NEW!! - Sprint 4G phone: Instant wi-fi hotspot for 8 devices...

[gentlefury]

IMHO, the iPad is to the iPod Touch what a Laptop is to a Netbook. A laptop is just a better/bigger netbook. Even though they can be used for the same types of things, many those uses are less than ideal on the netbook. The laptop provides a much better user experience and allows the user to do things that the netbook doesn't have the horse power or screen size to handle. I believe the same is true for the iPad when comparing it to the iPod Touch.

Rumor has it, and I believe it, when iPhone OS 4.0 comes out the iPhone, iPod Touch and the iPad will all use it. Steve said during the keynote that devs could make universal apps that would run on both the iPhone/iPod and the iPad. IOW, the app would contain an iPad interface and an iPhone/iPod interface in the same binary. This seems to support that all the devices will be running the same OS.

It isn't the same OS tho...it is based on the same framework, but it is not identical. The iPhone OS is optimized for the iPhone and the iPad OS is optimized for the iPad...it's like saying Leopard and Snow Leopard are the exact same OS because Snow Leopard can run Leopard apps and they look similar. At it's core Snow Leopard is extremely different. But it is backwards compatible. Of course there are applications that work on Snow Leopard that don't work on Leopard.

The big difference here is that the iPhone OS and the iPad OS are being improved in tandem.....I'm guessing the updates will come out same day...tho they could be offset a bit.

The idea tho that the iPad uses the exact same OS just makes no sense...the OS core would have to be different to accommodate the newer and very different hardware. While apple is very good at making those differences transparent they are there.

 

[HX_Guy]

To the user, does the core different really matter? If they look the same and function much in the same way, I would say it's the same.

And yes...Snow Leopard and Leopard are basically the same OS in my eyes. Different OS's would be like OS9 and OSX...now those are different. Or Windows 7 and Windows XP.

Sayings Leopard vs Snow Leopard are different OS's is like saying iPhone OS 3.0 is a different OS than iPhone OS 3.1. It's just a different revision but still the same OS on the user front.

 

[wot_fan]

It isn't the same OS tho...it is based on the same framework, but it is not identical. The iPhone OS is optimized for the iPhone and the iPad OS is optimized for the iPad...it's like saying Leopard and Snow Leopard are the exact same OS because Snow Leopard can run Leopard apps and they look similar. At it's core Snow Leopard is extremely different. But it is backwards compatible. Of course there are applications that work on Snow Leopard that don't work on Leopard.

The big difference here is that the iPhone OS and the iPad OS are being improved in tandem.....I'm guessing the updates will come out same day...tho they could be offset a bit.

The idea tho that the iPad uses the exact same OS just makes no sense...the OS core would have to be different to accommodate the newer and very different hardware. While apple is very good at making those differences transparent they are there.

As far as I know there is no such thing as iPad OS. According the the keynote, the iPad runs iPhone OS 3.2.

Here is some more info.

 

[gentlefury]

To the user, does the core different really matter? If they look the same and function much in the same way, I would say it's the same.

And yes...Snow Leopard and Leopard are basically the same OS in my eyes. Different OS's would be like OS9 and OSX...now those are different. Or Windows 7 and Windows XP.

Sayings Leopard vs Snow Leopard are different OS's is like saying iPhone OS 3.0 is a different OS than iPhone OS 3.1. It's just a different revision but still the same OS on the user front.

Which would be why you think iPad and iPhone are identical...of course they don't actually look identical, but whatever.

Trust me, Mac OSX was almost entirely re-written for SL

 

[iBean]

If this is like the Sprint Overdrive, the 4G usage is unlimited, but if you fall to 3G you are limited to 5GB a month and have to pay 5 cents a MB for all additional usage. With limited use at home, I use easily 6 to 7 GB a month, in a 3G or Edge service area. So, unless they change their service plan, AT&T would still be a better deal for me.

 

[lp1968]

Is Sprint any better than they were years ago? I had them and they kept promising that their coverage was going to get better but after 3 years it was still the same. Also has anybody been syncing their Android phone to a MAC with ease? I have looked at a friends Android phone and I am not convinced I like the UI.

 

[JohnnyApple]

For those of you interested in the Sprint HTC EVO be sure to check out the HTC EVO Forum.

 

[iBean]

I live in semi-rural South Central Texas. First got Sprint down on the Coast, in Corpus Christi & have had it for at least 5 years, maybe longer. It works well down most of the Interstates, and around the larger cities. I'm near San Antonio and my only problem with reception here is that it gets very spotty reception around the hills. Also, it completely drops off for 50 miles stretches down back roads to I-37. AT&T seems to have the hills covered, but I have such a great deal with our family plan, that it is going to take something Really Big to bust us away from Sprint. In fact, Sprint is trying to force us out of our plan by starting to restrict any add-on's to our service. They would not sell us anything more than minimum texting the last time we checked. Don't know how that will play out when we need a new phone. Hubby recently went to T-Mobil and got a Data Only plan and got a new Blackberry just to do web & email at work. Really Crazy!