Talk:Early tablet computers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tablet PC is not "just about Microsoft". It's about Tablet Personal Computers

Anyone who is familiar with the Personal Computer should already know that PC is not a term specific to Microsoft, despite what Apple ads may make you believe. But here are a few links of interest to those thinking that Tablet PC is an old foldable tablet running Windows:

1. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1292428.1292445 -- Refers to tablets running Linux as Tablet PCs
2. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K1HD20100721 -- ""We want the tablet PC to be compatible with our LePhone smartphone, which is why we're using Android," Wu said."
3. http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2010/8/19/rim-use-qnx-os-blackberry-tablet-pc/ -- Refers to Blackberry running QNX or Blackberry OS as Tablet PC
4. http://www.littleabout.com/Techno/stamp-android-tablet-pc-india,98266.html -- "the new Android $ 50 Tablet PC"
5. http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-770-Internet-Tablet-PC/dp/B000CSVZTU/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1284531090&sr=8-12 -- "Nokia 770 Internet Tablet PC"
6. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Linux+Tablet+PC&x=0&y=0 -- Amazon search results for Linux Tablet PC. Yields many tablet system entitled as Tablet PCs

It is obvious from the above that Tablet PC is not specific to MS. Readers looking for Tablet PC information from Wikipedia should not be misinformed to think that Tablet PCs only run Microsoft Windows.

Furthermore, anyone looking at archived sections of this discussion will find editors complaining that the article was too focused to Microsoft and moved to rectify the problem by adding information about Linux tablets. This now seems more important than ever with the evolution of Tablet PC Operating Systems such as Meego and Android.

For those reasons edits that relocate sections from this article to Tablet Computer should stop. It's bad for the readers. Vyx (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Duh, the question is if not "tablet PC", -what- should the article be named that really does talk about those Microsoft tablets PC's from yesteryear??????? Mahjongg (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A section of course. I did propose that when I wrote many months ago: I support both proposals: a generic tablet computer article that would include non-personal restricted devices and the opening of this article outside the scopes of the Microsoft OS (for example the Nokia N900 would make a perfect candidate for inclusion as well as Symbian which you point out)

This proposal was formed after a long debate with User:Ancheta_Wis, was supported by User:Labattblueboy and User:Kevin_Beckman and was recommended by User:Ucucha Vyx (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And if this becomes the general article, per the above consensus it has to be merged with tablet computer - iPad and all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You mistake your viewpoint as consensus. While you may be in agreement with some editors who are startled to see that "the iPad is not in this article" -- the only consensus regarding that, is from the Move Request (which I restored from the archive you set to 90 days twice you had reverted my edit) which clearly states

no consensus for move

In your consensus, you never provided any reason why tablet personal computer systems entitled as Tablet PCs by their manufacturers and the retailers must be in a Tablet Computer category unless they run Windows. That seems absurd to me and from carefully reading this talk page I am suspecting that neutral participants had not realized that you had ~that~ in your mind; but I have to thank you for providing an insightful comment in your talk page:

The move request was conducted on 15 February 2010 which was before the iPad was released. And the iPad has changed the whole tablet PC/computer/whatever market.

Which is of course wrong for reasons I've stated there, but it also makes it clear: it's all about the iPad really. And since Apple refuses the Tablet PC both as functionality and title, you actually believe that their market success entitles them to have Tablet PCs redefined in Wikipedia. I find this unacceptable; it's an encyclopedia, it's meant to inform readers not update them to "what's hot". I have proposed instead to insert an iPad section about jailbroken iPads in Tablet PC -- if they actually exist and are supported as the ModBook is -- but you have ignored that as well. Vyx (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope I've made my views clearer in the section below: -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Issues as I see them

For clarity there appear to be two issues here.

