Ipad running windows 7 video

As much as I hate apple for the raping prices and locking down systems, this would really make up for the lack of things the ipad can't do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5I5t_e1vOI

 

That looks fun. Only 183 clicks to hit the button that you want.

 

LOL

 

It's VNC connected to a Win7 machine.

 

Reminds me of the Macbook Wheel.

 

It literally took a minute to open a browser and go to one site. I'll pass.

 

That's because VNC is inherently slow.

 

Well, even if this was done via virtualization, the performance would still be solely lacking. It will take a native build to really put this thing to the test.

This does make me think of how courier might run though...

 

looks like an iPad running iTunnel/JaaduRDP/JaaduVNC or something similar.

and it looks poorly integrated. we'll have to hope for better solutions in the near future than those designed for the iPhone (these apps are iPhone apps).

a native build of what? Win7 on an iPad?

lollerskates.

the iPad is running a mobile phone OS. a full OS is a different context and conversation entirely. best we can expect for this kind of thing is VNC or RDP. they wont' be perfect, but they'll do if you say...need to e-mail yourself a Pages document from your iPhone, then print on your desktop.

e-mail document to yourself on iPad --> login to VNC/RDP client --> open e-mail in VNC'd/RDP'd client windows --> Open and print --> close VNC --> profit.

 

I don't believe that the VNC connection is what's making it hard to double click the address bar to highlight it.

 

This thing, once all the hype has passed, has EPIC FAIL written all over it.. I wouldn't be surprised that it suffers the same fate of the Apple Lisa ..

It's a locked down, single-threaded, wanna-be netbook, gargantuan iTouch that can't render quite a huge number of sites because Apple (or it's products - who knows - I thinkn it's a control issue) doesn't want to play nicely with flash..

But hey - maybe I'm wrong - Apple does have a great advertising department..

I'm still trying to figure out the point of it though.. it's REAL pretty to gawk at for about 10 minutes and then reality sets in and you realize all of it's limitations, end up saying "meh"..

 

Native build as in a build of Mobile Windows 7 compiled for Apple A4 system chip (ARM Cortex A9 with PowerVR SGX supposedly)

 

oh snap, son. you win.

if it happens, anyway.

yea, you're pretty much wrong. once you try it, you see the potential and the excellence. and you'll have one.

 

The second one.

 

This 100%.

 

Eh, maybe I wasn't clear - but I'll repeat: I have tried one - for about 10 minutes - it was definitely nice to gawk at for those 10 minutes - and I had the same initial reaction that I had when I bought my iPhone, but then reality quickly set in and my reaction is now "meh".

At the end of the day, the iPad is nothing more than a gigantic iPhone/iTouch - and yet, it still has all the flaws and limitations of these products as well - which is the exact reason I won't be buying one anytime soon.

Again - other than the larger screen - what's the point?

It'd be different if expanded and diverted from the iPhone/iTouch paradigm and provided me the ability to where I could actually use the device in a way that I deem beneficial to me and my habits. However, I guess I've just realized that I don't fit into that box/mold that Apple works so hard to protect (that, and I've grown tired of buying pointless and meaningless (additionally limited/controlled by Apple) applications that serve no real purpose/end result).

I find it quite amazing that a company such as Apple - who advertises / prides / promotes itself on developing products that just "work with anything" is and continues to trend towards a closed, segmented, limited, and dumbed-down platform. But - that's their business model that so many people have bought into... - as for me, I'm getting off at the next stop...

So - will it be a hit? a trend setter? Yes - at least in some form or fashion - only time will tell.

Does it have potential? - most definitely... just depends on if you, as a consumer, are willing wait and to continually buy into a product (and it's obvious subsequent refreshes/"upgrades") on Apple's terms and conditions...

As Apple has always done - it's created a new product/market that, if it truly takes off (and doesn't flounder miserably after the initial rush of united Apple fanboys/fangirls that purchased them this weekend), many other companies will certainly copy and expand upon (in a good way, barring all the obvious legal/copyright lawsuits that will follow).

I still maintain that the first company to create a system with a simple easy-to-use, elegant interface, that is also open, limitless, and powerful at the same time will provide a truly profound impact to marketplace.

To date, however, Apple, Microsoft, Google, (insert any other named company of your choice here), as well as the Open Source Linux community have failed to fully deliver....

However - we're getting closer..

 

I agree, jsgiv. What did surprise me most, is that it the iPad doesn't bring anything really new and original. It puzzles me how come it comes without a camera, given that it has such a nice screen and it would be WAY better to video-chat than type on that thing.

