Don't cast your axe into the sea
|
|
|
Apple Ipad 2 review
Product Apple Ipad 2
Website http://www.apple.com/uk/ipad/
Specifications 1GHz dual-core A5 processor, 512MB RAM, from 16GB to 64GB storage, 9.7-inch 1024x768 display, IOS 4.3, 241.2x185.7x8.8mm, 613g.
Price From £399 WiFi only
APPLE'S SECOND GENERATION TABLET has arrived in the UK in the form of the Ipad 2, and we've got our hands on one at The INQUIRER to see how it shapes up compared to the first model and other tablets available.
One of the most significant upgrades that the Ipad 2 has is its 1GHz dual-core A5 processor. The first Ipad has a single core A4 so there is the potential for twice as much power in the new tablet. The new processor is very fast and can cope with almost anything you throw at it. We found loading applications, web browsing, video playback, automatic orientation and gaming (we could keep going) were all smooth and well within the processor's capability. Loading and closing applications is almost instant and we found that we could switch quickly and easily between apps meaning multi-tasking is definitely one of the best aspects of the Ipad 2.
Another hardware upgrade Apple has made to the Ipad 2 is doubling the amount of RAM, which now stands at 512MB compared to the first Ipad's 256MB. We found no lag while using the tablet so feel the 512MB is sufficient for the operating system even though this specification may look slightly lacking compared to other tablets that are coming out that mostly have 1GB or in some cases 2GB.
The combination of the faster processor, extra RAM and the proficient operating system mean that the overall performance of the tablet is outstanding, and the best we've experienced on a tablet. There is the usual choice of 16GB, 32GB and 64GB storage with the options of WiFi only, or WiFi and 3G. The model we reviewed was a 64GB 3G/WiFi version on the Vodafone network, priced at £379 plus a 24-month contract. There is, sadly, still no inclusion of a storage expansion slot from Apple.
It may come as delightful news that a big difference in the new Ipad is the addition of a pair of cameras. The tablet comes with a front facing 0.3MP VGA camera and a rear facing camera capable of recording 720p video. These are low specifications which look even worse when you compare them to the 5MP cameras that are coming with some other tablets.
Unfortunately the results of the cameras mean that they are one of the worst features about the Ipad 2. While the front camera is fun with the Photo Booth application, which adds effects to pictures, it doesn't produce a very good picture for video conferencing. The rear camera is almost pointless because it not only lacks a flash, but produces very poor quality photographs that are grainy and dark. The results from shooting video were slightly better but it also raises the question about the practicality of taking photos or video with a 10-inch device.
We tested Facetime, which wasn't on the first Ipad, between our Ipad 2 and an Iphone 4. We found that the experience was far from smooth, with a low frame rate and a lot of jerking to the video. The other main drawback to Facetime is that you're limited to calling other Apple devices that have the feature and have access to a WiFi network.
Share this:
Share
Amongst the myriad of revues of the iPad, I can't find a single one that tells me what it's for, exactly!
It's too big to be a phone - no proper keyboard so rubbish for writing - LCD display, so useless for reading e-books unless you live in a cave.
Am I right in thinking this is a fashion-accessory?
of unconsidered bile and lack of authority to back your assertions.
Normal book reading distance for books is actually considered to be 14", but by the time a person reaches middle age they may struggle to focus that closely. See http://www.agingeye.net/otheragingeye/presbyopia.php
For protracted reading from a screen research puts the most comfortable reading distance at between 30 and 40 inches (which is close to the relaxed focus point of the eye). See http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/vangle.htm
For tablet devices most people prefer to read them in their laps or on a table, which puts their reading distance closer to 24" (the recommended minimum for a computer screen)
The iPhone 4's selling point for it's screen is that the pixels are too small for most people to see, but this is generally considered to be overkill by imaging professionals and the quality of the iPad screen is very high (though they do say that Apple could improve their anti-aliasing code to address sub-pixels and get better apparent sharpness). See http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_iPhone_ShootOut.htm
You've also failed to show how other 10" tablets are significantly better (good look with that).