1. That there is an article called tablet computer and one called tablet PC, both of these are about very similar topics so per the above consensus should be merged. Following a pre-iPad consensus on the matter is silly as the iPad is hands down the most successful tablet device and thus cannot be completely excluded. Ditto Android tablets etc. I really am not bothered what this article is called.
2. It is probably worthwhile having an article on the specific product Microsoft Tablet PC, I really am not bothered as to what this article is called either - and this is less important than the first point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can read that "pre-iPad consensus" debate and see that it was made for the imminent release of the iPad. There is no specific product named "Microsoft Tablet PC". You made this in your mind. For the rest, see above. Vyx (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no specific product named "Microsoft tablet PC"? Really? I guess Microsoft then never made a specific version of Windows for them in 2002, oh wait... [1]. Sorry I'm no specific fan of Microsofts Tablet PC's, but to claim they have never existed is a bit strange. Note that this product was simply called "Tablet PC", as there simply then were no other tablet PC's to distinguish them from. In this talk page we have started to add "microsoft" in front because we now have other products that use the same name, but the original term explicitly meant a system running this version of Windows. and at the least for the last eight years or so the term "tablet PC", has been in exclusive use for the systems using "windows tablet PC edition" from Microsoft. Mahjongg (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft never made a product called "Microsoft Tablet PC". You are referring to "Windows XP Tablet PC Edition" OS. Microsoft created the Tablet PC term as a loose set of requirements. It's not a product. Claiming that Tablet PC is an exclusive term for MS for the past years is wrong: This 2007 publication refers to Linux Tablet PCs as "Tablet PCs".

Tablet PC is as exclusive to Microsoft any longer as Personal Computer is exclusive to the Apple II. Vyx (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But Microsoft has made a tablet PC product (as XP tablet PC edition and later stuff built into some editions of Windows Vista/7) and there is enough to talk about it for it to be worthy of it's own article. If not it can be merged into the main tablet article. And while in January the iPad had been announced we didn't know whether it was going to take off or be another Apple TV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

PS by consensus on a merge I mean that everyone whose commented on the matter in the past couple of months thinks tablet PC and tablet computer should be merged other than Vyx. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is already an appropriate Tablet PC section in the Windows XP editions entry. Since your request is about the Windows operating system (I thought it was about a non-existing Microsoft product called Microsoft Tablet PC), I believe you should discuss that request there. I doubt you will because that wouldn't make any difference on the iPad Tablet Computer issue.

You mistake consensus for acclamation. Here are some excerpts from those who commented on the matter in the past couple of months :

1. whatever the technical definitions of "personal computer" and "computer" are, these devices all compete with each other in the eyes of users, businesses and therefore should all be grouped together in one article. -- encyclopaedia is not a public opinion anthology.
2. I think tablet PCs are at heart fully foldable laptops with ability to respond to a stylus (and by now probably to one's fingers). So I think they belong to the laptop class. -- either an exercise to oxymoron or not aware of this technology and its progress. Funnily the proposed solution to this objection is to: remove all content referring to tablet PCs which don't run MS Windows and to make sure it is included on Tablet computer instead.
3. RFC: Merge table PC and tablet computer -- you and Mahjongg agreeing again on the same arguments you've repeated on the Apple iPad section a few weeks ago.

As you can see, it's an attempt to acclamation. I don't boo with you, that's all. Don't try and make consensus out of it. Vyx (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Vyx it is quite clear on the above consensus that there is only room for one article on tablet computers, and its not just me and Mahjongg saying it, SnottyWong, Camilo Sanchez, Societyalum all agree too. Whether that article is called tablet computer or tablet PC isn't really worth arguing about - the reason the content was moved to the other article was that it was more complete. If instead we have an article here on all tablet computers that is fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that Tablet PC and Tablet computer need to be merged. There is no discernable difference between the two. There is no "tablet" style computer (that I know of) that is not meant for consumer use. No one is using tablet computers for commercial or research purposes. All tablet computers are personal computers. Therefore, merge the two articles. The assertion that the term "Tablet PC" is Microsoft-specific has been thoroughly disproven. SnottyWong ^talk 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you propose that they should be merged under the Tablet Computer or the Tablet PC title ?

I have always recommended "Tablet PC" or "Tablet Personal Computer" as searching "Tablet Computer" on Amazon yields zero results titled thus, while Tablet PC turns out lots regardless of the OS. Apple is an exception because not only does Apple reject the term (by clearly stating that in their META description of the iPad page), but also in functionality: personal computers are defined as computers that work without an intervening operator whereas the iPad can't run applications not approved by Apple. This may seem a subtle detail, but it does have serious consequences such as rejections of Adobe Flash or Java or even Commodore 64 emulator implementations.

And therein lies the rub. Tablets are undoubtedly personal items. But the Personal Computer term is more than "personal property" and it may be the difference of accessing or not accessing a Flash page, a potentially huge difference in functionality, despite Steve Jobs saying the times they are a changin', and some traditional PC folks feel like their world is slipping away.