It does look nice, but I'm kind of puzzled of what is it supposed to be used for?

 

I for one wished that I could retask that screen and make it work as a Cintiq! It's just so underused being what it is now...

 

once you try it, you'll ask questions less and enjoy it more.

you guys are like kids afraid of your Dimetapp medicine. Then you taste it and find out it's pretty darn good.

don't knock it until you try it. people are saying they're impressed for a reason.

 

Wow, how pathetic. I wish I didn't see that video. That is seriously slower then one of the P2 desktops I had... I know, I know, VNC. But still...

 

VNC just isn't that fast. it doesn't really matter how good the hardware is in the iPad, the performance is still going to be the same.

that said, i'm no iPad fan.

 

It wasn't that slow, remember there is a delay since it has to send stuff over a network, we don't know what the network they are on was like. When I use VNC it is usually slow too. That's the way it is.

 

Still not digging the iPad. Still not sure what Apple was aiming for with the device. Definitely has the fun factor though, not really the useful factor.

 

Love it,hate it, it's not for everyone.
For some people it's exactly what they want and if you don't see that's it's more than a bigger iPod that's fine too.
No need to say it's pointless( maybe for some people ) but this is a great machine for what it's intended to do.
It is what it is.

 

It's for people who don't know what they want (obviously...) you sound like that idiot (I'm not saying you are) working for Apple who was showing iPad the first time. But your posts, sound exactly like him. "Umm look it's gorgeous ... it's sleek... it's apple". Fail.

 

I don't get it. My phone does more, my netbook is more portable. The ipad does what exactly? I used my buddy's for about 5 minutes just browsing the web and using it was like using my three year old itouch, I'd much rather browse on my phone, which I've had for more than half a year and can multitask, make calls, fits in my pocket, edit and save office docs, runs flash, all things an ipad doesn't. I guess the ipad was easier to navigate, but nowhere near as well as my notebook.

At the end of the day I'm going to carry one device with me where a go. The ipad doesn't come close to replacing my notebook, to me its useless. To someone who's never owned a netbook or smartphone I could see how they could like it, but to me it just reminds me of my old itouch, or even my original PSP.

 

I don't even have one.
I see this as a mobile entertainment device that also surfs the web,period.
Sure it has it's limitations and is on the expensive side but it does what it does well.
It's not intented to replace a netbook but it's a alternative that some people want.
You don't have to be a APPLE fanboy too see it's potential.

 

Actually this is the EXACT intention of this device.. considering the fact that Apple has no direct competing device in the netbook market segment..

 

see it instead like you see a videogame console. everything it does it does well and it functions inside an environment that makes every piece of software that will run on it run somewhat predictably.

where PCs still behave like PCs. more control, more power, more potential...but more work to tap.

iPad is faster at the things it does than full-fledged computers are in most cases. just the nature of the design approach.

not really. it's a different kind of product. there is some overlap, but there are a lot of things the iPad just can't do.

 

Exactly the conundrum that it faces.. which goes back to * what* is the purpose of the device?

By your definition - it's quite a niche market that it's aimed at... As stated, argued, defined before - It's "not a netbook" and it's "not an iPod/iTouch" - but it's "somewhere in between" - that's quite a fine line to ride for a device that's supposedly/ultimately designed for mass-market appeal... Add to that the "Apple Tax" for a "premium" device -

Using your gaming console analogy - the PS3, until recently, suffered the same fate - Sony was in a PRIME position to continue to garner it's huge lead in the gaming console race. All it had to do was to create a PS3 that took a step forward, for a reasonable price. Unfortunately, it gambled a bit too far and didn't fully anticipate such a negative response to a console that, didn't provide any innovation (other than graphics - which when compared to the X360 - doesn't appear that much more powerful to the average consumer), and priced well out of the reach of the average consumer (most of which had yet to upgrade their TV's to HD to take advantage of the PS3's capabilities).

PS3 is arguably now 3rd in the console wars behind Nintendo/X360 - quite a huge drop in a few years considering Sony was the top across the board and king of the mountain..

Apple - on the other hand - is trying to go the other route and bleed over it's popular iPhone/iTouch sales into a new market segment - that is already flush with a competing/fast growing alternate segment (netbooks or CULVs). It's no different than consoles - to create a segment to drive software (App Store) sales..

However, the failure here is that you're now targeting consumers that have an iPhone or iTouch and potentially a netbook/notebook (or considering purchasing one) to purchase yet another device that, by all intensive purposes, doesn't provide anything *new* or innovative other than a larger screen and a tweaked/more usable iPhone/iTouch interface... and you're wanting to charge more for the same ported/type of applications (in some cases 10x more)? That's quite a long reach/hard sell for many consumers to swallow...

