Talk:Tablet computer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Tablet computer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Of note there is a discussion on Talk:Tablet PC to merge these articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about renaming the article to "Tablet (computer)", the industry usually refers to them as tablets, and it might help with the confusion between a general tablet and a tablet PC. TMV943 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that Tablet PC only refers to Windows computers, is it needed anymore? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous contributor has initiated a merge discussion. See Talk:Tablet_personal_computer#Requested_move for some history, being recreated here. Are we doomed to repeat it here as well. If no one responds, I intend to remove the tag in a week. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I actually support the merger for two reasons: one based on quality and practicality, and one on neutrality. Let me explain:

1. The structure in both articles is a mess. Most content could be put indistinctly in either article, and the "History" section is completely redundant with the History of tablet computers article. I think all information about 'types of tablets' and form factors should be placed at Tablet computer, and all about particular models and operating systems should be in the History article (with a summary in the main article). This has the benefit to free the Tablet PC name to refer only to the Microsoft original usage, thus resolving the language ambiguity.
2. More important: I believe this article is a WP:POVFORK that gives WP:UNDUE weight to a political cause. I didn't see reliable sources stating that the term 'Personal Computer' as such is used indisputably to separate PC vs non-PC tablets; the provided references about the iPad talk about the provided freedom, not these particular words. Even if there were such sources, they don't justify creating a whole separate article - a section in the Tablet computer article would be enough to illustrate the point, and would make a much better work at it. The current split into separate articles only achieves confusion. The title 'Tablet personal computer' could redirect to 'Tablet computer' - nobody's going to search for tablet non-personal computers, so having all information in one place makes sense and is the most useful to everybody.

I did not participate in the previous merger discussion. I think this POV concern has enough weight to reopen it as it provides an argument not used in the previous discussion, so the former 'No consensus' could end a different way now.

Note that this situation is different than the Computer - Personal computer division, where it's much clearer what a non-personal computer is. A non-personal tablet, on the other hand? Its definition has a clear POV with respect to freedom in computing (which I share, but still think should be treated in NPOV way).Diego Moya (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are people who disagree with that POV, they claim that the difference between an iPad and a (Windows) tablet PC is as great as that between a computer and a personal computer (PC), and on similar grounds with respect to freedom in computing. I do agree that an iPad -is- a personal computer though. Still, there are many articles where a sub-section of the article is splitted off onto a "main article" on the subject, so splitting off a "main article" "(windows) tablet PC" from the primary article "tablet computer" isn't such a big deal. In my opinion there are two main groups of "tablet computers", those based on the old "personal computer" (PC), using x86 (wintel) technology, and those that have abandoned x86 (wintel) (most often for ARM based CPU's, and a unix/linux based OS, such as iOS and android) and the idea that a tablet computer must simply be a personal computer in tablet form. Those two could/should obviously be incorporated into a single "tablet computer" article, but if you name that article "tablet personal computer" you give the impression that the article is only about the first category, not about the second category. So I don't oppose a merge on grounds that the material in both articles couldn't be merged, I'm only afraid that if the name of the resulting article is "tablet personal computer" or worse "tablet PC" it then doesn't cover all the systems in the article, as some simply have abandoned the "personal computer" groundwork, and have developed a new one. Mahjongg (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't oppose the idea that freedom in computing defines a different class of tablet computers nor that it could be important enough to have a separate article. I defend that the current contents don't justify an article on its own. Maybe "tablet personal computer" should be a specific subsection in the "tablet computer" article that explains the relation between personal computing and liberty, as well as any other meanings that this term can have? Diego Moya (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

So if I understand you right, you think that the amount of material in the "tablet personal computer" article, (perhaps completed with the material in "Microsoft Tablet PC") doesn't amount to enough to warrant its own article(s)? And must be incorporated into Tablet computer? We could try doing that, and see what happens, but I think the result would be an article that almost only is about (Microsoft) tablet PC's, do we really want that, and why? I would think that at the moment when you ask a random person about a "tablet computers" he would assume you were talking about the new systems like the iPad and such, not about the almost forgotten tablet PC's which never really got a lot of public attention. Mahjongg (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the material in Tablet personal computer does belong either in Tablet computer or Microsoft Tablet PC. There's nothing in there specific to the PC moniker. Having a separate article for Microsoft PCs is right as they have a story of their own; but it doesn't make sense mixing iPad, Chrome OS, Android and Linux with sections like TPC:Microsoft and TPC:Windows applications, as Tablet personal computer currently does. So yes, I think "tablet computers" should describe the existing classes of devices either if they are PCs or not. Particular models or vendors could have their own separate pages as they do now. Diego Moya (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree, you want to shrink the content of Tablet personal computer so that it doesn't have large sections specific to tablet PC's such as TPC:Microsoft and TPC:Windows applications . I expect that your comment "Particular models or vendors could have their own separate pages as they do now" means that you think that Microsoft tablet PC is such a "particular model", which can have its own separate page. Do I assume correctly?

