The RPG Maker Resource Kit

---

I'm not updating. I'm still waiting for redsn0w for 3G 3.1.3, so I'll be damned if I'm going to update and have to wait all over again.

Overall, that was huge. Biggest iPhone software release aside from the release of the App Store. Period.

Multitasking, I'm going to get some use out of it. I could live without it easily, but I'll probably end up using it.

App folders, holy cow. I've wanted this for a long time, but I never considered folders. No longer will I need to have one page for each type of application.

Game center, I'll need to hear more on this. No idea what it will be like, but it appears to be Apple's answer to console online services.

iAd, it's about time ads didn't suck.

Won't work on iPod Touch 1st gen, I'll need to buy a new iPod Touch.

I think this completely knocked out a lot of the things people were bitching about being wrong with the iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch. Except Flash. Flash sucks.

Oh wow, this is very cool. I was going to get a refurb 2nd Gen, but I think I'll go with the 3rd gen now. Also, the multitasking is great; I can settle for the 8GB, save some money, and use Pandora for extra music. Actually I was going to do that anyhow, but now I can multitask and use Pandora, which is even better. ^_^

I probably would have never seen this otherwise, so thanks man.

I'm not impressed, simply because this should have been in the very first OS.

I do however, understand the marketing tactic of severely artificially limiting a device, and then slowly enabling "normal" features (that other similar devices have, or have had for years). This lets you keep users coming back, possibly charging them again for something they already paid for, and you get to be "revolutionary" and "breakthrough" all over again.

I find the fact you'll see ads hilarious too. You already paid out the ass for it, now look at some ads.

Quote from: Roph on April 08, 2010, 08:56:00 PM
I'm not impressed, simply because this should have been in the very first OS.

I do however, understand the marketing tactic of severely artificially limiting a device, and then slowly enabling "normal" features (that other similar devices have, or have had for years). This lets you keep users coming back, possibly charging them again for something they already paid for, and you get to be "revolutionary" and "breakthrough" all over again.

Jobs: "It's easy to do this in a way that drains battery life, and a way that reduces performance of the foreground app. If you don't do it right, your phone will feel sluggish. We figured out how to implement multitasking for third party apps and avoid those things. So that's what took so long."

They obviously are the first, but that doesn't matter. They may very well be the best, but only time can tell. I'd rather have something that works well than something that *sort of* works.

Quote from: Roph on April 08, 2010, 08:56:00 PM
I find the fact you'll see ads hilarious too. You already paid out the ass for it, now look at some ads.

Developers have every right to put ads in the applications, just as you have the right to put ads on RMRK. I only see ads on free applications, for obvious reasons. Developers want a revenue source, and if they're not charging for the application, they may put ads in them. Apple's simply offering better ads -- something that benefits developers, users, and advertisers. They're trying to move away from annoying/boring banners that link to websites that open in Safari.

I would update for the extra features, just so that I wouldn't have a crippled device that can't run apps because they aren't backwards compatible, but I have the 2nd gen touch not the 3rd so it doesn't matter anyway.

Don't care about Apple not putting it in there to start, doesn't matter, it's there now.  Yeah kinda dumb that they charge for an update to the OS but it's not even $10, no big deal imo.

Quote from: Irock on April 08, 2010, 06:24:20 PM
Except Flash. Flash sucks.

lol.
What would you use in place of it then?

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 10, 2010, 04:21:37 AM

Quote from: Irock on April 08, 2010, 06:24:20 PM
Except Flash. Flash sucks.

lol.
What would you use in place of it then?

For videos and flashy shit on websites, HTML5. Or on the iPad, Quicktime for video. (a lot of websites seem to be optimizing theirselves to work without Flash, which is great)

Quicktime sucks ass.

Mobile Quicktime is flawless.

Can it play Starcraft?

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 07:56:08 AM
For videos and flashy shit on websites, HTML5. Or on the iPad, Quicktime for video. (a lot of websites seem to be optimizing theirselves to work without Flash, which is great)

LOL HTML5
HTML5 is going to reduce dependency on a lot of external things to the net (javascript, Flash, etc...) so for things like video embedding perhaps HTML5 will push Flash out, but it won't be replaceing anything at all.  You'll never get the same level of dynamic interactivity from HTML until they turn it into a REAL programming language instead of just a somewhat ugly way of telling your browser how to display a webpage.

Flash interactive website and games won't go away, nor will the sideshows made in Flash and Javascript.  Also the only reason people are optimizing things for use without Flash is because Internet Exploder also happens to be going on a vendetta against Flash because Adobe refused to conform to IE standards, so in order to have the site reach as wide an audience as possible they lowered their dependency on Flash.  People aren't doing it for the iPad or the iPhone, they've been doing it for years because Microsoft is just as bad as Apple when it comes to DO IT OUR WAY OR ELSE.