 

I'm surprised it ran W7 at all. But god that looked painful to use.

 

It's NOT running Windows 7. It's running a VNC app and connecting to a Mac running Windows 7.

 

Here's something better that can run Windows 7 instead of pretending to. Link.

 

sorry to say it, pointless product to me. iPod Touch 3G is fine.

 

Neato - and check it out - it actually runs flash too - go figure. You'd figure that Apple would have figured out in all this time how to get flash running on any of these platforms (iPhone/iTouch/and now iPad)....

Maybe they can get the iPad to run a video of a flash application?

 

You mean Adobe would have figured out how to get flash to work with these devices. It's not Apple it's Adobe. Flash is a security issue and a resource hog, yes I know they have one working on android, but when they can't even get flash to work properly and not be a resource hog for Mac/PC, what makes you think they could get it to work probably for mobile devices.

 

Congratulations - you've bought into the Apple hype against Flash/Adobe...

Funny - I've yet to run into a security issue *ever* with flash - nor have I run into any major "resource" issues running flash either...

Perhaps - just maybe - there's more to the reason Apple won't let it's products play nicely with flash (i.e. Apple can't control the market - it's App Store - if it enables flash applications)? I mean OSX is, after all, based on a Unix variant last I checked. And - flash is able to run on Solaris and FreeBSD (again both Unix variants) without "hogging" resources, as you state - on the same/similar intel hardware that is used to build today's Apple products. Heck - you even proved a point by stating that flash runs on Android.

Flash, at it's core, provides a framework/application gateway that directly contradicts/negates the App Store - to that end, I doubt that Apple will ever enable flash on the iPhone/iTouch/iPad until it's forced to do so (i.e. customers demand it on these products).

 

LOL.

10char.

 

That's not a valid argument.

 

I guess you've never seen your CPU usage spike while using flash applications. Perhaps you should pay better attention.

It doesn't have to be princess.

 

I have - and there's a difference between a "spike" and a "major resource issue".
By that definition - ALL applications are "major resource issues", considering most applications cause some form of CPU usage "spike".

You're absolutely right - it doesn't have to be, though that doesn't solve anything and represents a blunt ignorance on behalf of the respondent - yet it's the typical response always pushed back from a person that always points to Adobe as being the root cause of the problem, when, in fact, there are MANY examples of flash executing fine/normally across a wide variety of OS platforms (including mobile platforms such as Blackberry, Android, Windows 7 Mobile, etc., with 10.1). Seshan's arguments simply don't hold water, and these are the same tired/old arguments that have been espoused for YEARS now - when we've see a gargantuan jump in technology over this same time period. You're telling me Apple products *still* can't handle flash sites/applications with CPUs that are 10x more powerful than they were 5-10 years ago? Give me a break.

What gets me is this: WHY does everyone point to Adobe/flash in response to when it doesn't run well on Apple products - yet when there's issues on Windows (or any other OS for that matter?)- the argument is always the problem lies with the OS in that case?

Maybe, just maybe, you should start to question, just a little, why it is in today's age and technology, that Apple *still* can't come to grips with supporting a SOFTWARE application on it's OS platforms and hardware systems......

You'd think after all this time - considering that flash, in some form or factor, affects anywhere between 75-85% of all web sites, that Apple would have actually worked with Adobe to determine the true root cause of the issue instead of just pointing fingers all of the time.. Or maybe - Apple has something else to protect?

 

@Khris: I have you blocked but saw your quote...and all I have to say is "yes, it does".

 

Yeah flash could be a possible alternative to the app store, that's only reason its not on the iphone or ipad. Adobe already made it for the iphone, apple didn't allow it. Then someone's (I forget) "research" said it reduced the iphone's battery life to 20 minutes. 20 minutes? Even if the iphone's cpu was at 100% constantly it would last at least an hour. And now people assume flash is a resource hog on the iphone. How can you say this when no ones ever used it? Flash works great on a lot of other phones, and works great in windows. So if its buggy in OS X you would think apple would of worked with adobe to fix it, or does adobe just want to screw apple over?

No one ever said anything about flash until steve jobs came out and said it's responsible for 1/3 of mac crashes. Now its the buggiest thing in the world and we are all waiting for HTML 5 to save us. HTML 5 is years behind flash, which works great on pretty much everything but os x for whatever reason. The only reason the iPhone doesn't support it is so a developer can convert everyone's favorite flash game to an app on the app store for $9.99, where apple takes a 30% cut. That and Apple would love for quick-time to be more popular.