That's exactly right. I suppose I should have said "particular families" instead of "models". Diego Moya (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is how I see it. There are currently two fundamentally different "kinds of tablet computers"

• Tablet computers which contain technology derived from laptop personal computers. i.e. x86 "wintel" technology (often but not always running Windows, but capable of doing so, because of being x86 based, and using other "key PC technology").
• Tablet computers which contain technology derived from cell-phones and MP3-players and other such portable equipment. i.e. ARM architecture based technology, therefore not (capable of) running windows, but recently having gained (CPU) capabilities that are comparable, at least not completely dwarfed by those of the "x86 camp".

I think we should mention this split early on in the tablet computer article, that is in the lede, and in the history of tablet computers section following the lede, as its so fundamental to understanding the tablet computer market, and tablet computers in general. Mahjongg (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

See #Possible directions for development which list some points on which the article might dwell. Originally they were part of this thread. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - A reason for the mess in content such as history is that parts from Tablet Personal Computer had been copied here. Tablet PC is not a point of view fork ("for political causes" whatever that could possibly mean) because it was created before Tablet Computer. It is not of undue weight since Google Scholar returns 15,900 results for Tablet PC vs 5.130 for Tablet computer. Diego Moya states that "the provided references about the iPad talk about the provided freedom, not these particular words" but this is wrong, for example:

1. "The iPad Is Not a Computer - Apple has come a long way from its personal-computer origins" -- http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/the-ipad-is-not-a-computer
2. "The iPad is not a personal computer in the sense that we currently understand. Once we replace the personal computer with a closed-platform device such as the iPad, we replace freedom" -- http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-01/ipad%E2%80%99s-closed-system-sometimes-i-hate-being-right
3. "The entire family of devices built on the iPhone OS (iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad) have been designed to run only software that is approved by Apple—a major shift from the norms of the personal computer market." -- http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-program-license-agreement-all
4. "What Apple has envisioned with the iPad isn’t a traditional PC–it’s more of an appliance." -- http://technologizer.com/2010/01/28/microsoft-ipads-closed-platfor-is-humorous/

As Diego Moya has stated that "freedom in computing defines a different class of tablet computers" it is also obvious from the above that Tablet Personal Computer has a reason to exist as such. Since the efforts of removing the Tablet PC article from existence are becoming Wikipedia:TEDIOUS, I shall follow Ancheta Wis' cross linking proposal (as described in the Tablet personal computer talk) and remove the NPOV and Merge tags from there. Vyx (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Tablet computer was created to be the umbrella term for all tablet computers, such as the iPad, but also the tablet-personal-computer/Tablet-PC/Microsoft-Tablet-PC and all other future tablet computers (such as the OLPC XO-3).

Because with the re-invigorating of the tablet computer market through the introduction of the iPad, it became obvious that the Tablet personal computer article no longer supported ALL tablet computers, because (yes Vyx) the iPad cannot be seen as a Tablet PC, but is a "tablet computer" nevertheless. I fully agree with Vyx that "freedom in computing defines a different class of tablet computers" Because a third party can prohibit what you can run on your iPad AND the fact that one of the defining factors of a PC is that you can develop software on it, and then install that software on it, both create a marker in between classic Tablet personal computers, and such an "internet appliance/media player/game system/computer" as the iPad, (and most other modern tablet computers {based on Android} that are expected to come to the market).

But this marker does NOT mark a "border between devices that are computers and devices that are not computers". When Vyx claims that "The iPad Is Not a Computer - Apple has come a long way from its personal-computer origins" , and the other three points he mentions. What is actually meant by his sources, is that the iPad isn't meant to be a general purpose "personal computer", in all aspects that matter its still a computer. It has a CPU, RAM, a mass storage device I/O devices, such as human interface devices, and a video display generator, Also its not simply a "MP3 player", or "media player", as indeed you can install applications on it, in short its a computer.

Its simply not conceivable to place the iPad outside the category of computers. Thus both the tablet personal computer and the iPad (and such) should appear in a single article, and the only logical name for that article (as I think we can all agree the iPad is not a Personal computer, so the name "tablet personal computer" doesn't cover the content of the article) would be tablet computer. That is why tablet computer was created, and yes, it was done after Tablet PC (and its sub article Microsoft Tablet PC), so what?

My conclusion in short. the content of the current tablet computer article, and the (abridged) content of Tablet Personal Computer, and Microsoft tablet PC should be integrated in a single article with the name tablet computer. If the article gets very long, we can split off "main articles" as needed. Mahjongg (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Its simply not conceivable to place the iPad outside the category of computers. Thus both the tablet personal computer and the iPad (and such) should appear in a single article -- I really can't connect these in a logical argument. Yes, the iPad is a computer but not a personal computer, that's why I had supported the creation of the Tablet computer article 9 months ago. But how does that mean that Tablet personal computers and the iPad should be on the same article since the sources above clearly differentiate the iPad from personal computers ? You lost me there. Vyx (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No you didn't "loose me there", its too simple an argument not to understand. We seem to just to disagree on whether to call the iPad a "computer". It doesn't matter how often you try to confuse the matter by again implying I want to call the iPad a "personal computer", that simply isn't true, I only want to imply its a "computer". Its not a mainframe computer, its not a "personal computer", Its not a workstation, but its computer nevertheless, and thus a "tablet computer", because its a computer, and uses a tablet, whats so difficult about understanding that?