You see the "haters" instead of grasping the reality. If you'd post it on Apr 1 i'd consider it a joke. The best i can say today you were drinking too much the Friday night. The "quality of screen" or IPS is a plus generally but it does not fix the monstrous pixelation of tablets when reading texts or browsing.
What Raptor wrote is completely right. It is true that iPad2 surface area is almost an order larger for the same pix count which is really wow.
It is well known that the optimal distance to see anything in your hands -- the phones and tablets same as books and newspapers -- which is called "optimal distance for viewing" or "best viewing distance" is approximately 10" but often taken as 12" too, it does not matter. What matters is that's how human eye works, due to evolution or creation, up to you.
And the iPhone or iPad, XOOM, Kindle etc are supposed to be kept at approximately the same distance. The fact that all monitors have smaller actual resolution but the implied/perceived gets larger (in accordance with SMPTE best viewing distance) has nothing to do in our case of cellphones and tablets - latter ones are supposed to be kept at this optimal distance for viewing 10-12" no matter of the size. When there will be 14" or even 20" iPad#5 (of the size of typical two-sided open journal printed typically at 300 DPI) you will keep it at the same distance. You can not keep closer then 10-12" the 1" monitors either.
At that optimal distance for viewing the 300 DPI is close to the threshold of visible pixelation. The people speculated earlier that iPad2 would address "retina display" resolutions after iPhone4. It did not. And all other tablets without exclusion so far are still also total @#$% for reading.
and adding their irrational views to the pot, so I'll put my counter arguments.
@Raptor, most computer monitors run to between 90 and 110 DPI. OMG, your eyes must be bleeding trying to read this! Not. The important factor here is reading distance. Phones tend to be held much closer than the distance you read your computer monitor at. Pads, somewhere in between. There's very little appreciable difference between the resolution of say, the iPad and the Kindle (at 167 DPI) as the human eye generally needs 40% more linear resolution before there's a noticeable difference (i.e. double the pixels at the same reading distance). Try web browsing on some of the Android tablets if you like, they're all somewhere around the 130-170 DPI mark, but the quality of the screen makes more of a difference than the DPI (and the iPad IPS screen is a top end part).
@pp SOME iPad 2 buyers have noticed backlight bleeding. Mostly they have to try very hard to see it (a totally black screen in a dark room). If they do discover a problem then Apple will replace the device free of charge. Hardly a MASSIVE problem is it?
Hi guys have you tried the Tango app.
Video calls on any smartphone.
Used it a few times and the results we acceptable, plus it works on a 3G network to Wi-Fi or 3G to 3G.
A whole review, and yet zero mention of the MASSIVE Backlight Bleeding problem that has been posted since day one in many USA Forums, and now also on UK Forums with people taking iPad's back and finding even the replacements have the problem also.
Why is this being hushed up by the big web sites?
No, Rev. Phred, un-fre@king-believable is fre@king-different-thing. The Apple designs makes people lose their minds. Incuding those who supposed-to-be-tech-reviewers but actually are mostly drinkers-with-writing-problems.
Who in their right mind could write that: "Browsing the Internet on the Ipad2 is a pleasurable experience" ?
The screen has THE SAME information capacity as the iPhone4 (or same amount of pixels) on its 8 TIMES larger surface area so the terrible pixelation makes it absolutely not suitable for browsing! 130 DPI. It's like times of 1/8 VGA (or a Half of Quarter VGA if you like) returned from the oblivion.
On ignore.
Does anybody really expect to be hauling this dinner place around taking pictures? Who cares about the camera?
I too was surprised to see a positive take on an iPad from the Inq.
there is HDMI support:
http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/mirroring.html
A fair Apple review from INQ? Un freakin' believable.