Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > iPhone, iPad & iPod > iPad 2!!!!

iPad 2!!!! (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Really? I always thought the iPad was very quick.
It seems quick... until you actually start surfing.

I find my iPhone 4 way faster than the iPhone 3G at page rendering... but the iPhone 3G is completely intolerable, so just about anything is faster. Unfortunately, the iPhone 4 is still pretty slow. The iPad (version 1) feels like the iPhone 4 for page rendering, which isn't a big surprise since they use the same CPU. I'm not sure if the iPhone 4's A4 CPU is slower clocked than the iPad's, but then again the iPhone 4 has twice the RAM as the iPad.

However, I'm probably spoiled. My main Mac is a 2.9 GHz iMac Core i7 (quad-core with 8 virtual cores), and my main Windows 7 box is a 2.9 GHz Athlon II X3 (triple-core). However, both my Core 2 Duo class machines (2.26 GHz MacBook Pro and 1.3 GHz Pentium SU4100 11" netbook) feel noticeably faster for page rendering too.

For example, check out this comparison with the Xoom.

Site-loading speed battle: Motorola Xoom vs. Apple iPad

Web site
CNET.com
CBSNews.com
GiantBomb.com

Motorola Xoom
4 seconds
27 seconds
6 seconds

Apple iPad
15 seconds
29 seconds
9 seconds


Although in the video you'll only see one iteration for each test, we actually ran each test several times; over those runs we got results consistent with what you'll see here. Also, we cleared each tablet's browser cache before each iteration of the tests was run.

Now, as much as we'd love for these tests to be completely relevant for everyone in every situation, that's nearly impossible. We tested these tablets under specific conditions in a "free" environment. The network was closed, but we can't account for noise from other networks interfering.


I haven't tried an iPad with iOS 4.3 though.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 03:41 AM
 
It's kind of unfair to pit an iPad 1 against Motorola's brand new, high end offering, right?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
It's kind of unfair to pit an iPad 1 against Motorola's brand new, high end offering, right?
This is not about fair. It's about speed. I find the current iPad too slow, but the new iPad 2, which has a similar CPU to the Xoom, may be OK.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 10:50 AM
 
Gruber has confirmed 512 MB of RAM (for those who care)
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Gruber has confirmed 512 MB of RAM (for those who care)
I just checked out his post, thx.

I disagree with this point though.
Originally Posted by gruber
The fact is, Apple got it right with the iPad 1 in almost every way, and the iPad 2 reflects that. If you didn’t like the original iPad, you’re not going to like the iPad 2. If you liked the original iPad, you’re going to like the iPad 2 even better.
I'm not sure why he said this. To me, the iPad 2 is what the original iPad should have been. Sure you can't have everything right off the bat, but the original iPad just seemed to be missing more than I hoped for a $500 product. It was OK, but not compelling to me. The iPad 2 solves those issues, and (in theory) it is more compelling to me. However, I will reserve final judgement until I have tried it myself.

He also posts benchmarks:

SunSpider 0.9.1 Benchmark (Smaller Is Better)
Device (OS) Time
iPad 1 (4.2) 8103 ms
iPad 1 (4.3) 3340 ms
iPad 2 (4.3) 2161 ms

For comparison, the Motorola Xoom seems to achieve ever-so-slightly faster results on the same benchmark: about 2050-2100 ms.


So, as suspected, the iPad 2 performed like the Xoom. I installed 4.3 on my iPhone, and the few sites I tried don't feel much faster, but that may be because of the type of site. However, my complaints with the iPad 1's surfing really were with iOS 4.2. It seems OS 4.3 is indeed noticeably faster according to that benchmark, but it's still 55% slower than the iPad 2, which is pretty significant. And the iPad 2 has a decent RAM amount now.