I really don't get why everyone has a stick up their ass about Flash, it's simple to learn, relatively powerful for net-based applications, and you can make some awesome stuff with it.  WHY it's somehow BAD is beyond me entirely.

If you think apple couldn't have had this in os 1 you're an idiot.

Flash can be annoying because it can slow you down or be fudgy, but I think flash has its place and can really do some terrific things. Do yourself a favor and check this out: www.pixelcase.com.au/vr/2009/newyork/

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 11, 2010, 02:38:27 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 07:56:08 AM
For videos and flashy shit on websites, HTML5. Or on the iPad, Quicktime for video. (a lot of websites seem to be optimizing theirselves to work without Flash, which is great)

LOL HTML5
HTML5 is going to reduce dependency on a lot of external things to the net (javascript, Flash, etc...) so for things like video embedding perhaps HTML5 will push Flash out, but it won't be replaceing anything at all.  You'll never get the same level of dynamic interactivity from HTML until they turn it into a REAL programming language instead of just a somewhat ugly way of telling your browser how to display a webpage.

Flash interactive website and games won't go away, nor will the sideshows made in Flash and Javascript.  Also the only reason people are optimizing things for use without Flash is because Internet Exploder also happens to be going on a vendetta against Flash because Adobe refused to conform to IE standards, so in order to have the site reach as wide an audience as possible they lowered their dependency on Flash.  People aren't doing it for the iPad or the iPhone, they've been doing it for years because Microsoft is just as bad as Apple when it comes to DO IT OUR WAY OR ELSE.

I really don't get why everyone has a stick up their ass about Flash, it's simple to learn, relatively powerful for net-based applications, and you can make some awesome stuff with it.  WHY it's somehow BAD is beyond me entirely.

I never said it would replace anything. You asked me what I'd use in place of it. Are you illiterate, or just stupid?

About interactivity on websites, HTML5 can do some pretty neat stuff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7WVt63S49s#t=5m48s).

I didn't address slideshows or games at all, but you don't need flash to make a slideshow. (http://www.stencyl.com/) And it's great some people know that. ;]

To say that the iMobiledevices have no effect on any website using Flash is stupid. There's no way to prove that at all. Besides, it doesn't matter; websites are optimizing their selves to run without Flash, which I love.

The reason Apple isn't allowing Flash on their devices is obvious. Flash would bog down their device, it's exploitable, and it would lessen the web experience since a lot of Flash on websites wouldn't work right since it's designed to work with a keyboard and mouse. (not counting ads, the majority of Flash content)

Somebody has a hard on for Flash. ;]

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 06:01:34 PM
About interactivity on websites, HTML5 can do some pretty neat stuff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7WVt63S49s#t=5m48s).

Javascript can do the same, it's just clunky and dumb.

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 06:01:34 PM
I didn't address slideshows or games at all, but you don't need flash to make a slideshow. (http://www.stencyl.com/) And it's great some people know that. ;]

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 11, 2010, 02:38:27 PM
Flash interactive website and games won't go away, nor will the sideshows made in Flash and Javascript.

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 06:01:34 PM
To say that the iMobiledevices have no effect on any website using Flash is stupid. There's no way to prove that at all. Besides, it doesn't matter; websites are optimizing their selves to run without Flash, which I love.

There's nothing wrong with flash unless the programmer is a retard who doesn't know how to make things efficient.  And I know that I for one am not designing sites with cell phones in mind, because the resolution is so stupidly small that there'd be no way to design for them effectively without making a specific page -just for them-.  Too much work, not enough reason to bother.

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 06:01:34 PM
The reason Apple isn't allowing Flash on their devices is obvious. Flash would bog down their device, it's exploitable, and it would lessen the web experience since a lot of Flash on websites wouldn't work right since it's designed to work with a keyboard and mouse. (not counting ads, the majority of Flash content)

I agree that not having Flash on a mobile device is a design decision to increase performance on the device, and because the control scheme is different, I'm not arguing that, I just think that HTML5 isn't going to be the holy grail that everyone on the bandwagon seems to think it will be.  It might eliminate javascript (I'd love for it to, javascript sucks so much) but I doubt that as well.

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 06:01:34 PM
Somebody has a hard on for Flash. ;]

I love Flash.

Quote

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 06:01:34 PM
I didn't address slideshows or games at all, but you don't need flash to make a slideshow. (http://www.stencyl.com/) And it's great some people know that. ;]

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 11, 2010, 02:38:27 PM
Flash interactive website and games won't go away, nor will the sideshows made in Flash and Javascript.

That doesn't use Flash and Javascript. That uses just Javascript, which is supported by the iMobiledevices.

Quote
There's nothing wrong with flash unless the programmer is a retard who doesn't know how to make things efficient.  And I know that I for one am not designing sites with cell phones in mind, because the resolution is so stupidly small that there'd be no way to design for them effectively without making a specific page -just for them-.  Too much work, not enough reason to bother.

It doesn't matter if you're not optimizing your websites for use without Flash; most major websites are. Mobile browsing is increasing.