Maybe we should hold a new RFC about whether the iPad can be considered to be a computer.

Again: Yes, the iPad is a computer but not a personal computer, that's why I had supported the creation of the Tablet computer article 9 months ago. But how does that mean that Tablet personal computers and the iPad should be on the same article since the sources above clearly differentiate the iPad from personal computers ? Vyx (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why because they are both computers that use tablets, that is why. They should, because the umbrella article (the article covering all tablet computers) isn't (should not) be called "tablet personal computer", it should and is called "tablet computer". Tablet computer is the article about all tablet computers, and all means the older ones, and the newer ones. What else is sensible in an article about all tablet computers? I see you have a great dislike for an article that includes both the iPad and "tablet computers", but you seem to be alone in that POV. Mahjongg (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why because they are both computers that use tablets, that is why. Yes but most of them are also personal computers and, as I have pointed above, reliable sources think "personal computer" is something important. Vyx (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I don't think your numbers prove that an article called tablet personal computer is supported by a WP:GOOGLETEST. Diego Moya (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So your argument is simply that, as computers, the iPad and "tablet computers", differ so much that they shouldn't be put into the same article. That is a pretty extreme POV, which not many people (I imagine) will share. Mahjongg (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No my argument is that a Tablet personal computer article is necessary. As for the iPad, I did propose that it could be included there, but your bad faith assumption had nullified these efforts as well. It's not a POV that Tablet PCs exist and it's not a POV that the iPad is not a personal computer. See what reliable sources say. I am removing the merge and NPOV tags from Tablet PC. Vyx (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem in defending your position is that you fail to explain why a separate Tablet personal computer article is necessary, and what exactly its content should be. The major difficulty in having separate articles for Tablet PCs and Tablet non-PCs is that is extremely difficult to place products in one class or the other, except maybe for the iPad. For example, why on Earth should the Android OS classified under the Non Tablet Personal computer class operating systems? It's close to the iPad in being non-desktop, but it allows greater flexibility and user control than Windows-based tablets by virtue of being open sourced on the most part. So how would you classify devices with a lesser level of media attention than the iPad into one class or the other, without that becoming original research? Meditate your response because it's key to your defense of the Tablet personal computer article. This is a major issue that won't go away only because you find it TEDIOUS, since by creating a 'personal computer' article you're asserting 1) that there's a universally agreed criterion for that, and 2) that this criteria is agreed as a main defining property of tablets by all major sources. (BTW removing article tags when there's ongoing discussion is deemed quite bad etiquette).

Apart of this, there's the issue of quality in organization. Whether it's true or not that Tablet PC is more popular term than Tablet computer (which I think is still debatable), I fail to see how your reasons justify the need of placing them in separate articles. The majority of commenters so far seem to support having a single article for both classes of devices. Your provided sources don't support this separation - even the ones establishing the notability of the personal computer term would only suffice to create an article about the personal freedom in Tablet computers subtopic, an article for which we only could have an stub with the current content, so a simple section addressing the subject would be better to explain it.

For convenience of readers wanting to learn about the tablet format, the current contents in both articles (choice of operating systems, form factors, history, features, interfaces, even manufacturers) are orthogonal to the "personal computer" issue and thus don't justify separation. All these contents should be in the main article about all Tablet computers, not in the PC article if it exists. If your concerns are due to space, there are much better categories from which to split content (I personally would choose desktop-like vs non-desktop-like GUI as the most sensible). If your concern is wp:COMMON_NAME then a simple redirect would solve it.

Finally: while it's true that technically this article is not a POV-fork because its creation history, the issues that merit the Neutrality tag are the same ones. The POV here is not that tablet PCs don't exist, is the view that every device in the market could be classified either as PC or non-PC and thus objectively classified accordingly by all agents - something for which clearly there are not relevant neutral sources as it goes way beyond 'some people call iPad not a personal computer'. It's equally easy to find sources where all tablet devices are treated the same way irrespective of the PC label (or even where the iPad is called a personal computer because it's "personal" and it "computes", even if it doesn't match the "I'm my own administrator" reason for the label). The people supporting your VIEW have been heard, but the structure of articles in Wikipedia should not be based solely on this. My requirements to remove the Neutrality tag include finding a good rationale to split all available contents and then splitting them accordingly, or else merging them together. Diego Moya (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Vyx that an article separate from tablet computer, about tablet personal computers is probably a good idea, but that doesn't mean that the abbreviated content of tablet personal computer shouldn't be merged with this article, as its about tablet personal computers too. However, there is (potentially) so much material (such of lists of tablet computers and computer brands) possible for a tablet personal computer article that it would overwhelm this article, so its best to siphon off much that into a separate article, in fact I even think that Microsoft tablet PC also has enough potential material for a siphoned off "main article", as I have made clear with my edits yesterday to this article. Still, all this still doesn't mean that much of the material from tablet personal computer, and Microsoft tablet PC shouldn't be merged with this article. Obviously yes, for removing (and placing) tags you need consensus to do so. Mahjongg (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I no longer think that split is the best one for the reasons stated above. I think a separation based on a different criterion would solve many of the issues with these articles. (Also, how can ever be consensus to insert a NPOV tag?) Diego Moya (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Your points further supports my argument on this discussion being a part of a tedious process that deprives us of precious time on working on either of the entries. I can't really blame you because there is simply too much to read, but still I must suggest that you delve through the histories of Tablet PC discussion where you will find plenty of material that will provide you with context to the issue. Still, you've have missed something you shouldn't: that I had proposed a merge of the iPad to the Tablet PC article as an effort to end this issue. It didn't work, and now I think that it wouldn't work in the long run because sooner or later an editor would come with a proposition for a subtopic such as: "personal freedom in Tablet computers" which would lead to a new and prolonged edit war since editors would find this to be a POV against the iPad.

