Talk:Early tablet computers

message: This article is skewed. 
Tablets are not suited to Microsofts resource heavy operating system and most tablets are either running Apples OS (ipads) or Google Android. 
Unless the article is changed so it shows more balance to Android and Apple products I will remove the Microsoft employee written marketing crap myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.80.87 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: because this article existed before the iPad came on the market, and may people resisted categorizing the iPad as "just another tablet PC", instead a new article was created specifically for such post PC era devices as the iPad (and similar devices, like those running Android OS). Mahjongg (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft Written Entry 

message: Basically, I'm working to separate tablet PC (Lenovo X220T) from tablet computer (iPad) - a bit artificial distinction with a big gray zone in between, so I try to be liberal with links back and forth.  Some of the sections are now very short, and should be removed or merged into other sections, and the article still suffers from gratuitous links - only use citations when making explicit claims, not for general prose about well-known stuff (WP:BLUE).  I'm unsure about the Maemo/MeeGoo stuff, is that more tablet computer stuff?  
I've edited with an axe, so it's likely that there will be some disagreement.  Please discuss here before reverting.  Ketil (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Why is not included in this article that researchers from Knight Ridder already made a proof-of-concept in 1994?
http://mashable.com/2009/08/22/knight-ridder-tablet/ Argus (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you didn't include it :-)   I've added it to History of tablet computers given that it was never created in the end. Diego (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knight Ridder 

message: At the top, the article includes in the definition of a Tablet personal computer as "computer-like devices operated primarily by a touch screen but not intended to run general PC operating systems or applications."
The reason cited for not including iPad is it does "not support full feature microcomputer operating systems". So how does that sync up with the statement in the lead? It soounds more like an opinion of the author so they can spend their time talking about OSX. This seems very arbitrary as the mythical "typical user" can accomplish most anything they would use a personal computer for with an iPad. The only objective criteria that makes sense to me is "self programmability", but Android falls down on that count too unless I'm missing something. Preemptive multitasking is the other cited feature that usually comes up, but that's a very weak argument given Microsoft didn't support it until Win95 and Apple didn't until OSX. Short of it, some sources are needed here, or it should be given the same treatment as Android and webOS.Bigjimleo (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the difference is that previous generations of tablet (personal) computers simply tried to port an existing desktop OS to a tablet, the new generation of tablets, which started with the iPad didn't but instead used a new OS specially geared toward the limitations and strengths of a tablet computer. 15:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not entirely true. The disruption in the iPhone/iPad was more at the UI and development platform than at the OS level. Windows mobile, Symbian and Meego count as previous attemts to create an OS tailored to tablets, as well as any device based on a PDA system. Diego (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View issues