QuoteI agree that not having Flash on a mobile device is a design decision to increase performance on the device, and because the control scheme is different, I'm not arguing that, I just think that HTML5 isn't going to be the holy grail that everyone on the bandwagon seems to think it will be.  It might eliminate javascript (I'd love for it to, javascript sucks so much) but I doubt that as well.

I never said it would eliminate Flash. You asked me what I'd replace it with and I answered.

Sometimes I hate those bastards. Why the hell won't they let it work on the iPod Touch 2nd Gen? Why in ****'s name?

Looks really nice for those who can use it, though.

I tried to learn flash, once. It was the most over-complicated, convoluted, and irritating thing I've ever tried to learn.

Quote from: Japur on April 11, 2010, 07:34:06 PM
Sometimes I hate those bastards. Why the hell won't they let it work on the iPod Touch 2nd Gen? Why in ****'s name?

Looks really nice for those who can use it, though.

Many features will work on the iPod Touch 2nd gen. But, multi-tasking won't since the hardware just can't do it well.

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 07:04:12 PM

Quote

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 06:01:34 PM
I didn't address slideshows or games at all, but you don't need flash to make a slideshow. (http://www.stencyl.com/) And it's great some people know that. ;]

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 11, 2010, 02:38:27 PM
Flash interactive website and games won't go away, nor will the sideshows made in Flash and Javascript.

That doesn't use Flash and Javascript. That uses just Javascript, which is supported by the iMobiledevices.

I was pointing out that javascript can be used for them too, way to read wrong.

iMobileDevices are stupid for web browsing, I'm not going to lower the resolution of my website so they can be browsed more effectively on that screen.  I don't care about functionality because most websites that are super-interactive are stupid confusing anyway.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 11, 2010, 08:17:26 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 07:04:12 PM

Quote

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 06:01:34 PM
I didn't address slideshows or games at all, but you don't need flash to make a slideshow. (http://www.stencyl.com/) And it's great some people know that. ;]

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 11, 2010, 02:38:27 PM
Flash interactive website and games won't go away, nor will the sideshows made in Flash and Javascript.

That doesn't use Flash and Javascript. That uses just Javascript, which is supported by the iMobiledevices.

I was pointing out that javascript can be used for them too, way to read wrong.

iMobileDevices are stupid for web browsing, I'm not going to lower the resolution of my website so they can be browsed more effectively on that screen.  I don't care about functionality because most websites that are super-interactive are stupid confusing anyway.

I didn't read anything wrong. You worded it in a way that can be interpreted differently.

iPhone and iPod touch are great for web browsing, for being mobile phone-size devices. You don't really have to lower your resolution at all, as you can zoom in and out. Nobody expects a mobile version of a small website owned by a random 20 year old.

From what I hear, you rarely have to zoom in on any pages on the iPad, and that it's great for web browsing.

Why are we talking about screen resolutions?

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 08:30:44 PM
I didn't read anything wrong. You worded it in a way that can be interpreted differently.

No, you totally read it wrong.

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 08:30:44 PM
iPhone and iPod touch are great for web browsing, for being mobile phone-size devices. You don't really have to lower your resolution at all, as you can zoom in and out. Nobody expects a mobile version of a small website owned by a random 20 year old.

From what I hear, you rarely have to zoom in on any pages on the iPad, and that it's great for web browsing.

Why are we talking about screen resolutions?

The screen size is tiny on the iPhone/Touch meaning that the resolution is tiny, therefore making it a clunky web-viewing solution as you have to zoom in and constantly scroll around to be able to view something properly and read it.

I brought up resolutions because you said people were starting to adopt design standards for the idevices in their web design, and my argument to the contrary was that if they felt they shoudl conform to a standard for portable browsing that the sites should be smaller which is a stupid design as the screens are too small.  The reason flash isn't widely used for interactive elements is because people don't like to update their flash player so the computer it'll run on cannot be assumed to have it, therefore making it an unpredictable option.  You could force a download, but then people would probably leave.  Flash, therefore, is usually not used and Java is substituted in its place as it provides baseline special effects albiet being a very ugly and annoying language to work around.

Compared to other mobiles, sure maybe they're better, but I maintain that phone web surfing is clunky and stupid.

http://gamehaxe.com/2010/04/10/bravo-apple/

Also, http://rmrk.net/?topic=38074.0;wap2

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 12, 2010, 12:47:38 AM

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 08:30:44 PM
I didn't read anything wrong. You worded it in a way that can be interpreted differently.

No, you totally read it wrong.

No, you worded it in a way that can be interpreted differently.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 12, 2010, 12:47:38 AM
The screen size is tiny on the iPhone/Touch meaning that the resolution is tiny, therefore making it a clunky web-viewing solution as you have to zoom in and constantly scroll around to be able to view something properly and read it.

