter).  Also midway through re-reading the Sherlock Holmes stories (Arthur Conan Doyle).  Also midway through reading The Art of War (Sun Tzu), and The Art of Game Design (Jesse Schell).  Also midway through A Short History of Nearly Everything (Bill Bryson).  And also midway through Leviathan (Scott Westerfield)

All highly recommended.

Is the state of all apps automatically saved when you close them so they open again where you left them off? Because if that's the case, then I agree that restarting an app is pretty much the same as ALT+TAB'ing into it in Windows.

It's not automatic, but that's the way that all Apple-made apps work, and it's the way the guidelines say that third-party apps should also work.  (Your app basically gets a message saying that it's exitting, and you get a chance to save your state.  Then you're supposed to automatically re-load that state the next time your app launches).

It's basically the same as the system which allows you to not lose your work if a phone call comes in, and the iPhone immediately switches to the phone app.  The less-well-written apps will lose your work (or your progress in a video game) in either or both situations, though.

The comparison doesn't really make sense to me, Golds.

Multitasking is critically important on a standard computer because when you close (for example) Firefox, it takes half a minute to start up again, and your word processor probably takes longer.  You're not actually typing into both the word processor and the browser at the same time;  the critical thing is how long it takes you to switch from one task to the other, and that your state is maintained when you do so.  On a slow disk-based computer, multitasking is the only good way to avoid that time penalty for launching programs and re-opening the files they were using.

On the iPhone, on the other hand, it takes just a fraction of a second to launch into the web browser, with all of your tabs still open and ready to use (the same is true of any well-coded app on the platform).  All the first-hand commentary has said that the iPad is substantially faster than the iPhone, so you can presumably expect the iPad to be even better in this regard.

I think in your cooking analogy, it's more akin to setting a knife down when you're not using it.  As long as you can easily pick that knife back up whenever you actually need to cut something, I don't see the problem of putting it down when it's not actually being used for anything?  I mean, certainly in your example, the word processor and the browser aren't both active at once, and the same with Maya and Photoshop;  you switch back and forth between the two, only working in one at a time, even on a multitasking computer.  The only reason you need the multitasking is because Photoshop and Maya don't save your context when you close them, and because they take a bloody long time to start up.  Fix those two things, and suddenly multitasking isn't important any more, I'd have said?

3D engines don't generally use any calculus.  That's used more for physics engines.

What 3D engines use a lot of is linear algebra;  matrices, converting between coordinate spaces, that sort of thing.  And there are enough online references that you don't even necessarily have to know linear algebra yourself;  you can just grab code from online to do your matrix multiplications and etc. 

(And for what it's worth, I wrote my first 3D engine long before I ever took a linear algebra course, so even that's not a real requirement.. though I'll admit that my later engines were a lot easier to implement, once I'd taken a few courses and really understood what the maths were doing.

No thread is complete until someone tries to justify piracy in it.   

Keep getting bothered just because a few of us have different personal opinions regarding the iPad. Whether right or wrong there's little reason for you to act like such a cunt.

Golly, I point out verifiable facts and answer the questions that were specifically posed to me, and in return I get personal attacks.  Go figure.  You'd almost think that some people didn't want a rational discussion;  they just wanted to throw shit at things.
 

[EDIT:]

I'm not talking about price, mewse, I'm talking about price vs. utility. The iPhone has several advantages over the iPad stemming mostly from its portability. What advantages does the iPad have over the iPhone? What would give it more utility?

Once again, I'm not defending the iPad -- I'm just making fun of people who criticise it for not being a laptop (which is silly, since it is a tablet), or for not fitting into a pocket (which is also silly, since it is a tablet), or for not being able to use a keyboard (which is false), or for not having a GPS (which is false), or for not being able to be set upright on a table (which is false), or for being made of shaving cream (which hasn't actually been claimed yet, but is bound to happen sooner or later, at the level of Looney Tunes logic the anti-fanboys have been descending to lately).

Or, for that matter, people who declare that when they asked "why would you pay so much", they weren't actually talking about price, but actually were talking about "price vs. utility", by which they actually only meant "utility", and price should be completely ignored.  As though anyone would be fooled by such rapid backtracking when a deceit is exposed.

And I notice that you still haven't agreed with me that knowingly lying in order to badmouth a product is a bad thing.  Why is that, precisely?