He also makes this statement:

One thing that struck me about these benchmarks, though, is that the iPad 1 consistently outscored the iPhone 4. But in real life, my iPhone 4 feels faster than my iPad. Most people I know who own both agree. For one thing, it’s because the iPhone 4 has better graphics capabilities than the original iPad. That doesn’t show up in benchmarks like SunSpider or Geekbench. With these iOS devices, how it feels is what matters.
Like I said, I think the iPhone 4 feels slow, as does the iPad 1. If I'm going to spend $500 to get a tablet in addition to my laptop and desktop, it'd better be faster than an iPhone 4.
( Last edited by Eug; Mar 10, 2011 at 11:07 AM. )
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:04 AM
 
I get the feeling the iPad 2 integrates a few features they might have included in the original had they not cut them for cost.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I get the feeling the iPad 2 integrates a few features they might have included in the original had they not cut them for cost.
Maybe, but I think it was probably partially intentional. Apple often does this with version 1 products, I think for two reasons:

1) To see what they can get away with. It's easier to add something later than it is to take it away later.
2) To push the upgrade cycle.

It kind of reminds me of the first unibody 13". I thought it was a nice machine, but not compelling over a white MacBook 13" given the similar specs and much higher price of the unibody. Then they dropped the price and added Firewire, a backlit keyboard to the base model, and made it a Pro. That's when I bought it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Maybe, but I think it was probably partially intentional. Apple often does this with version 1 products, I think for two reasons:

1) To see what they can get away with. It's easier to add something later than it is to take it away later.
2) To push the upgrade cycle.
Probably, but even last year I remember a modicum of surprise at the camera exclusion (certainly moreso than wondering about RAM).
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I get the feeling the iPad 2 integrates a few features they might have included in the original had they not cut them for cost.
Really, there's only the cameras and the magnets for the smart cover.

Everything else is evolution to be expected, and certainly wouldn't have been feasible at the same price point last year.

And I'm pretty sure the cameras weren't there because FaceTime wasn't done yet (somebody - Jobs at AllThingsD? - mentioned when the iPhone 4 was released that it took them over 18 months to get the software side of FaceTime right).
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
and certainly wouldn't have been feasible at the same price point last year.
Yes, that's what I said.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Really, there's only the cameras and the magnets for the smart cover.

Everything else is evolution to be expected, and certainly wouldn't have been feasible at the same price point last year.
Well, I sort of agree there too, but the "evolutionary" features are actually quite significant. Twice the RAM, several times the GPU power, and twice the CPU speed. That's why (in addition to other features) the iPad 1 wasn't so compelling to me at that price point. It just seemed kinda crippled, even at launch, and even if the competition sucked in comparison. The iPad 2 makes much more sense to me for $500. It's really quite a large step forward IMO.

To put it another way, it seems to me to be like a iPhone vs the iPhone 3GS. I never bought the original iPhone because it wasn't available in Canada, and I didn't want a crippled 2G iPhone anyway.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
That's why the iPad 1 wasn't so compelling to me at that price point. It just seemed kinda crippled, even at launch, and even if the competition sucked in comparison. The iPad 2 makes much more sense to me for $500. It's really quite a large step forward IMO.
Wait, wait, wait. I thought the iPad wasn't compelling to you because it couldn't fit in your pocket.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yes, that's what I said.
I'm not sure a dual-core ARM would have been feasible at ANY price last January. Certainly not with any sort of battery life.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I'm not sure a dual-core ARM would have been feasible at ANY price last January. Certainly not with any sort of battery life.
That's nice, because I didn't say any such thing.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Wait, wait, wait. I thought the iPad wasn't compelling to you because it couldn't fit in your pocket.
Well you're correct to an extent. I still think it's rather expensive for the intended purpose. Why? Cuz I still wouldn't take it with me on a business trip, because I'd take my laptop anyway. (On my last trip I took my 3 lb 11.6" Win 7 laptop instead of my MacBook Pro. I needed to do real work on it, but didn't want something as big as the MacBook Pro 13". What I really want is an 11.6" Air with a longer battery life, and perhaps Thunderbolt. The battery life on my 11.6" Win 7 laptop is roughly 8 hours.)