Yes, the screen resolution is tiny, because it's a handheld mobile device. I didn't say the iPod Touch and iPhone were the gods of web browsing. I said the browsing on them is great for being cell phone sized devices. You are clearly unable to read.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 12, 2010, 12:47:38 AM
I brought up resolutions because you said people were starting to adopt design standards for the idevices in their web design,

No, I said websites were starting to optimize themselves for use without Flash. You are clearly unable to read.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 12, 2010, 12:47:38 AM
Compared to other mobiles, sure maybe they're better, but I maintain that phone web surfing is clunky and stupid.

I never said it isn't clunky and stupid. But the fact is, people browse the web on their handheld mobile devices at an ever increasing rate.

I personally browse on my iPod when away from my computer due to lack of a better alternative, like the iPad.

Either way, I'm happy to see a closed, severely and deliberately limited platform like apple's OS falling in market share, with the open source and free (in all senses of the word) Android OS poised to replace it as #1 (http://gizmodo.com/5504622/how-the-iphone-could-end-up-in-second-place) :)

(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fyf0NN.jpg&hash=11529c22a4fb38c940cd6b162b8a873c1806ea63)

Android is on many different phones across many different carriers, while Apple's iPhone OS is only on the iPhone (which is only on AT&T) and iPod Touch(if they count that in this graph). It's no surprise that it could surpass it in market share.

I know plenty of people who want an iPhone, but can't get one because they're already on another carrier, me included. :)

The iPhone isn't doing bad at all (http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/25/technology/apple/index.htm).

I didn't see him say it was doing bad. I saw him write that it was falling. Also, yes, it makes sense that Android would be growing.

He's obviously implying that its market share percentage is falling because it's a "severely and deliberately limited platform" and that its falling in market share percentage is bad for Apple, when they did better than ever last quarter. He also failed to even recognize the obvious reason it's falling.

Roph either doesn't understand anything, or he wants to make it seem like Apple is doing badly. :police:

iPod's operating system has very little to do with why it sells well. It's an iPod.

The iPod Touch would not sell nearly as well if the operating system were bad. The software sells the hardware.

Same with the iPad and the iPhone.

It's not that it's bad or good. It's just functional.

Quote from: Irock on April 11, 2010, 07:44:25 PM

Quote from: Japur on April 11, 2010, 07:34:06 PM
Sometimes I hate those bastards. Why the hell won't they let it work on the iPod Touch 2nd Gen? Why in ****'s name?

Looks really nice for those who can use it, though.

Many features will work on the iPod Touch 2nd gen. But, multi-tasking won't since the hardware just can't do it well.

Oh man, I just read it to fast... sorry for that.

Multitasking is nothing for me compared to the fact that you FINALLY can change your background! Or the App Folders! Can't wait.

Oh and Irock, thanks for all the information; without you I wouldn't have noticed it. :)

IROCK DECIDED TO SKIP HTML AND NOW KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT HTML5

I don't understand your post nor claim to know anything about HTML5 other than if I had to replace Flash, I'd replace it with it.

Do you understand that flash is, for the most part, open?

The flash player itself cannot be open source because of some of the code it contains - namely codecs for proprietary media formats such as h.264.

I love h.264 and AAC, which are both patented formats. Software patents are a tricky area and I agree they suck for many reasons; but I don't understand the flash hate.

When I play HD youtube videos I get comparable CPU usage to if I were to download the HD MP4 from youtube and play it in a standalone player.

I never said Flash isn't for the most part, open. Jesus, I've had a billion words shoved in my mouth so you people can make arguments out of nothing.

I just don't want Flash on the iPad, iPhone, or iPad. Quite frankly, it sucks on devices with lesser hardware and devices with touch screens. I don't want any pages to render slower because of it, I don't want any applications slowing down because of it, I don't want the device to be unstable because of it, and I don't want to see a bunch of Flash applications that aren't even going to work because they're designed to be used with a keyboard and mouse. Apple isn't stupid. They don't want to have something on their devices that could impact the performance or user experience. Talking about performance, Flash even rapes netbooks I've used.

I don't have a problem with Flash; I have a problem with Flash on devices that don't handle Flash well.

Also, why the fuck would I care if it's open?

what is html replacing besides video and flash? (serious question, I have yet to read up myself on it's 'flash' killing abilities)

So you're happy for apple to force you to use what they want you to use, rather than the other way around? Even though lots of flash content would work perfectly, if the user was simply allowed to use it?

Want to use flash on another, less restricted device? go ahead. Their open-ness is what gives the choice to the user.

This is how your arguments against flash come back to open-ness of the device, and why I have no interest in owning or using those apple products.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
I never said Flash isn't for the most part, open. Jesus, I've had a billion words shoved in my mouth so you people can make arguments out of nothing.

So what you're saying is...you're ignoring the truth?

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
I just don't want Flash on the iPad, iPhone, or iPad. Quite frankly, it sucks on devices with lesser hardware and devices with touch screens.