I would classify devices under Computer > Personal Computer > Tablet personal computer based on their form and their function. They should be portable, use the screen as a primary input device and they should be "personal computers" which means owned and operated by an individual. Personal computer operation also covers programmability without restrictions from another operator (see related sources on the leading paragraph of tablet personal computer and also personal computer). Without this characteristic a computer is simply not a personal computer and thus not a tablet PC. I have supported that Android devices (and definitely MeeGo) should be on the Tablet personal computer article because they are programmable. However, if they are not programmable on the device itself and require another computer for the development I would accept a common sense option of moving them to tablet computer instead.

Asking for a universally agreed criterion is impossible on most anything in Wikipedia. Even personal computer is questioned as a term for Mac computers by some and computer is almost as popular a term for describing personal computers. Nobody would expect them to be merged -- we can't expect encyclopedic standards from every source.

In regards to quality of organization, I don't agree: computer is too generic a term and while many users would be primarily interested in the tablet factor, other users (and this is what the sources I've mentioned illustrate) are interested in the software availability factor. In which case the personal computer term plays a pivotal role. The reason why a tablet computer may not be able to display Flash content (for example) isn't its hardware limitations; it's just not a personal computer. And this may be as important as the tablet factor. I do understand that two separate articles for tablets may seem absurd but I find more absurd that a user would be looking for apples, expecting an encyclopedic treatment of the term and Wikipedia only provide them with an article about apples and oranges as fruits.

In regards to the sources you point, I won't comment on blogs; techgenie does not treat the iPad tablet computer the same way with tablet PCs: it addresses it as a competitor to MS. You are right about cens.com which goes as far as naming it a tablet PC, a term rejected by Apple on the meta description of the iPad page. I am not sure adage supports your point as it states: "In San Francisco, at least, they didn't see iPads as PCs. More like a big iPhone, really". I believe the sources I've provided deal with the core issue better than one news report. Vyx (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I said elsewhere that I don't oppose to a Tablet PC article per se, only to its current form. My sources were just intended to show that your understanding of what constitutes a "Tablet personal computer" is not as clear-cut as you want it to be. Your criterion to only include devices 'programmable on the device itself' is a port from the old desktop days before mobile and media PCs; I don't think we can port this concept as-is to tablets, nor that your sources prove such - just that the iPad is not one in the opinion of some observers. Concepts like Ultra-Mobile PC, Home theater PC and Pocket PC show that your criterion is too restrictive even for the general idea of personal computer. Even in the cases where these devices can be hacked, this is not their main commercial purpose nor is intended by their design.

I did read the previous discussions and I didn't miss your proposal to include the iPad in tablet PC, but still the arguments in those discussions don't convince me that an article about tablets as personal computers could fly on its own - nor that there's enough encyclopedic content unique to the topic that won't also apply to the general class of tablet computers. Working to make incremental improvements to the current situation won't solve the basic problems of ambiguity of what constitutes a tablet personal computer, so it won't enhance the structure of any of these articles.

Speaking of which, you didn't comment on my other main point - that most content currently in tablet PC should be put together in one place with the contents in tablet computer to avoid duplicity. Sections like Tablets vs. traditional notebooks, Features, Screen size trends and Forms that are applicable to all tablet devices shouldn't be in an article about the variant of personal computer tablets, or should be rewritten to only include what is specific to them. If we can agree on this, my major objections to having two articles would be reduced. I have placed here how I think it should be done. Diego Moya (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Concepts like Ultra-Mobile PC, Home theater PC and Pocket PC show that your criterion is too restrictive even for the general idea of personal computer. No; Pocket PC is the name of a specification and it is not within the personal computer category. It was for mobile phones. Home theater PC is indeed a personal computer and the "old desktop days" definition of personal computer fits it perfectly: for example you would expect to install additional codecs and other software in a home theater PC which you can. XBMC owns its popularity on this particular trait of HTPCs and you can play matroska files on any PC, or HTPC or even Tablet PCs (including MeeGo and even Android) but of course not on the iPad since Apple wont allow it. Therefore the PC definition is perfectly meaningful for the HTPC (which of course has some additional hardware requirements for the home theater). Ditto for the Ultra-Mobile PC: these are personal computers as well, for example you can install linux on them. Wikipedia correctly defines Ultra-Mobile PC and Home theater PC as personal computers and correctly doesn't define the Pocket PC as a personal computer. When you state that "even in the cases where these devices can be hacked" you are wrong: as personal computers, these devices need not be hacked.