However, for a couch potato internet consumption device at home, it makes more sense now, since it's not as slow as an iPhone 4, and it's got other nice features. Furthermore, Flash isn't as necessary as it used to be (although still common).

Note I did say back then was the iPad as spec'd would make more sense at $300. But at $500? Not so much. The new iPad 2 I think is more reasonable in the $400-500 range. I would not drop $800 on one though.

I might also like a 7-8" model, but I don't expect one any time soon.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
However, for a couch potato internet consumption device at home, it makes more sense now, since it's not as slow as an iPhone 4, and it's got other nice features.
I seem to recall this being exactly what I noted I'd use it for and you still wrote the thing off.

If your disdain for the device was merely about a minor bump in specs, that certainly sailed over my head last year.

(And it was faster than an iPhone 4 when it came out)
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I seem to recall this being exactly what I noted I'd use it for and you still wrote the thing off.
Well, yes and no. I did say I thought I had little need for one because it'd be useless outside the house, but I also did say it might OK as an internet consumption device, if better priced and once Flash's importance diminished.

Well, it's not better priced now per se in that the $500 price point is the same, but it is better priced now in that it's way more device for $500 than the original iPad offered... and it's now (potentially) fast enough not to be irritating.


If your disdain for the device was merely about a minor bump in specs, that certainly sailed over my head last year.
What do you mean "minor" bump in specs? The bump in specs is huge, which is my entire point in this thread. Well, not so much specs per se, but (potential) speed.

Like I said, it's sort of like a jump from the original iPhone to the iPhone 3G. That is an enormous jump. I never bought the original iPhone either.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Well, yes and no. I did say I thought I had little need for one because it'd be useless outside the house, but I also did say it might OK as an internet consumption device, if better priced and once Flash's importance diminished.
You're right, this sounds familiar.

Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Well, it's not better priced now per se in that the $500 price point is the same, but it is better priced now in that it's way more device for $500 than the original iPad offered.
Ehhh. I think that depends on perspective.

Originally Posted by Eug View Post
What do you mean "minor" bump in specs? The bump in specs is huge, which is my entire point in this thread. Well, not so much specs per se, but (potential) speed.

Like I said, it's sort of like a jump from the original iPhone to the iPhone 3G. That is an enormous jump.
I really can't weigh in on that. All I can say is as someone who was interested in the original iPad there's nothing in this update that blows me away. But that is not me saying this is a poor update (before some idiot jumps on my post). After introducing the retina displays on the iPhone 4 last summer that has become a feature I am most interested in (I could give a rats ass about cameras). Whether I wait around another year or two for that feature or finally give in this year remains to be seen.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's nice, because I didn't say any such thing.
Oh jeez. It's Bad Hair-Split Day again.

For the picky (doesn't matter, really, but what the hell, I'm waiting on hold on the phone right now):

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I get the feeling the iPad 2 integrates a few features they might have included in the original had they not cut them for cost.
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Really, there's only the cameras and the magnets for the smart cover.

Everything else is evolution to be expected, and certainly wouldn't have been feasible at the same price point last year.

And I'm pretty sure the cameras weren't there because FaceTime wasn't done yet (somebody - Jobs at AllThingsD? - mentioned when the iPhone 4 was released that it took them over 18 months to get the software side of FaceTime right).
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yes, that's what I said.
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I'm not sure a dual-core ARM would have been feasible at ANY price last January. Certainly not with any sort of battery life.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's nice, because I didn't say any such thing.
Recap:

What I said was that the features that were omitted weren't so much omitted due to cost, but due to the fact that they weren't actually available (or done) yet.

Except for the Smart Cover - which I'm pretty sure just hadn't occurred to them yet.

