Macbook or iPad, that is the question...

We have a mini for our desktop computer and we need an extra computer so we aren't fighting over it all the time. Should we wait a while for the iPad? We will mainly be using it for surfing the web, email, FaceBook...The entry level Macbook is around $1k so I'm thinking about waiting.....any advice? Thanks everyone! Oh, and we don't have iPhones either so we def. need something!

Its more of a personal choice when it comes down to it David.
You seem to know what you will be doing with either, which is a bonus. If it comes down to $ then the cheaper option should do you fine, but if not, the i would go the MB. And the entry level MB isnt a great deal more expensive and you then have a full OS for you to use.
If you want the "new beaut" stuff go the iPad.
The ball is in your court

From what you want, go and save $500 and get a iPad, get at least 10GB.

If you want to produce stuff, or make things more complicated then what it sounds like you want, get a mac

Tryx said:

From what you want, go and save $500 and get a iPad, get at least 10GB.

Click to expand...

What ?

It sounds like you guys have a "main computer" already, but just want to be able to do a few web things while the other is using "the computer."

From what you've written, the iPad sounds *perfect* for you, and is $500 cheaper than the MacBook.

I have removed all the hi-jack posts and the responses to them.

It seems you removed a post I got a nice reputation from. And now in my profile it says the thread the reputation comes from is N/A. I found that very funny.

For another option....you might consider an iPod Touch. It does e-mail and Facebook quite well and has a decent browser. It's not in first-generation anymore (as the iPad is) so it is a little more "developed." About $200-300 depending on the amount of storage you want.

I have a MacBook and love it. It is my primary computer, and my Touch is my "ultraportable" if you will. It's a good setup for me, but may or may not be for you.

depends what you want it for. If you can get by with the functionality of an ipod touch but just wish it was bigger get an ipad. If you want a computer get a macbook.

I recently got an air, between that and my iphone i have no need for any more mobile devices.

wow any post criticizing the iPad is hijack?
guess all posts should read "great device" , "wonderful idea", "Apple is the greatest" and "I want to have Steve Jobs' children"

for merely browsing, I would go with the iPad. But if you intend on using your device for several hours (research, graphic design, audio/video editing, etc.) i would go with the mbp

Like everyone else has been saying, if you want it primarily for internet and mail and Facebook, iPad would be fine. Just keep in mind that it does not have flash support, so some of the websites you might frequent might not work. However, to counter this, many major websites, like nytimes.com, have their own dedicated app where things that required flash on the website work just fine.

The iPad also does not have a disc drive, so watching DVDs on it is out of the question (unless ripped into iTunes).

Personally, I would go with the MB. You can log a lot of time into it, and it can do a lot more than the iPad. It also has a full dedicated OS. The MB also has a physical keyboard, which is nice, seeing how the iPad keyboard has not gotten very great reviews. The benefits of the MB also allow for more applications, as well as the disc drive and more memory. Chances are the MB will also be able to take more wear and tear than the glass display of the iPad.

But when htmal 5 comes into being. And it is being worked on now as we speak. It does everything flash can do and more, all in html. So that'd mean no flash or flash plugins needed to view all the same content. And I think this is what Jobs is betting on when he made the ipad.

I think an iPad would suit you well for the uses you described....now you guys can fight over that on the couch.

the8thark said:

But when htmal 5 comes into being. And it is being worked on now as we speak. It does everything flash can do and more, all in html. So that'd mean no flash or flash plugins needed to view all the same content. And I think this is what Jobs is betting on when he made the ipad.

Click to expand...

Ain't gonna be for a long time, so I wouldn't put money on Flash disappearing so soon. I hate to always use this as an example, but being an amateur photographer, it's the one thing I can always site with experience. I don't know of any photo hosting site on the net which is coded in HTML5. This might not sound like a big deal, but it's huge.

Professional and amateur photographers and illustrators whom want to get their work across to Johnny public, tend to look for web support in the form of galleries. Most galleries I see are using ... Flash. Either for slide shows or other things. Sure, if you're a professional web designer, you can code your way though a beautiful site and host your photos etc.. but if not, and you can't afford to hire a consultant, or a professional web designer (maintenance is costly) then you go elsewhere.

My point being, the iPad would never work for people whom rely on Flash to deliver their content to (and on) the web. And that's a WHOLE LOT of people. Whether we like it, or not. Personally, I'd love for Flash to die already. But not at the price of losing a perfectly working technology in favor of something that isn't supported by the folks on the 'other side' of the pond.

I also think that a lot of people are far too quick to dismiss the fact that Google has a boat load of time and money invested into Flash, with the Open Screen Project, amongst other things. They're really into Flash, hard... And I seriously doubt that MS is in a hurry for HTML5 to hit the pavement either.