So the Tablet Computer entry was created after a long debate on the Move Request some months ago; it was created specifically for the iPad. Personally I find the current situation to be OK: Tablet Computer is a fine generic category for tablets that don't adhere the Personal Computer freedom requirements; Tablet PC is great for the many Tablet PCs out there. I believe the encyclopedia would suffer without this Tablet PC entry being vastly improved but staying focused on Tablets that abide by the Personal Computer definition. But my 3rd opinion request was a honest one; I've invested too much personal time on this debate and I am going to stand by your opinion whatever it is. Vyx (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I still stand that around 2002 Microsoft drew up specifications for "a new hardware platform" they dubbed a "tablet PC". Microsoft doesn't itself create hardware (not even the "Microsoft mouse"), but they can and do specify platforms, and try to get interest in those platform's, and support them with "special windows versions". that is what happened, and is simply a fact. Its also a fact that in the years after, when you mentioned "tablet computer" you were taking about systems built to these Microsoft specification, using the software Microsoft wrote. Yes, after a couple of years (5 in this case) there were competitors who to a lesser or better degree tried to create something similar, and used the same term for their product. I claim there was consensus at the time that when the term "tablet PC" was used, (without further specification) it was obvious you were talking about a system that used the Microsoft specifications. Thats simply a fact. Also, there is a difference between using the term "personal computer", and "PC". Mahjongg (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we focus on merging the two articles together and then, if there's enough content on Microsoft's tablet (which I think is likely), we can create a sub-article on the Microsoft tablet PC per WP:SUMMARY. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

sounds sensible to me: Mahjongg (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Vyx I don't honestly mind the title for the new merged article, you may choose. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Tablet PC. Keep in mind, the iPad should not be in the merged article. Vyx (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why in the world would we miss out the top selling tablet device of the year? As far as I'm aware Microsoft sell about 4 million tablet PC's a year. Given Apple sold over 3 million in the first quarter of the iPad it is definitely more than notable enough for inclusion even if sales have dropped to virtually zero after the first quarter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The argument is whether or not the iPad is a tablet PC or a PDA. I don't think the answer to that question is black and white. It would probably be worth finding some reliable sources which address that question rather than introduce our own opinions (i.e. original research) into the article. SnottyWong ^speak 01:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys I got it. The solution to this dilemma is very simple. I was browsing through the terminology and I have come to this conclusion. Tablet PC is a very confusing term if put next to Tablet computer. Many websites that sell tablet pcs refer to them as tablet notebooks and/or tablet laptops. I think what we need to do is simply change the name of this article to either Tablet Notebook (it could also be Tablet Notebook Computer, although I think it's redundant) or Tablet laptop and leave the other article as Tablet computer. I believe this makes a much better clearer distinction between both type of computers. I would like to add that I disagree on any distinction based on brand names (such as Microsoft). thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fair point. Lets look at some reliable sources:

• Tech Radar spells it out quite carefully "Top 10 best tablet PC iPad alternatives: Looking for a tablet that's not an iPad? Then try one of these…"
• CNet review bottom line: "The Apple iPad is the first affordable tablet computer worth owning, but it won't (yet) replace your laptop."
• The Telegraph The headline says it all: "Apple iPad: 40 per cent of shoppers would ditch laptop for tablet PC, survey finds - Study by Kelkoo reveals that 4 in 10 consumers would swap their computer for Apple's iPad"
• Arstechnica makes a direct comparison between the iPad and Microsoft Tablet PC "Microsoft still doesn't understand why its Tablet PC concept has repeatedly bombed over the best part of a decade. Apple sold more iPads in its first three months of availability than PC vendors sold Tablet PCs in the whole of last year;"
• The Economist goes as close as anyone by saying "Consumers may buy a tablet as a “third device”, between mobile phones and personal computers" but they also say "GIVEN all the hype ahead of the arrival of Apple’s new tablet computer, the debut on April 3rd of the iPad in America" in their first sentence. (Note a subscription is probably required.
• Syndey Morning Herald state "This is not a substitute for a laptop or desktop computer. The iPad is a completely new class of product which sits between the laptop and the smartphone" - so they think the iPad is a "third way" device though they do call it a 'tablet computer' not a PDA throughout.
• Straits Times = "BERLIN - THE German maker of a new tablet PC is setting out to rival Apple's iPad with the promise of even more technology such as a bigger screen, a webcam and USB ports."
• Engadget - its only post announcement and before the iPad was released but "Apple's iPad to demand lion's share of tablet PC market?" is fairly clear.

