already commented on purpose my gift of kings that the current tablets not convince me and why I put the teeth longer than those of a walrus, the day I "persuaded" to give the pines in the ground.
Well, as threatened, back on topic ;-). I regret to say that I will not list the features of what we do would be for me the perfect tablet. More than anything, because I have not clear, if it not bring myself to start something so crucial to make optimal use that you'll give the size or if it display 4:3 or 16:9. I will only say on issues of hardware that would rather something similar to what Toshiba has the Folio, but a decent screen (of quality The iPad is the current, it is not pixel density issue but quality and viewing angle panel). And that any pileup that he was not able to change the battery or lack of micro USB OTG ports or HDMI or a card reader for my taste is lame.
Even if you doubt what I'd like a tablet, it is an issue that I have clearly not of the tablets I'm excited today, that almost all the effects are big-screen smartphones.
Vale for many applications like browsing, viewing photos or an ebook, the interface of the applications made for a mobile touch are very comfortable and just needed a bigger screen. But the point is that if we have a screen as big as a notebook or netbook and other hardware also allows you to run applications (although not as powerful ARM, the important thing is that it is for many applications) to the best in the software must also look what you like people on a laptop and not just a smartphone. I think
tactile interfaces to which we have used the iPhone and Android are only really usable with a 3 "display. But when you have 10" there are no such limitations that require this type of interface "suitable for small screens toes. " One wonders whether, given all the applications this type of interface is optimal and whether any application PC and see how we like the most logical thing you have to rewrite or adapt severely. So, could support both types of applications.
To purists this may sound horrible idea: a device has to go for an interface type for which there is minimal integration and user experience is not confusing. I understand that position, but I think it may be that all applications that come "standard" and sold through the official store using the model smartphone but with larger screen "but is allowed as value added (as would sell an emulator to run other applications) also install applications more native interface. And anyway is not bad considering that in the PCs we used to mix native application, web application and application with the iPhone cover and we have not gone crazy yet.
But reality is not just the issue of the interface. The other negative consequence of treating the tablets as a smartphone, is treated as closed devices, while the rival solutions to the tablets speak of PC-type devices in which the user can install whatever you want. It seems very well that there are users who need nothing more than an application store, but is a poor excuse for not letting anyone who wants something else can install their own applications.
In short, I miss what I learned long ago the Nokia N800, but with a 4.3 "to be short. That had a real Linux system, where you could install any application. The toolkit was GTK + but also had specific widgets optimized for the limitations of the device. When Nokia released the N900, a smartphone with a newer version of this software, I was very impressed. And I loved that in announcing tell how to make you root on the device, but most users do not need it. But that can be "root" is part of the possibilities, you know they're going to annoy with absurd constraints available software in the app store, since they know that ultimately you will be able to install whatever the hell you want but not in the store.
Replacing that system is met Meegan, by betting both Nokia and Intel. Qt toolkit is now recommended (although it can still use GTK +) which is interesting for cross-platform applications to run as well on Symbian terminals, which are low-end Nokia.
great thing about a solution like Meegan, is to have all the libraries available on Linux for applications and not be limited to the possibilities of Java and the library reduced Android. In that sense, Android is also the platform limited, as for example iOS Apple is not a world so detached from MacOSX.
The bad news is that Meegan has been slow to arrive and is not supporting the hardware that to date seems the most interesting, as Tegra2. It is not even well supported for testing in PC. Perhaps the problem is that Intel has an interest or logically MeeGo for ARM, and Nokia is interested in Meego is a ready platform for use by any rival in their devices with little effort, because then Nokia would be an option (the same reason why Nokia does not arise in using Android.)
I do not know if my forecast, but at least my wish, it would see Android and Meego on the same device (and even other options such as Ubuntu, who knows). And not just dual boot, but together. Android could be interesting to run a standard kernel on a system that can be shared by native applications. Google does not hurts and Nokia would be a respite, a way to be compatible with Android not be one with nothing to distinguish themselves.
0 comments:
Post a Comment