That's my opinion. It's a minor point.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
That's my opinion. It's a minor point.
Yup, but here you are niggling away at my statements.

Seriously, I can I have a passing mildly negative thought about Apple without you jumping in to defend them?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
All I can say is as someone who was interested in the original iPad there's nothing in this update that blows me away. But that is not me saying this is a poor update (before some idiot jumps on my post). After introducing the retina displays on the iPhone 4 last summer that has become a feature I am most interested in (I could give a rats ass about cameras). Whether I wait around another year or two for that feature or finally give in this year remains to be seen.
Yeah, that's a tough call. If you've already spent $500 (or more) on the original iPad, spending another $500 one year later for another one isn't necessarily the best idea.

However, for a first timer in March 2011, given the options for an iPad for $400 and an iPad 2 for $500, I'd choose the latter as I think it's a better deal, and judging by the specs, it's over Eug's "good enough" threshold.

BTW, everyone I know with the iPad is getting the iPad 2 actually. But that's because they are either Apple geeks, or they have lots of money (or both).
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 02:27 PM
 
Those awful iPad 3 rumors aren't helping, either.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 02:57 PM
 
iPad 2 review -- Engadget

Geekbench Results (higher is better)
Apple iPad 2 - 721
Apple iPad - 442
Apple iPhone 4 - 375

NY Times

On paper, Apple didn’t do much. It just made the iPad one-third thinner, 15 percent lighter and twice as fast. There are no new features except two cameras and a gyroscope. I mean, yawn, right?

And then you start playing with it.

My friends, I’m telling you: just that much improvement in thinness, weight and speed transforms the experience.


iPad 2 Review - SlashGear

We turned to Geekbench, a synthetic test of processor and memory performance, comparing the new iPad 2 with its predecessor and the iPhone 4. The iPad 2 scored 749 overall with its dual-core chip and 512MB of RAM, almost double the iPhone 4 – at 377 – with a single-core processor and the same amount of memory. The first-gen iPad – with the single-core processor and 256MB of memory – scored 453 under iOS 4.2; strangely, after upgrading to iOS 4.3, that actually dropped slightly, to 448.

In the real world that – along with graphics performance, which Apple claims is up to 9x faster than the iPad – means more multimedia grunt and fewer app crashes. We were able to software decode a side loaded 1.4GB .avi file in OPlayer on the fly, while watching it, without and lag or stutter. The same clip in the same app on the original iPad loads slower and drops frames and audio during playback. Large PDF files were also easier to handle, rendering more quickly, scrolling and zooming more smoothly, and the iPad 2 capable of displaying documents that proved too big for the iPad to handle.


Tablets are generally found doing web duty, and the iPad 2 fits the niche well. The mobile version of Safari was always a reasonably good way to browse, with multitouch gestures and swipes making navigation straightforward, but the Apple A5′s extra turn of speed and the software improvements in iOS 4.3 considerably boost the experience.

Pages load faster, render quicker, and scroll more smoothly. There’s less time spent looking at the checkered pattern of a blank page, waiting for the content to show up, and pinch-zooming is resolved quicker too. Meanwhile, thanks to the extra RAM, we experienced fewer out-of-memory errors and crashes in both the standard browser and third-party apps. Where the original iPad could sometimes get overloaded by a particularly heavy webpage, throwing you back to the homescreen, we were able to open multiple tabs and still have no issues with the iPad 2 keeping up.
     
iomatic
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 05:38 PM
 
Any speculation into what could've been on the original is simply ridiculous projection.

Unless you're the type who believes the original Model T should've had air bags, 200+ horepower, dual-climate control and anti-lock brakes. Then go ahead, fly your unicorns.

It's gonna be good.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yup, but here you are niggling away at my statements.

Seriously, I can I have a passing mildly negative thought about Apple without you jumping in to defend them?
I wasn't "defending" anybody.

Can I ever clarify a point that's being misunderstood without being immediately painted as an Apple apologist?