From the above it seems that my position is becoming even clearer. Tablet personal computer is an excellent term for a perfectly notable article that was created in 2002. I see no reason for a merger but I would discuss in good faith any proposal for moving content between tablet personal computer and tablet computer. But first I need to know: how do you define a tablet computer really ? Vyx (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I define a tablet computer as a computer with a tablet form factor. This definition should be good enough for everything in the current tablet computer article; any further differentiation should be addressed as part of the article contents. Do you then agree to (parts of) this structure for the unified information to be placed at tablet computer?

I still am not sure what do you think should be included in tablet personal computer. Your position may be clear to you but not to me; It's not clear which of these criteria you use to define a tablet personal computer, nor how would you treat devices having some but not all of them:

1. Having tablet form. -A) ...restricted to some sizes -B) ...restricted to not having some other common form factor (for example - phone functionality)
2. The user is allowed to install software from a repository managed by a third party
3. The user can install software from any repository, including one created by himself (may require jailbreaking)
4. The user is allowed to install software from any repository (i.e. it's a supported feature, doesn't require jailbreaking)
5. The user can develop software in the device itself (even if it's not practical)
6. The user is expected to develop software in the device itself (i.e. it's a supported feature)
7. The device is intended to be used stand-alone without importing information from other computers
8. The operating system is based on a desktop metaphor (as opposed to a mobile OS)
9. The device can be used with a stylus (as opposed to only fingers)

You've been switching between them when including and excluding devices that are PCs or tablet PCs. If I understand correctly, you would place in Tablet personal computer everything complying with 1 and 4, and in Tablet computer everything else with a tablet form. Is that right? I could live with that if Tablet personal computer does not consist mainly of information that can also describe devices not complying with 4.

Yes, that's fine. Tablet PC should provide information specific to devices complying with 1 and 4 and link to Tablet computer for common tablet characteristics such as the touch interface, sizes, battery life comparisons etc. (BTW, 4 and 5 are essentially the same because unrestricted installation equals to code execution privileges which means you can compile code & develop applications.) Vyx (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'll move that kind of content to Tablet computer soon. BTW for criterium 4 I was thinking of the Nokia tablets where you have apt-get installed but you will usually cross-compile, and for 6 I was thinking of devices where you can use a text editor or an IDE (a media-center PC would comply with 5 but not 6). Diego Moya (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the 'hacking', my fault: I was using the word in the classical sense (here, products where you can create your software), not the need of 'cracking' them to program them. I meant to say that Pocket PCs and media centers both comply with criteria 1 and 4, and neither does comply with criterium 6. So why would one be a personal computer and not the other? I ask this to clarify your vision for the Tablet personal computer article. Diego Moya (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I've added two more criteria to the list. Diego Moya (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the Operating Systems content should stay (or be moved back) on Tablet personal computer: it's imperative for installing software from any repository or developing software. iOS is an obvious exception here. Vyx (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to that in principle. But I think the final position for each OS should be decided by how it affects the quality of both articles. For example, by moving Linux to Tablet personal computer you have left barely a mention of it at Tablet_computer#Operating_systems_and_vendors and it no longer appears in the Tablet_computer TOC. You have also downplayed the description of Google's Android as a mobile operating system. This is hurting the description of the OS.

Maybe the best solution for this section is to move it to a new article, linked from both Tablet_computer and Tablet personal computer? This way OSs that are both mobile and used in personal computers would have a clear place to stay, instead of being split between the two articles. Diego Moya (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This was the issue I mentioned a few days ago. Mobile operating systems are a gray area really. Android is indeed based on Linux and allows unrestricted installation of Java applications (eg. Firefox mobile) but I am not sure if it provides unrestricted code execution privileges. I believe that they should appear in both articles in short description related to the scope of the articles and linked to mobile operating system as a main source. Feel free to copy it back to tablet computer.

Otherwise, I believe the move was justified by the above since the OS is the most important factor on whether a device complies with #4. Vyx (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the vendor is the most important factor in that respect. There are Android devices from some manufacturers (Motorola and some HTC models IIRC) that are protected against rooting, so it's not entirely correct to say that Android is an OS for personal computers.

So, how do you plan to treat these grey areas (for Android, MeeGo and any other free mobile system), which seem to be more and more likely to appear in the future? My position to build consensus was to have them in tablet computer or separate articles in order to avoid having them duplicated also in tablet personal computer. I ask again: what is your vision for what should be the whole contents of tablet personal computer? Diego Moya (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

MeeGo is not a gray area. MeeGo tablets fully conform to the personal computer definition: they allow the user to operate the computer entirely. I plan to treat grey areas by including or referring them to tablet personal computer unless reliable sources dictate their relocation elsewhere. If a device is advertised as a tablet pc 1 2 3 and conforms to the definition of tablet form, owned and operated by the user, information from tablet personal computer should be sufficient in letting the user understand its capabilities as a personal computer and provide him the proper guidance to the appropriate tablet computer sections.