 

Princess has spoken!l!

 

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of blocking him if you still reply...

@jsgiv Now take that "Spike" and put it on a device that doesn't have a lot of CPU power to begin with, and people want multitasking too!? Also google search for Flash security issues. Apple want's their devices to run fast and reliable, You can't do that with flash. The majority of end users are stupid and if they have flash apps running and it becomes slow and it crashes they will think it's Apples fault, when it's not. If Apple didn't want flash because it would compete with the App store, why would they want HTML 5?

 

It does, but people like her have to continually get their little digs in. They can't resist the opportunity!

Spot on!

 

Don't you think HTML5 offers similar opportunities to destroy battery life? Apps are also perfectly capable of poor programming practices that can drain a battery. If I have an app that randomly calculates Pi after 3wks of use at random but not when anything important is going on means I could drain batteries. It'd likely make it through approval as long as it didn't do anything objectionable during their review process. Sure some programming languages are more foolproof than others but plenty of apps can and do crash.

Crashes aren't necessarily due to Flash itself(although a lot are) and personally I think there's a whole mass of poorly trained web programmers that make Flash the annoying mess it is. The difference is that HTML5 is years away from widespread support meaning Apple has a large window to convince everyone to write their own apps for the iPhone/Pad platform increasing the network effects of their platform and raising the content providers' cost to leave Apple.

In the end it is a control/revenue issue. Apple likes the walled garden approach which is fine and well on a phone that has limited real estate/resources to deal w/ flash but as the form factor grows to the iPad, it becomes more of an artificial hindrance when you bump up areas where full power machines exist.

Claiming all your users are idiots (even if they are) isn't a great way to expand your user base. If people were willing to accept their inability to deal w/ tech, we'd see nothing but Jitterbugs and Best Buy Geek Squad would be out of business. I've had to fix acquaintances iPhones before and realized they didn't know their phone had internet. They thought it was cool to pay $100/mon service to check the weather.

If Apple was that concerned about end user experience, they wouldn't give us the bloated, buggy behemoth that is iTunes or insist on the mess of a plugin that is Quicktime. iTunes doesn't work well on any of my machines including my Mini. In OS X, my 1.83Ghz/2GB Mini can barely chug 720P in QT while my Adamo 1.2Ghz/2GB does it just fine on WMV 720P any and my former $200 Atom 1.6ghz Acer Revo could do 1080p in WMC but stopped like it ran into a brick wall trying to run any iTunes movies. It couldn't do it even OC'd to 1.83 and w/ 4GB RAM whereas Hulu(Flash!!!) could do fullscreen if I dropped the res down from 1080. If I'm paying $5 to rent a movie...I shouldn't need a $2k Mac to play it if my $200 machine can play movies in any other format.

 

^ good point

How can Apple say flash is buggy, when they distribute iTunes and Quicktime, two of the most bloated programs you can use on windows.

Every program, every app, will cause a "cpu spike" unless your phone is broken. Other phones, some less powerful than the iPhone run flash, can multi-task, and do it well. Why can't the iPhone? Adobe even already made flash for iPhone, but instead of giving users and option to use it, Apple doesn't allow it. It'll be years before HTML 5 has all the capability of flash, yes I do hope that an open standard will eventually be adopted by the whole web, but there's no reasons, other than to block workarounds of the app store, to not allow flash on the iPad or iPhone.

 

Nice to see that you refer to the average Apple end user as "stupid"...

Look - MILLIONS of users use flash now on a daily basis (I'd wager more than the entire installed Mac/Apple OS user base)... HTML5 - sure go ahead, open it up - I'm ALL for it - it simply brings another technology / gateway to the forefront. If HTML5 takes off - great. My point isn't that flash does or does not perform well/behave nicely on various systems. My point is - you, as an end-user, shouldn't allow Apple to control which technologies should be used for accessing relevant media content on the internet.

Flash is a SOFTWARE application. One that is freely open for users to access, install, use, and determine IF they would like to continue to use it or not. If they don't like the way it performs, etc., then they have the choice to remove the application. Apple is the ONLY company that doesn't give you that choice - PERIOD.

If you want to buy into the hype that Apple pushes regarding "Security" and "performance" issues, then that's *your* decision. However, I, for one, question the motives of a company that still continues to represent a tired/old rebuttal to a software application, and yet has made no attempt to work to resolve those issues. Issues, mind you, that have been brought up now for several years...

 

If they wanted to push security they would dump safari and quicktime too.