Seriously, it's like you're channeling voodoo or something.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by iomatic View Post
Unless you're the type who believes the original Model T should've had air bags, 200+ horepower, dual-climate control and anti-lock brakes. Then go ahead, fly your unicorns.
Car analogies always suck.
( Last edited by Eug; Mar 10, 2011 at 08:24 PM. Reason: I am Canadian!)
     
Stogieman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 07:30 PM
 
You Canadians are always adding extra vowels to words.

Slick shoes?! Are you crazy?!
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 07:40 PM
 
Car to giv an exampl ?

-t
     
iomatic
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Care analogies always suck.
Oh, Eug.

Fine, I'll leave it here:

Any speculation into what could've been on the original is simply ridiculous projection.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2011, 11:09 PM
 
I'm confused about the 1080p output support. How does that work?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 05:11 AM
 
Lines around the block at the online Apple store...

Oh, the humanity!
     
msuper69  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 05:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Lines around the block at the online Apple store...

Oh, the humanity!
I ordered mine via the Apple Store online a few minutes before 4 am. Whoopee!
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 06:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
I'm confused about the 1080p output support. How does that work?
Plug in Apple AV Connector Kit, plug HDMI cable in other end!

Apparently, it mirrors by default (no idea if it scales when it auto-rotates).

Applications that support it (Videos, Photos, + x) can output material at 1080p.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 07:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Plug in Apple AV Connector Kit, plug HDMI cable in other end!

Apparently, it mirrors by default (no idea if it scales when it auto-rotates).

Applications that support it (Videos, Photos, + x) can output material at 1080p.
Ok, photos I understand, and I guess it's not truly mirroring then. However, what about video? What files at 1080p? I assumed not H.264.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 08:17 AM
 
What other media can it play besides h.264?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 09:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
What other media can it play besides h.264?
MPEG4 and M-JPEG. Here are the specs for the iPad 2:

* Video mirroring and video out support: Up to 1080p with Apple Digital AV Adapter or Apple VGA Adapter (cables sold separately)
* Video out support at 576p and 480p with Apple Component AV Cable; 576i and 480i with Apple Composite AV Cable
* Video formats supported: H.264 video up to 720p, 30 frames per second, Main Profile level 3.1 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps per channel, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) up to 35 Mbps, 1280 by 720 pixels, 30 frames per second, audio in ulaw, PCM stereo audio in .avi file format


These are the specs from the previous iPad:

* Support for 1024 by 768 pixels with Dock Connector to VGA Adapter; 576p and 480p with Apple Component AV Cable; 576i and 480i with Apple Composite AV Cable
* H.264 video up to 720p, 30 frames per second, Main Profile level 3.1 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps per channel, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) up to 35 Mbps, 1280 by 720 pixels, 30 frames per second, audio in ulaw, PCM stereo audio in .avi file format


The video specs seem to be exactly the same, which is a little bit of a surprise. Not a huge deal, but nonetheless I was hoping for at least 1080p Main Profile support up to 30 fps.

P.S. I'm still surprised these machines (and my iPhone 4) support .avi format, even if it's just for M-JPEG.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I wasn't "defending" anybody.

Can I ever clarify a point that's being misunderstood without being immediately painted as an Apple apologist?
YOu get painted the way you do because the points you "clarify" always seem to be defending Apple from criticisms.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Seriously, it's like you're channeling voodoo or something.
No, my first complaint about your tendencies predates voodoo.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 11:23 AM
 
What does MPEG4 mean in this context - ASP video (ie, that used by DivX) or what?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
What does MPEG4 mean in this context - ASP video (ie, that used by DivX) or what?
Simple profile only, not advanced simple profile... which kinda makes it useless...