My vision for the contents of tablet personal computer is the current form of the article with the addition of a forms section (only makes sense in Tablet PC since only Tablet PCs are convertibles besides slate) and an expanded prose for the applications section. My vision is compatible to what you had initially stated about criteria 1 and 4. Unfortunately I am seeing a change in your position: From keeping to tablet personal computer specific information about systems that comply with criteria 1 and 4 it has been transformed to moving content to tablet computer or a separate article, as long as it is not in tablet personal computer. There is no consensus for that. Tablet PC should be a meaningful article. Vyx (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Vyx, Please wait for other contributors to reply before your move. Otherwise it cannot be construed as consensus. I suggest that we place times or dates as part of any notifications. If a consensus is between only two people, then an ACK/NACK (acknowledge/negative ack) might be used as signal. Otherwise the actions can be understood only by two people. There is an exception. If the sequence of actions is slow enough, then it can be understood as a conversation, which can be reviewed. But if the actions are nearly simultaneous, signals using a protocol are needed. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you not apply the same policy to Diego Moya moving content from Tablet personal computer ? Vyx (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Diego Moya signalled that he was developing article changes to Tablet computer on a sub-page, and gave the link. There was an interchange between contributors on that sub-page, and on this page, and then after several days, he acted. Please note there was an arc of development before the summary action. In the case of Tablet computer OSs, there was a distinct arc of development over multiple days. If the two articles, Tablet PC & table computer, are complementary the changes really ought to be coordinated, in which case an understandable protocol was signalled and appeared to be in the process of implementation. But if the two articles are competing, then your actions are understandable. However no one editor owns either article. If you now restore the Tablet computer OS section which you moved with the same speed at which you just now acted, then that is a signal that you view the two pages as complementary. But cross-links are a requirement for readers if two pages are complementary. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, here is where I (user:mahjongg) stand on the issues:

1. Having tablet form. -A) ...restricted to some sizes -B) ...restricted to not having some other common form factor (for example - phone functionality) 'A tablet form factor seems a requirement to me for a "tablet computer" of any sort.
2. The user is allowed to install software from a repository managed by a third party. Well yeah, but many PC's do not work with "software repositories" of any sort, is a CD a "software repository"
3. The user can install software from any repository, including one created by himself (may require jailbreaking). You mean, is the user totally free to decide were to get his software from, it has always been this way with PC's, so I guess its an acquired definition.
4. The user is allowed to install software from any repository (i.e. it's a supported feature, doesn't require jailbreaking). See above
5. The user can develop software in the device itself (even if it's not practical). Hmmm yes, see above.
6. The user is expected to develop software in the device itself (i.e. it's a supported feature). if users are expected to write their own software aren't we talking about a home computer then? Almost no normal user expects he needs to write his own software.
7. The device is intended to be used stand-alone without importing information from other computers strongly yes, see above. I really have never seen a personal computer that needed another computer to just work.
8. The operating system is based on a desktop metaphor (as opposed to a mobile OS) A DOS computer also was a PC, so no, but I get your drift, in practice the answer is yes, as without a desktop metaphor OS (Windows etc) its not really a PC.
9. The device can be used with a stylus (as opposed to only fingers) If they find a way to operate a tablet personal computer with fingers (extreme zoom maybe) yes, otherwise practicably no.

Note these are simply my "gut feelings" (educated guesses) about these issues, they do not construe any independent "truth", just my opinion. Mahjongg (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My comments (user:Diego Moya):

2 Yes, a CD or a memory cartridge work as "software repositories" to add separate bits of functionality. The alternative is a self-contained gadget with fixed functionality (a scientific calculator for example) that only gets new functions with whole firmware upgrades.

3, 4, 5, 6. Yes. Traditional PCs get 3 and 4. The iPad and locked phones get 3 only (through jailbreaking). Nokia "Internet tablets" get 4 and 5 but not 6. Netbooks and laptops can also be 6 to certain degree. Same with a tablet and a bluetooth keyboard.

7 iPad also just work without another computer. The point is where you get content from. People says that you need a Mac to synchronize content, but I think this argument is absurd: you can get all your content from an Internet connection.

8 Well here I'm talking of modern PCs. 80's home computers were microcomputers, and a CP/M based PC wa the 'desktop metaphor' for the amateur users of its time (i.e. simpler than Unix/VAT).

9 This one I think is a major division of tablet PCs vs mobile tablets. Being finger-friendly goes hand in hand with being media-consuming oriented and (preferably) multitouch-based. OTOH tablets of the Microsoft style can have forms, heavy data-centric applications, and complex single-pointer interactions. Diego Moya (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

From user:mahjongg, On 2, yeah, I was a bit disingenuous. Obviously I knew what was meant, and that a CD is normally also considered a "software repository" but the "linux talk" about "software repositories" got to me a bit. Can't we use a more common language here, like saying that the user can install software from any source he wants, or only from restricted sources....