Don't be so quick to label all devices with touch screens as unable to use Flash properly.  iMobileDevices sure, but for example I know several touch screen computers that run Flash fine, because they don't sacrifice hardware for touch.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
I don't want any pages to render slower because of it, I don't want any applications slowing down because of it, I don't want the device to be unstable because of it, and I don't want to see a bunch of Flash applications that aren't even going to work because they're designed to be used with a keyboard and mouse.

Pages won't be slower if the Flash author isn't an idiot and doesn't know how to compress, the device wouldn't slow down if it wasn't running gimped hardware, and as for keyboard and mouse, there is a keyboard dock for it and bluetooth, but of course Apple doesn't include any options for a mouse, which I find extremely stupid and clumsy.  Typan on the keyboard then have to move your hand up to the screen to select anything?  Dumb.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
Apple isn't stupid. They don't want to have something on their devices that could impact the performance or user experience.

I'll define for people.

performance - locked-down nature of the device, preventing any form of app being run that doesn't pass through the App Store and conform to Apple standards.
user experience - the decided uses for the device as dictated by Apple.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
Talking about performance, Flash even rapes netbooks I've used.

Netbooks suck too.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
I don't have a problem with Flash; I have a problem with Flash on devices that don't handle Flash well.

...because of gimp hardware.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
Apple isn't stupid. They don't want to have something on their devices that could impact the performance or user experience.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
Apple isn't stupid. They don't want to have something on their devices that could impact the performance of their hardware.

Irock step back from the apple is doing it for you. They just banned screen protectors at their retail outlets. Wait let me guess.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
Apple isn't stupid. They don't want to have screen protectors on their devices that could impact the performance or user experience.

No. They did it so people don't feel their product is inferior, same with flash. If they supported flash they would probably need to provide better hardware with the product--fuck that right?

Quote from: Roph on April 13, 2010, 08:33:30 AM
So you're happy for apple to force you to use what they want you to use, rather than the other way around? Even though lots of flash content would work perfectly, if the user was simply allowed to use it?

Apple can't force me to use anything, and I shouldn't be able to force them to use anything. Apple puts on their device what consumers want, because they make more money that way. A lot of Flash content would not work, and that content that wouldn't work would only lessen the performance of the device.

Quote from: Roph on April 13, 2010, 08:33:30 AM
Want to use flash on another, less restricted device? go ahead. Their open-ness is what gives the choice to the user.

You have the choice. I'd rather take a device with a better operating system, better applications, more applications, a better touch screen, and better build quality. I have no need for Flash or for Apple to allow a bunch of shitty applications to be downloaded from the web.

Quote from: Roph on April 13, 2010, 08:33:30 AM
This is how your arguments against flash come back to open-ness of the device, and why I have no interest in owning or using those apple products.

I don't care if something is "open". I want the best experience I can get, and no other device has impressed me more than the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. :)

I've never cared that you don't want an Apple product. You don't need to tell me why, because I've never tried to convince you to get one or questioned why you don't want an Apple product.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 12:15:31 PM
So what you're saying is...you're ignoring the truth?

That makes no sense.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 12:15:31 PM
Don't be so quick to label all devices with touch screens as unable to use Flash properly.  iMobileDevices sure, but for example I know several touch screen computers that run Flash fine, because they don't sacrifice hardware for touch.

The touch screen isn't going to work well with many Flash applications which are designed to be used with a mouse and keyboard.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 12:15:31 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
I don't want any pages to render slower because of it, I don't want any applications slowing down because of it, I don't want the device to be unstable because of it, and I don't want to see a bunch of Flash applications that aren't even going to work because they're designed to be used with a keyboard and mouse.

Pages won't be slower if the Flash author isn't an idiot and doesn't know how to compress, the device wouldn't slow down if it wasn't running gimped hardware, and as for keyboard and mouse, there is a keyboard dock for it and bluetooth, but of course Apple doesn't include any options for a mouse, which I find extremely stupid and clumsy.  Typan on the keyboard then have to move your hand up to the screen to select anything?  Dumb.

No, pages will be slower. Flash applications, unavoidably, use CPU. No matter how good a Flash "programmer" you are, it will use hardware on the device which will cause it to slow down. You're also disregarding the fact that a lot of Flash applications aren't made well, and will REALLY slow down the device. If it slows down a Netbook with greater specs than the iPad, it will slow down the iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad.

Apple doesn't allow a mouse to connect to the iPad because the OS, and every single application is designed to be used with multi-touch. It just wouldn't work. The very fact that you think having a mouse on an iPad would be a good thing shows how dumb you are. Your perfect device is something with as many features crammed into it as the developers could fit into it, is it not? Any developer with a device with a bunch of half assed bullshit on it, is clumsy -- not the developer who makes sure everything that they allow their device to do works perfectly. The last thing Apple is, is clumsy.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 12:15:31 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
Apple isn't stupid. They don't want to have something on their devices that could impact the performance or user experience.