---

P.S. What size iPads are you guys getting? My GF's iBook G4 1.07 is getting really long in the tooth - irritating to use, and it doesn't support Flash well anyway. So, one option for a replacement is an iPad, as our primary laptop is a MacBook Pro. The iBook just gets used at home. I'm thinking the $499 16 GB would be enough. I guess an advantage to the iPad is easier cleaning, since she uses it in the kitchen when cooking. I'll have to see how well that cover/stand works to prop up the iPad. I was eventually gonna get a MB Air, but I don't want her using it in the kitchen of course.

I don't think there will be that many photos or videos (despite my geek desire for 1080p main profile or better). Maybe just a few hundred photos and maybe a few movies at a time, so I'm thinking 16 GB is OK. 32 GB would give more breathing room (esp. for a PDF repository), but I'm not keen on spending $600 on such a device.
( Last edited by Eug; Mar 11, 2011 at 12:27 PM. )
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 12:46 PM
 
From what I've seen on video of the iPad and smart cover, its a bit easy to topple over with the cover folded into the picture frame stand. A dock or one of those easel type stands in the kitchen might be safer. Or put something inside the folded up cover to weigh it down.

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ajprice View Post
From what I've seen on video of the iPad and smart cover, its a bit easy to topple over with the cover folded into the picture frame stand. A dock or one of those easel type stands in the kitchen might be safer. Or put something inside the folded up cover to weigh it down.
Yeah, that's what I'm worried about. I don't really want a cover anyway, and a stand just seems safer.

Cheaper too.



Or maybe I'll just conscript the cats into duty.

     
iomatic
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 02:27 PM
 
going to check the local apple store area around lunch. if there's a line, forget it, i'll seriously wait until ipad 4.

I wonder if AT&T will push data, if I walk in there. Anyway, this means I'd have to (ideally) repurchase HD versions of the apps I have? sigh.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2011, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Yeah, that's what I'm worried about. I don't really want a cover anyway, and a stand just seems safer.

Cheaper too.


What stand is this? I need something like this, that will hold the iPad screen at an angle facing downward, so I can put it up high while my kid watches videos on it.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 04:33 AM
 
Groovy iPad Stand - $11.95

I dunno if it would work with the iPad angled downward though.

P.S. It's May 12th now. Where are the MacNN geek reviews?
( Last edited by Eug; Mar 12, 2011 at 04:57 AM. )
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 06:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Note I did say back then was the iPad as spec'd would make more sense at $300.
Just to reiterate that now the refurb is $349... I think for the budget conscious, $349 for a 1st gen iPad is reasonable.


Originally Posted by Eug View Post
I don't think I could preorder this. I'd have to play with it first to see the browsing speed first. It is probably OK because it's claimed to be twice as fast as the old one, but then again the old one is very slow. That kind of speed us OK on an iPhone, but not so much on a 10" device.
Well, reading the reviews, it seems that it's most definitely much, much faster than the original iPad. That's good enough to pre-order... esp. since I'm going to only paying just over half the cost. It's going to be subsidized through work.

So, in the meantime because I had some PayPal cash left over, I've ordered some cheap screen protectors and a stand for the iPad. Hopefully it doesn't suck, but the good news is that it was only 17 bucks shipped.





I'm most interested in that closer-to-flat option for typing. The Groovystand at $11.95 was an option, but apparently the finish isn't so great, and the 45 degree angle reportedly still isn't very good for typing.

GroovyStand Dual for iPad Review

The Groovy Dual works great as an iPad stand for watching videos, reading, or even as a stand on a bedside table when using the iPad as an alarm clock. Depending on your table height, either angle would work as a viewing stand. Not everyone will find that the 45 degree mode works for typing, but you could use the Groovy Dual with a Bluetooth keyboard of your choice.

Then again I do have an unused Apple Wireless Keyboard. When they replaced my iMac, I got a new Magic mouse and wireless keyboard because they come in the box. So here is a pearl of wisdom: When taking your Mac to Apple for repair, don't give them any accessories. If they need to replace it, they may not only give you the replacement, but also all the accessories too.
     