On 7, thats not what I was told, I got the distinct impression that even when you could ask the Apple store where you bought your iPad to do the required "first time syncing" for you, you needed to return to that store each time the iPad needed its periodical update. I really don't think the iPad can be used without owning a suitable computer, one with iTunes (so no linux system!) for full functionality. Worse (for me) the computer must also support USB-2, for that reason alone I cannot use an iPad, as my computer happens not to have USB-2, only USB-1 (yes, I know that is uncommon, but its simply a fact). So no, the iPad cannot be considered a system that can stand on its own.

On 8, what I meant was that in the "home computer era", (you know such systems like the Commodore 64, The Sinclair Spectrum, or maybe a TRS-80 or Apple II) it was often the exact purpose of those that bought these systems that the users (kids) would write some software for them, that is why these systems came with a "fast turnaround programming language", so the kids could start with:

10 ?"Hello there ";

20 GOTO 10

and have something interesting happen from the start, so they could RUN with it.

But yes, I was being cynical again..... Obviously the last decade nobody is expecting to need to write a single byte of software, its all shrink-wrapped. Question 6 is a silly question to ask, thats al.... Maybe it just needs rewording.

On 9, yes, I think its indeed one of the defining properties of "tablet personal computers" that they use an OS designed for desktop PC's, and therefore need the precise cursor control that is needed to operate the tiny interface elements (like close buttons). and other user interface elements. Therefore you need a stylus, good lighting, excellent hand-eye coordination and a steady hand, all on a tiny pad on the move, which means it sucks. We have seen that the average consumer simply didn't like "tablet personal computers" for that reason. But what happens when the manufacturer adds a capacitive multi-touch screen to a tablet personal computer, (one that runs say Windows) and installs a user interface shell that mimics the iPads way of doing things, is such a system still a "tablet personal computer"?

Problem with such a setup though, is that applications themselves still have all the old "tiny user interface element" properties, even if the application is launched using a "iPad like shell".

One other criterion might be boot times, most "mobile OS" based tablet computers are "instant on", while traditional (tablet) personal computers still needs many seconds (or even minutes) to boot.

Mahjongg (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that there have already been discussions about it. I think they should be merged, as it is confusing me personally. Besides, the name "personal computer" has become a generic term for Windows-based computers, even though any desktop, laptop, tablet, etc... is a personal computer. Jgera5 (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how the articles are confusing to you? Previous discussions didn't achieve consensus for a whole merge but some content was repositioned between both articles. If the result is still confusing we should work on a new content distribution Diego Moya (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that this question is one of the main obstacles for merging the iPad and "tablet computers" in a single article. I argue that the iPad can be/must be considered a computer, not just an "internet applicance/media player/gaming system". In case you agree, the iPad should have a place in a global article about "tablet computers". Comments?