But if you're really going to insist that I point out a lie made about price, size, or use, then I'll give in and point out a lie about pricing.  Somebody named Valter said -- why, just a little earlier on this page, in fact --  that "if a laptop and an iPhone are both worth more and useful in more situations, how would you justify paying so much for the iPad?"  Gosh, it was almost like he was implying that the iPad was somehow more expensive than either of those two other (asserted to be superior) items.  That sounds like a lie about pricing to me, doesn't it to you as well?


EDIT:  Just an extra note that I don't mean to imply that everybody who has complaints about the iPad are "anti-fanboys".  There have been plenty of thoughtful and legitimate concerns expressed in this thread and elsewhere.  It's only the laughable and nefarious ones that I'm objecting to. 

"It'll still rock! For.. um.. nebulous reasons! Like.. um.. it's different? It's different, so it must be good!"

Specifically, I'm pretty sure I can criticize it for only being useful under a narrow set of circumstances that I'm not likely to meet often. If a laptop and an iPhone are both worth more and useful in more situations, how would you justify paying so much for the iPad?

I think you'll find that I didn't say or even imply it'd rock.  I said that you couldn't legitimately claim that Apple's tablet computer would suck because it's a tablet, instead of being a laptop.  


And in terms of "how would you justify paying so much for the iPad", then how about this:  The quoted prices actually has it costing a good deal less than either the iPhone or the laptop.  (Or at least, that's the case where I live -- I assume that it's also true in other territories)  So "paying so much" is a bit of a distortion of the truth again, wouldn't you say?  

But honestly, I'm not saying the iPad is good, and I'm not saying that I like the device.  I've never used the device.  I don't think it would be right for me (though I'm reserving judgement until it's been out for a while and the first reviews start coming in).  I'm just saying that badmouthing it before you've had a chance to use it, and on the basis of outright lies is always a bad thing.  

Do you agree that making up lies about a product in order to badmouth it is a bad thing?

Also just because it can do some things people are saying it can't do doesn't mean it will be efficient or practical.

"Shut up, man!  Stop contradicting our criticisms about how terrible it'll be with your facts!  It'll still suck!  For.. um.. nebulous reasons!  Like.. um.. "efficiency";  it might not be efficient!  Yeah, it sucks because it might not be efficient!!" 

...and I'm the one who's taking it personally?  I'm not the one who's visibly straining to find reasons to badmouth something in public. 

A key advantage of the laptop, I believe, is the ability to sit it on your lap (or a table, or some other surface, flat or otherwise), while still looking at the screen without craning your neck. This is due to the hinge connecting the keyboard and monitor, allowing you to choose for yourself the angle at which you wish to view your screen.

There's the keyboard dock, and there's the standard iPad cover, which also doubles as a kick-stand.  It looks like either one will allow you to place the iPad vertically on a horizontal surface.

Yes, I imagine that you probably wouldn't want to use either of those on your lap.  But by comparison, you can't stably hold a laptop like a clipboard and use it that way.  So I'm not sure that one can really criticise the iPad on the basis of where it can be used;  it's just different than a laptop, yes?

Wow, I must have hit a nerve...

To be fair, it wasn't just you;  yours just happened to be the most recent one when I wandered into the thread. 

Guess I've just gotten tired of hearing from folks raging about how they were disappointed by the tablet because it's a tablet and doesn't have a keyboard (ignoring that you can plug one in if you want to), or how it sucks because it doesn't have a GPS (ignoring that it does have one), or because it sucks because it can't multitask (ignoring that it can, for most things you'd actually want to have multitask.. music playing?  Sure.  Streaming internet radio?  Yup.  IM client?  Yup.  App downloads?  Sure.  E-mail?  Yup.  etc. etc. etc.). 

It's the general uninformed doom&gloom naysayers who feel the need to leap up and down finding or inventing stupid criticisms every time anybody releases a product that's even slightly different from the norm gets to me.  Happened with this, happened with the iPhone, happened with the Wii, etc.

For a group of indies that purports to be interested in doing things differently than the mainstream industry, it's pretty fucking depressing to watch.

Are you taking this personally for some reason?

No, no.  Please do go on ahead and tell us more about how tablets can't be good for anything but watching movies because they don't have keyboards or mice, and how the words that Apple writes on their web site mean that people can't ever do real work on the device, despite the fact that most of the required apps already exist -- and that Apple themselves have developed and announced most of the rest.

Please, we're all extremely interested in your thoughtful and well-reasoned critiques.