I'll define for people.

performance - locked-down nature of the device, preventing any form of app being run that doesn't pass through the App Store and conform to Apple standards.
user experience - the decided uses for the device as dictated by Apple.

Performance as in, speed.

User experience as in, user experience. Apple wants applications and features that make their users enjoy using the device. I'd personally be pissed at Apple if they allowed a mouse that doesn't function correctly on the iPad, a ton of porn applications, applications that violate my privacy, applications that are buggy, and Flash that will be usable sometimes and will slow down the device.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 12:15:31 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
Talking about performance, Flash even rapes netbooks I've used.

Netbooks suck too.

Yes, because they run full blown operating systems that don't consider how low the specifications of the system are. Unless you're using one of those OS's that the manufacturer included that has like 6 basic features. But god, I'd rather just have an iPad. =]

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 12:15:31 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 04:06:50 AM
I don't have a problem with Flash; I have a problem with Flash on devices that don't handle Flash well.

...because of gimp hardware.

These devices are not supposed to have 4 gigs of ram, a quad core, and a 4850 graphics card.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
The touch screen isn't going to work well with many Flash applications which are designed to be used with a mouse and keyboard

Games maybe, but Flash isn't just used for games :)

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
Apple can't force me to use anything, and I shouldn't be able to force them to use anything. Apple puts on their device what consumers want, because they make more money that way. A lot of Flash content would not work, and that content that wouldn't work would only lessen the performance of the device.

and from later on...

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
developer who makes sure everything that they allow their device to do works perfectly.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
No, pages will be slower. Flash applications, unavoidably, use CPU. No matter how good a Flash "programmer" you are, it will use hardware on the device which will cause it to slow down. You're also disregarding the fact that a lot of Flash applications aren't made well, and will REALLY slow down the device. If it slows down a Netbook with greater specs than the iPad, it will slow down the iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad.

Lol Flash "programmer."
No matter how good an App "Programmer" you are, it will use hardware on the device which will cause it to slow down. You're also disregarding the fact that a lot of Apps aren't made well, and will REALLY slow down the device (and eat up more battery life than they are worth).

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
Apple doesn't allow a mouse to connect to the iPad because the OS, and every single application is designed to be used with multi-touch. It just wouldn't work. The very fact that you think having a mouse on an iPad would be a good thing shows how dumb you are.

Lol.
Because every single app ever is going to feature Multi Touch something.
When you have the iPad propped up and have to use the screen to navigate while using the keyboard to type, it's clumsy and stupid.  Also their new special snowflake mouse has multi-touch capabilities so weak argument is weak.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
Your perfect device is something with as many features crammed into it as the developers could fit into it, is it not? Any developer with a device with a bunch of half assed bullshit on it, is clumsy -- not the developer who makes sure everything that they allow their device to do works perfectly. The last thing Apple is, is clumsy.

My perfect device is one with a good powerful framework and open capabilities for user modification of the function and look.  Basically standard PC and with some work standard Apple Laptops.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
User experience as in, user experience. Apple wants applications and features that make their users enjoy using the device. I'd personally be pissed at Apple if they allowed a mouse that doesn't function correctly on the iPad, a ton of porn applications, applications that violate my privacy, applications that are buggy, and Flash that will be usable sometimes and will slow down the device.

OH NOES PORN!
I'm pretty sure they could make mice work perfectly fine, and you seriously think that the iPad being locked down like a maximum security prison is going to stop people from making applications that attempt to violate privacy, or keep bugs?

Everything you do on the device will eat the battery, use the hardware, and probably slow it down because it's using such gimp hardware for what they're trying to make it do.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
Yes, because they run full blown operating systems that don't consider how low the specifications of the system are. Unless you're using one of those OS's that the manufacturer included that has like 6 basic features. But god, I'd rather just have an iPad. =]

Netbooks run streamlined versions with less features, very hardly full blown, it's not the OS that is the difference.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PMThese devices are not supposed to have 4 gigs of ram, a quad core, and a 4850 graphics card.

stop contradicting yourself.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
No, pages will be slower. Flash applications, unavoidably, use CPU.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 06:15:18 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
The touch screen isn't going to work well with many Flash applications which are designed to be used with a mouse and keyboard

Games maybe, but Flash isn't just used for games :)

No, many Flash applications require you to hover a mouse over something for certain features. Take, for example, the Youtube player.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 06:15:18 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
Apple can't force me to use anything, and I shouldn't be able to force them to use anything. Apple puts on their device what consumers want, because they make more money that way. A lot of Flash content would not work, and that content that wouldn't work would only lessen the performance of the device.

and from later on...

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
developer who makes sure everything that they allow their device to do works perfectly.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
No, pages will be slower. Flash applications, unavoidably, use CPU. No matter how good a Flash "programmer" you are, it will use hardware on the device which will cause it to slow down. You're also disregarding the fact that a lot of Flash applications aren't made well, and will REALLY slow down the device. If it slows down a Netbook with greater specs than the iPad, it will slow down the iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad.