Personally speaking, I think that Jobs is far too stubborn for his own good.

Doug

How can you tell if a website you frequent uses flash?

Cya

Doug they probably said the same thing about digital media. Methods of delivering content will never change if we don't have devices driving it.

Flash, as a way of delivering content, is complete crap. I'm sure HTML5 will have ways of delivering slide shows, sure you'll have to update your gallery software, but that's hardly a reason for us to stand still and carry on using inferior software.

Flash was probably impressive when people were still surfing from a terminal using lynx, but it just doesn't cut it anymore and we need a few people to say "know what, it's about time we dropped it as a format. We aren't going to support it on our devices". You'd be amazed how quickly HTML5 got off the ground if a few more hardware providers done this.

earl97850 said:

How can you tell if a website you frequent uses flash?

Click to expand...

If your CPU starts overheating and your browser crashes the site is probably using flash. Or if it has animation, videos or cheesy effects it's more than likely using flash to deliver content.

kbOx said:

If your CPU starts overheating and your browser crashes the site is probably using flash. Or if it has animation, videos or cheesy effects it's more than likely using flash to deliver content.

Click to expand...

If you have an iPad where the battery life was only 1.5 hours you got the experimental one from Apple with FLASH enabled. That was a stunning revelation about power conservation in a portable device.

I laughed yesterday at the news of a supposed iPad killer with the Android OS that does FLASH. This particular Android tablet boasted as having a 'microfan' to keep it cool. Imagine the background noise in a class if every student had one of those Android tablets. It would give a whole new meaning to Google Buzz!

I also wondered if that Android tablet included a heavy duty marine battery to power it for a full ten hours?

kbOx said:

Doug they probably said the same thing about digital media. Methods of delivering content will never change if we don't have devices driving it.

Flash, as a way of delivering content, is complete crap. I'm sure HTML5 will have ways of delivering slide shows, sure you'll have to update your gallery software, but that's hardly a reason for us to stand still and carry on using inferior software.

Flash was probably impressive when people were still surfing from a terminal using lynx, but it just doesn't cut it anymore and we need a few people to say "know what, it's about time we dropped it as a format. We aren't going to support it on our devices". You'd be amazed how quickly HTML5 got off the ground if a few more hardware providers done this.


If your CPU starts overheating and your browser crashes the site is probably using flash. Or if it has animation, videos or cheesy effects it's more than likely using flash to deliver content.

Click to expand...

Ok, thank you.

Cya

kbOx said:

Doug they probably said the same thing about digital media. Methods of delivering content will never change if we don't have devices driving it.

Flash, as a way of delivering content, is complete crap. I'm sure HTML5 will have ways of delivering slide shows, sure you'll have to update your gallery software, but that's hardly a reason for us to stand still and carry on using inferior software.

Flash was probably impressive when people were still surfing from a terminal using lynx, but it just doesn't cut it anymore and we need a few people to say "know what, it's about time we dropped it as a format. We aren't going to support it on our devices". You'd be amazed how quickly HTML5 got off the ground if a few more hardware providers done this.

Click to expand...

What I think that you and many, many others aren't getting, is that people like me are not against Flash disappearing and being taken over by HTML5. However... it can not happen over night like we'd hope for it to. Yet, the move of cutting off one's nose to spite its face, has been an age old lesson which you'd think the likes of a smart man like Job's would come to terms with. Another however.... The real problem here, is that Jobs isn't actually cutting off much of his nose because his loyal followers will eat anything Apple serves at the dinner table, regardless of whether or not a main course is missing from the feast.

When major corporations and companies aren't playing in the same ballpark as Apple is *for whatever reason's they may have*, it's pretty logical that these guys don't care a bit about the common good of the consumer *that goes for Apple and the rest of em'*, but would rather keep on waging their own personal wars until the funding for all of the ad hype runs out, or until we're so inundated with it that we no longer care or just spend our money on which ever technology is already ahead of the game.

I understand the strategy behind what Stevie is doing, but I don't agree with the tactics he's using to pull them off, at all. Why not just allow currently working technology exist on your platform UNTIL HTML 5 gains a much larger foot hold in the market ?

I do not believe for one second that the prevalence and success of HTML 5 depends upon how soon everybody will STOP using Flash. Let's say that everybody decided to just stop using Flash. Ok... great. But now what ? There aren't enough HTML 5 engineers/coders and content to fill in the now empty gap. None of the major browsers (setting Safari aside) are on board with HTML 5, either. So please tell me what the point is then ? You can't just say.. "the sooner people stop using Flash, the sooner HTML 5 will replace it", because that is an totally untrue statement.

If it was possible, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm all for the death of Flash, but again.... not at the cost of not having a readily available replacement from every aspect that it's needed.

Doug