From these sources there is no implication that the iPad is a PDA, you could argue its a "third way" device, though where to draw the line is difficult. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

@Camilo Sanchez your idea is a good one, that is backed up by at least some of the above reliable sources. Though "tablet laptops" would have to run a full desktop OS - e.g. Desktop Windows, Mac OS X or desktop Linux. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead1, if am not mistaken, you are against the renaming of the article right?..I understand all the sources you are showing. I just think Tablet pc and Tablet computer are very similar terms and quite confusing to the average reader. Why are you so against it? (if you are that is). Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

@Eraserhead1 ..sorry bro, didn't see your response before. Guess we were edditing around the same time. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). For clarity the only reason I tried to make this article "Microsoft only" was because the other article tablet computer is now pretty general and the difference seemed to be pretty arbitrary - if we move this article to tablet laptop then the difference is clear enough for me :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok, so you are saying this is an article only about the Microsoft Tablet PC right? ..ok, well, I guess we have to create an article called tablet laptop and rename this one Microsoft Tablet PC and we move all the information relevant to non-MS Tablet PC to the Tablet laptop article..you ok with that? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have created the article Tablet laptop which is a redirect to Laptop#Tablet_laptop. I think some information in this article actually belongs in that section, but this article has been protected so there is not much I can do about it. Anyhow, Eraserhead1, since you have basically hijacked this article, is it possible that you add the term Microsoft to the article so we can reduce the confusion? Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I'll see if I can do some more work on that over the weekend. I suggest we wait until protection has expired to figure out what to do with this article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree somewhat that this article is only about the Microsoft Tablet PC, but not about calling the main article "tablet laptop". Let me explain where I stand on this once more. My point was that the term "Tablet PC" was first used (and used for some time) for Microsoft Tablet PC's only, so if these tablets get their own article (which I think is logical) then the article should logically be named "Tablet PC", but to avoid confusion with other "tablet PC's" its a good idea to make the title more specific, so "Microsoft Tablet PC" is a good choice. Regarding the name of the article that encompasses all "tablet shaped computers", I wouldn't choose "tablet PC", as I honestly don't see how one would name the article so that it would artificially exclude the iPad from it. Even though the argument that the iPad isn't a PC "because you cannot choose the software you want to put on it, but are dependent on a third party", strikes me as a fabrication, especially if you say the iPad is not a "Personal computer" because of it. I have never heard that argument anywhere else but on these talk pages. Anyway, the "personal" in PC means its for your personal use, it implies nothing else. Still because the sentiment exists that "PC" is simply another term for a wintel system, I must conclude that calling the article "tablet PC" is objectionable. Also, I can foresee that this article will be used for many more and even more different tablet shaped computers in the future, so I would op for the most generic name, and that is "tablet computer", however I do accept that by nature any tablet computer would be for personal use, so I don't mind "tablet personal computer" If people want to stress the point. Finally, the term "tablet laptop" seems artificial! I never heard anybody call them "laptops", actually the term is also logically wrong, as the device is not designed to be put specifically onto your lap, you will see that most people will hold it near their face with one or both hands. Therefore I think as a title "tablet laptop" is wrong, as well as it is OR. Same holds for tablet notebook, that is also original research. Never heard it named this way. So concluding, I'm for calling the main article simply "Tablet computer", (or if must be "Tablet personal computer") and for calling this article "Microsoft tablet PC". Mahjongg (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an article called Tablet computer, and it is about the iPad-like devices that are coming up. Tablet laptop is another way vendors call laptop computers with the swivel thing. Just do a google search and look it up yourself. The problem is that they are making this article about the Microsoft product, so if they want to make it about the Microsoft Tablet PC as Eraserhead1 does then so be it. Just rename it. Also, what you are saying that the term Tablet laptop is artificial is your own POV and if you have never heard of it just google search tablet laptop and see for yourself. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I did "see for myself", and think I've not changed opinion, googling for "tablet laptop" mostly gives results like "tablet/laptop" or "is it a tablet or a laptop". "tablet laptop" doesn't seem to be a well known term, especially its not a term in general use for all tablet shaped computers. There is some misunderstanding going on about what should be the reason why "they are making this article about the Microsoft product", its because from the beginning its -was- only about the Microsoft tablet PC, so why should we move its content to another article? If the name is too generic now, just rename the article. All material that doesn't belong in the article anymore can be simply cut and pasted to the new main article ("tablet computer"), its not as if there is something magical to the bytes of this article, as if this article is the "holy ground" or something. Mahjongg (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The iPad is not a Tablet Personal Computer