Lol Flash "programmer."
No matter how good an App "Programmer" you are, it will use hardware on the device which will cause it to slow down. You're also disregarding the fact that a lot of Apps aren't made well, and will REALLY slow down the device (and eat up more battery life than they are worth).

Apple will not let an application that runs slowly into the app store. Apple can not control what Flash content is displayed, so there will be Flash applications that slow down, and Apple wouldn't be able to do anything to fix that. :)

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 06:15:18 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
Apple doesn't allow a mouse to connect to the iPad because the OS, and every single application is designed to be used with multi-touch. It just wouldn't work. The very fact that you think having a mouse on an iPad would be a good thing shows how dumb you are.

Lol.
Because every single app ever is going to feature Multi Touch something.
When you have the iPad propped up and have to use the screen to navigate while using the keyboard to type, it's clumsy and stupid.  Also their new special snowflake mouse has multi-touch capabilities so weak argument is weak.

Every application is designed to use a multi-touch screen, their operating system is as well. It isn't clumsy or stupid; iPad users are loving the keyboard dock for having their iPad stand up on their desk for use or for typing. I don't see how it's clumsy or stupid at all.

Apple's Magic Mouse doesn't have a screen on it that shows where in the app/os you're going to touch. The Magic Mouse is for gestures, not using multi-touch apps that are designed for use on a multi-touch screen. Now trying to do THAT would be clumsy and stupid.

Dumb namkcor is dumb.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 06:15:18 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
User experience as in, user experience. Apple wants applications and features that make their users enjoy using the device. I'd personally be pissed at Apple if they allowed a mouse that doesn't function correctly on the iPad, a ton of porn applications, applications that violate my privacy, applications that are buggy, and Flash that will be usable sometimes and will slow down the device.

OH NOES PORN!
I'm pretty sure they could make mice work perfectly fine, and you seriously think that the iPad being locked down like a maximum security prison is going to stop people from making applications that attempt to violate privacy, or keep bugs?

I'm sure they couldn't make mice work perfectly fine.

The main reason the application store requires that Apple approve applications is to ensure quality. The reason doesn't even matter. The fact is, it ensures quality in the app store. The majority of applications that are rejected are because of bugs. :)

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 06:15:18 PM
Everything you do on the device will eat the battery, use the hardware, and probably slow it down because it's using such gimp hardware for what they're trying to make it do.

Are you saying their devices aren't capable what Apple is trying to make their device do? What?

Apple approves applications which ensures that the applications function fine, they can't approve Flash applets. :)

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 06:15:18 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
Yes, because they run full blown operating systems that don't consider how low the specifications of the system are. Unless you're using one of those OS's that the manufacturer included that has like 6 basic features. But god, I'd rather just have an iPad. =]

Netbooks run streamlined versions with less features, very hardly full blown, it's not the OS that is the difference.

Really? The Netbooks I've used run Windows and possibly a very small operating system with just a few features that's selectable at boot.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 06:15:18 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PMThese devices are not supposed to have 4 gigs of ram, a quad core, and a 4850 graphics card.

stop contradicting yourself.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
No, pages will be slower. Flash applications, unavoidably, use CPU.

How is that a contradiction? Do you even know what a contradiction is? The iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch are not supposed to have 4 gigs of ram, a quad core, and a 4850 graphics card. This is a reason why Flash wouldn't work on the device. Flash is a bad idea on these devices.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 06:49:43 PM
Apple will not let... Apple can not control...
(later on)
Apple is trying to make their device do?

I think this is exactly what it boils down to.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 06:49:43 PM
Every application is designed to use a multi-touch screen, their operating system is as well. It isn't clumsy or stupid; iPad users are loving the keyboard dock for having their iPad stand up on their desk for use or for typing. I don't see how it's clumsy or stupid at all.

Apple's Magic Mouse doesn't have a screen on it that shows where in the app/os you're going to touch. The Magic Mouse is for gestures, not using multi-touch apps that are designed for use on a multi-touch screen. Now trying to do THAT would be clumsy and stupid.

Dumb namkcor is dumb.

...

I'm sure they couldn't make mice work perfectly fine.

How do you know that every app uses multi-touch?
Do you own the iPad and know what developers are making?

Also I'm pretty sure that Apple could make it so that OH LOOK THERE'S A MOUSE, LET'S SHOW A POINTER ON THE SCREEN.  Touch computers (sorry) LIFESTYLE DEVICES are clumsy at their base, the iPad is no exception.

Also that last part there in bold made me lol.  Big bad Apple can't make THEIR computer work with THEIR mouse?  Hardly.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 06:49:43 PM
Really? The Netbooks I've used run Windows and possibly a very small operating system with just a few features that's selectable at boot.

Hate to break it to you, but Windows for Netbooks is castrated.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
How is that a contradiction?