Stogieman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
P.S. It's May 12th now. Where are the MacNN geek reviews?
You're suppose to set your clock ahead only 1 hour Eug.

My first impressions of the iPad 2:

- The reduced weight and thickness make a HUGE difference. It's so much more comfortable in your hands. I was on this thing for 3 hours straight last night without any discomfort or wrist strain.

- It feels a lot faster than my previous iPad. Tab switching an page scrolling in Safari is really smooth.

- The tapered edges feel great in your hands but make it a pain in the ass to use the connector port. I had to flip the iPad over just to plug in the USB cable during the initial setup. Using the dock was an even bigger challenge. I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of tiny scratches around the connector port over time.


That's all I have for now. I'll post more later.

Slick shoes?! Are you crazy?!
     
jokell82
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 06:09 PM
 
Can you notice the difference in weight? Because it feels just as heavy to me.

All glory to the hypnotoad.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stogieman View Post
You're suppose to set your clock ahead only 1 hour Eug.
Doh! March 12 not May 12. And it was 12:33 am California time on March 12 when I posted that, so I thought I was being smart.

My first impressions of the iPad 2:

- The reduced weight and thickness make a HUGE difference. It's so much more comfortable in your hands. I was on this thing for 3 hours straight last night without any discomfort or wrist strain.

- It feels a lot faster than my previous iPad. Tab switching an page scrolling in Safari is really smooth.
Yeah, that seems to be the consensus online, even compared to the iPad with iOS 4.3. Did you try iOS 4.3 on your previous iPad? It's supposed to be much faster, but all I can say is that iOS 4.3's Safari is still pretty slow on my iPhone 4.

- The tapered edges feel great in your hands but make it a pain in the ass to use the connector port. I had to flip the iPad over just to plug in the USB cable during the initial setup. Using the dock was an even bigger challenge. I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of tiny scratches around the connector port over time.

That's all I have for now. I'll post more later.
Did you buy the Smart Cover? I didn't get one mainly because I wanted a sleeve, and also because it didn't seem particularly stable in the Macworld review when in the propped-up orientation. Plus, the propping-up only works in landscape view. No option for the portrait orientation (which isn't a deal killer I suppose, since it'd be taking the place of a 1024x768 landscape-only iBook anyway).

I figured I'd give that $17 easel type fold up metal stand a shot first. It'll give me something to review for you guys.

If I carried the item around, I'm not sure how well the Smart Cover would hold on when in a bag or something, and it doesn't protect the back either. I might use a sleeve for it in that context.
     
jokell82
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Doh! March 12 not May 12. And it was 12:33 am California time on March 12 when I posted that, so I thought I was being smart.


Yeah, that seems to be the consensus online, even compared to the iPad with iOS 4.3. Did you try iOS 4.3 on your previous iPad? It's supposed to be much faster, but all I can say is that iOS 4.3's Safari is still pretty slow on my iPhone 4.


Did you buy the Smart Cover? I didn't get one mainly because I wanted a sleeve, and also because it didn't seem particularly stable in the Macworld review when in the propped-up orientation. Plus, the propping-up only works in landscape view. No option for the portrait orientation (which isn't a deal killer I suppose, since it'd be taking the place of a 1024x768 landscape-only iBook anyway).

I figured I'd give that $17 easel type fold up metal stand a shot first. It'll give me something to review for you guys.

If I carried the item around, I'm not sure how well the Smart Cover would hold on when in a bag or something, and it doesn't protect the back either. I might use a sleeve for it in that context.
I bought the smart cover - fits in the sleeve I had for the iPad 1 just fine, and it's very stable when propped up (in fact, much more stable than the Apple case for the iPad 1).

All glory to the hypnotoad.
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2011, 09:33 PM
 
I found this nice graph related to which service is cheaper based on monthly use. Click on it for the article.


I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,