Eraserhead1 points above at 8 reliable sources which he thinks make the iPad appropriate for the Tablet PC entry. I will agree with his points on The Telegraph and possibly Techradar. But for the rest, I think that he misses the point which is in fact the reverse of what he thinks:

• CNet review bottom line: "The Apple iPad is the first affordable tablet computer worth owning, but it won't (yet) replace your laptop."

The article also states:

"Summary: Non-customizable, non-flexible, non-accessorized closed-architecture, restricted 'user experience' and Classic Steve Jobs at his most 'I will tell you what you want'. [...] The iPad is just a platform for purchasing content, like video, magazines, books, apps and games. And conveniently, iTunes and the App Store don't provide comprehensive lists of apps you've bought for your iPhone or media you already paid for, so you'll probably be re-purchasing content. Snap. People are far better off with one of the newer Windows tablets or just about any Netbook, that is, unless they're utterly computer illiterate, have poor eyesight, etc."

Which is exactly not what a Personal Computer is; the strengths and weaknesses of this approach can be debated, even inside the Tablet PC or the Tablet Computer or the iPad article -- but the CNET article definitely echoes my thoughts on why the iPad should not be in the Tablet PC article.

• Arstechnica makes a direct comparison between the iPad and Microsoft Tablet PC "Microsoft still doesn't understand why its Tablet PC concept has repeatedly bombed over the best part of a decade. Apple sold more iPads in its first three months of availability than PC vendors sold Tablet PCs in the whole of last year;"

The article continues as "in fact, the number of iPads sold in that period is likely to eclipse the number of Tablet PCs sold both last year and this". Which means that the author doesn't consider iPads to be Tablet PCs, although he may consider Tablet PCs to be a Microsoft-specific platform. But then Ars Technica also has this article in which the Modbook is titled as Tablet PC, Mac style. So the point here is moot.

• The Economist goes as close as anyone by saying "Consumers may buy a tablet as a “third device”, between mobile phones and personal computers" but they also say "GIVEN all the hype ahead of the arrival of Apple’s new tablet computer, the debut on April 3rd of the iPad in America" in their first sentence. (Note a subscription is probably required.

This is exactly the point of not including the iPad on the Tablet Personal Computer category. Ditto for the Syndey Morning Herald: The iPad is a completely new class of product which sits between the laptop and the smartphone

• Straits Times "BERLIN - THE German maker of a new tablet PC is setting out to rival Apple's iPad with the promise of even more technology such as a bigger screen, a webcam and USB ports."

Yes, the iPad is a rival technology to Tablet PCs. But it's not a Tablet PC because on a personal computer one would never have to "have any particular software, Ankershoffen said - a blow to Apple's devices that require particular Apple software like iTunes" as the article states.

• Engadget - its only post announcement and before the iPad was released but "Apple's iPad to demand lion's share of tablet PC market?" is fairly clear.

The article also states:

Problem is, the iPad isn't really a tablet PC is it? As Technologizer astutely points out, "the iPad isn't a traditional PC –- it's more of an appliance. You don't tinker with your television; you turn it on and consume services."

My thoughts exactly. The iPad should *not* be in the Tablet PC article. A Tablet PC is a Personal Computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyx (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong arguments again........., the iPad should indeed -not- be in the "tablet PC article", because ideally we shouldn't -have- an "tablet PC article"!, We should have a "Tablet computer article", which encompasses all "tablet PC's" The "Microsoft tablet PC", the "iPad" and all other (upcoming) tablet shaped computers there are or will be. Its idiotic to create an article about tablet computers that doesn't also list the iPad, or the upcoming "one tablet for all" (One laptop per child XO-3 tablet computer, or for example the Sakshat. Its a very strange argument not to call the iPad a Personal computer, it -is- a computer, and it -is- a computer for personal use. I think its extremely non NPOV to try to exclude the iPad from what has to become the main article about tablet shaped computers. Mahjongg (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)