Why would the video card have to do with anything, you said Flash used the CPU not the video card :)

Do you know how to debate with someone without resorting to name-calling and childish insults?  Didn't think so.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 10:17:21 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 06:49:43 PM
Apple will not let... Apple can not control...
(later on)
Apple is trying to make their device do?

I think this is exactly what it boils down to.

And that's one of the reasons why the iPad iPod Touch, and iPad are so great. Apple ensures quality.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 10:17:21 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 06:49:43 PM
Every application is designed to use a multi-touch screen, their operating system is as well. It isn't clumsy or stupid; iPad users are loving the keyboard dock for having their iPad stand up on their desk for use or for typing. I don't see how it's clumsy or stupid at all.

Apple's Magic Mouse doesn't have a screen on it that shows where in the app/os you're going to touch. The Magic Mouse is for gestures, not using multi-touch apps that are designed for use on a multi-touch screen. Now trying to do THAT would be clumsy and stupid.

Dumb namkcor is dumb.

...

I'm sure they couldn't make mice work perfectly fine.

How do you know that every app uses multi-touch?
Do you own the iPad and know what developers are making?

Also I'm pretty sure that Apple could make it so that OH LOOK THERE'S A MOUSE, LET'S SHOW A POINTER ON THE SCREEN.  Touch computers (sorry) LIFESTYLE DEVICES are clumsy at their base, the iPad is no exception.

Also that last part there in bold made me lol.  Big bad Apple can't make THEIR computer work with THEIR mouse?  Hardly.

Every application is designed for use on a multi-touch screen, not for use with mice. People would buy this mouse then find out that it doesn't do a whole lot of anything.

How are they "clumsy"? I've never heard anyone complain about the iPad being "clumsy"

The iPad is not *designed* to be used with a mouse -- the entire idea that it's a touch device sells it, and there's absolutely no advantage to using a mouse on the iPad. If you want to use a mouse, use your desktop or laptop, which are designed for use with a mouse.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 10:17:21 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 06:49:43 PM
Really? The Netbooks I've used run Windows and possibly a very small operating system with just a few features that's selectable at boot.

Hate to break it to you, but Windows for Netbooks is castrated.

Really? And it still runs like shit? I guess Apple is doing this stuff right.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 10:17:21 PM

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM
How is that a contradiction?

Why would the video card have to do with anything, you said Flash used the CPU not the video card :)

I'm telling you that these devices aren't supposed to have magnificent specs.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 10:17:21 PM
Do you know how to debate with someone without resorting to name-calling and childish insults?  Didn't think so.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 12:15:31 PM
Dumb.

The iPad is not *designed* to be used with a keyboard -- the entire idea that it's a touch device sells it, and there's absolutely no advantage to using a keyboard on the iPad. If you want to use a keyboard, use your desktop or laptop, which are designed for use with a keyboard.

...wait.

Also way to take the "dumb" out of context.
Here, let me get the whole sentence for you.

Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 13, 2010, 12:15:31 PM
Typan on the keyboard then have to move your hand up to the screen to select anything?  Dumb.

Unless English fails to adhere to its own rules, you'd notice that Dumb is a statement talking about the previous sentence, the concept of having to move your hand to the screen from the detachable keyboard (thereby obscuring quite a portion of the screen, but that's a given since you can't do anything without putting fingers all over it and blocking out the screen with your palm) being clumsy and dumb.

Also of course Netbooks run slowly for anything other than basic web browsing and word processing, they are castrated laptops running castrated operating systems.  Just because the iPad can do meaningless things that  faster than castrated laptops doesn't mean the iPad is any better.

Quote from: Irock on April 13, 2010, 05:53:25 PM

Quote from: Roph on April 13, 2010, 08:33:30 AM
So you're happy for apple to force you to use what they want you to use, rather than the other way around? Even though lots of flash content would work perfectly, if the user was simply allowed to use it?

Apple can't force me to use anything, and I shouldn't be able to force them to use anything. Apple puts on their device what consumers want, because they make more money that way. A lot of Flash content would not work, and that content that wouldn't work would only lessen the performance of the device.

No; that doesn't even make sense. If you're given the option to toggle flash on/off any time you wish, it would be a positive thing because you could actually use the web as it was intended to be used. If I use Flashblock I can simply click any flash object and have it go, as well as add sites to the list of exceptions. Don't like the flash object? Have a little button in the bottom of the screen (or in a menu) that'll stop it, for the entire page or otherwise. Either way, there's clearly a market for people who want to use flash, and that's what makes money. Sure, some of it wouldn't work but at least you can choose! Hell, for what it's worth it could even be disabled by default (the entire feature).

I also agree with Nam. Touch devices with a (physical) keyboard are rather clumsy, but at the very least you're given the option.

 :nogames:

IT STILL BLENDS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE =o
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi40.tinypic.com%2Fo5947c.png&hash=58c8df0b46cd27b1c302e10e60fbc6e7ce894a5d)