Okay, I realize that maybe this question is meaningless, its asking to (re-)define the meaning of computer, and everybody has another opinion... Mahjongg (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking of computer or personal computer? Of course the iPad is a computer. The only existing doubts are with respect to the later because personal computer doesn't have one simple definition, it's a case of "I'll recognize one when I see it". I don't think the iPad supposes any problem in merging tablet computer and tablet personal computer, if that's what you refer to. Diego Moya (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was whether the iPad could be considered to be a "computer" (not a specifically "personal computer") versus it just being a Media player, gaming and internet browsing device, on which you happen to be able to install new applications. You see, not many people consider an MP3 player to be a "computer" (except perhaps technicians like me, who know that the player contains a micro-controller chip). Also a Nintendo DS, or a digital camera is not considered to be a "computer", so where does a device that happens to combine several of these "appliances" stop being an "appliance", and start being a "computer"? As I concluded, its a question of semantics, what you define as "computer", so in that way its not sensible to make a hard decision here, one way or the other, the market decides when it starts being a computer and not an appliance. I hope this clarifies what I meant, I didn't want to stir up controversy again on the "computer" versus "personal computer" issue again, I think its equally a question of semantics though, and at most you can say what some people say about the matter, but that others say something else. Obviously the iPad was the "Raison d'être" for creating the "tablet computer" article, so obviously the iPad does not suppose any problem in merging tablet computer and tablet personal computer, on the contrary. Mahjongg (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand the question. I think the idea you're looking for is that of a dedicated device (appliance) versus general purpose; but this question is independent of being a computer, it's more a question of its market positioning and design. In an strict CS sense everything containing a generic CPU is a computer - even programmable washing machines. The appliances you mention are just loaded with a single program and thus are marketed for a single purpose. Homebrew scenes prove that these devices do indeed have full computer capabilities. It starts to get tricky with MP3s containing only sound-dedicated hardware, but that's not the case with the iPad. Hope this clarification helps. Diego Moya (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As an engineer designing microcontroller and ARM based systems myself I am highly aware that almost all electronic devices you can buy these days contain a "computer", even most electric toothbrushes contain a computer chip, so needless to say that is not what I meant by "computer". What I meant was strictly the distinction between devices that are considered "appliances", and those that are "real computers". Indeed in my mind the distinction is that you can install new "random applications" that are available. Problem is where to lie the border. on an ipad-nano (of the previous generation) you can install new games, does that make it a computer? Mahjongg (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And how about Smartphones? They are clearly phones, but are there computers? The only sensible response is: it depends. If you are talking of their computing capabilities, clearly yes. If the context is their general market positioning, clearly not (nobody would say a phone is a computer - except for the niche market of hackers like us). So, in which context do you want to define it? Diego Moya (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We are grasping for a concept which I believe Donald Norman calls a tasker (as taught to me by Ward Cunningham at Wikimania 2006 - I recommend the experience to all of you if you get the chance). A tasker is like a web browser, in that a browser serves us in our task to browse the web. My point is that an iPad is a browser implemented in hardware. So a washing machine with a CPU chip inside it is a tasker to wash clothes, a phone is a tasker to talk to people, etc. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"tasker" is certainly an interesting label, but doesn't help us any further, I think. If "being a computer" really is a relevant point, for inclusion in tablet computer, then it really has relevance to do this discussion. For the iPad however, I simply do not have any doubt, and simply must consider it a computer, and if i'm pedantic, I would also have to consider it to be a "personal computer", simply because its for personal use (its not a computer that is only for a multitude of persons, like a mainframe, that is the real original definition of "personal" in "personal computer"). Why (IMHO) is the iPad a "computer"? I think that the broad range of applications you can choose to install and use is the key. Yes you cannot install an "application" that is simply a "porn slideshow" for $9.99, because Apple chose that they (at this stage) don't want to taint the iPad's image with such "applications", so they use the "walled colony" approach of software management. But I think that is/will be not a defining feature of systems like the iPad, another producer of a similar competing system can easily make another choice. So yes, the iPad is the core and Raison d'être at the moment for having a broadly defined tablet computer article, but just around the corner there are systems coming which will make our current "discourse" simply quaint, because for all purposes they have to be called computers, while at the same time they cannot be declared to be like classical Wintel (PC) systems. Mahjongg (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ray Ozzie has just defined a device very like a tasker. "There's one key difference in tomorrow's devices.They're relatively simple and fundamentally appliance-like by design, from birth. They're instantly usable, interchangeable, and trivially replaceable without loss." --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For example the new credit card reader that plugs into the audio jack of your smart phone that was just demonstrated on TV this morning. It requires a free download, and you get the reader for free. Then you pay the innovating company a fee and percentage of the transaction. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha only serious. The Apple section of Tablet Personal computer describes how to turn a MacBook into a tablet PC using a third-party product. By the same rationale we could include a description of jailbroken iPads in Tablet personal computer on the basis that they comply with all the criteria used to define personal computers.

My point is that we all agree that there are so many ways in how people are describing tablets and other computing devices. So we should be doing a much better effort trying to explain in the articles these classification complexities, and less in trying to categorize whole classes of devices based on ambiguous or contested criteria - and then creating artificial partitions of them.Diego Moya (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a jailbroken iPad would be a tablet personal computer. The Axiotron Modbook is a perfectly valid product which has been reviewed by Wired as a Tablet PC. The reason why I find categorization a better solution to classification within one category is that renaming the Tablet PC article to Tablet computer would broaden its scope too much to be useful as a reference to tablet personal computers (a very much alive and existing product category) and my proposal of inserting the iPad on the tablet personal computer with an effort to classify it has failed. I believe, once we relieve ourselves from the constant pressure of these reorganization debates, working on the separate articles may provide a better solution in the future, especially if we start cooperating by cross linking between the articles as Ancheta Wis has proposed. Vyx (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So what content would you place in each article? I oppose cross linking as the basis solution for the organization of these articles, since most content would be either duplicated or split in an arbitrary way, which would only create redundancy. Each reader would then be forced to read both articles in order to get a general overview of the topic, all while bearing this redundancy. I prefer a consensus view on how each article should evolve, to avoid future incoming editors from encountering this same situation. The cross-linking would only perpetuate it. Diego Moya (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For that I need to know first what is the definition of a tablet computer, what are the criteria for including a device in this category. Vyx (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's continue this conversation here.Diego Moya (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I believe the definition you have provided for Tablet computer is too generic and would even allow the Zune HD or even possibly the new Kindle (which comes with a browser and a few games) as well. Are you sure an article with that broad a scope would still retain its usefulness? Vyx (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Kindle does not have a touch screen, does it? So it doesn't comply with criterion 1 and doesn't need to be included. As for single purpose devices with a touch screen like the Kindle and other information appliances I think yes, they merit at least a comment explaining how they relate to the iPad family of tablets, even if they are not the main focus of the article. Diego Moya (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If for no other reason, the tablet computer article is useful precisely for describing the differences between different types of "tablet computers", denying that this issue exist is exactly not what wikipedia is about. We can all see that "something is happening in tablet computer land", and so Wikipedia should reflect that (while using reliable sources, to do so, and being as little non neutral in its Points-Of-Views as possible). Mahjongg (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I was actually working on ARM-related points when the merge tag was added; currently the ARM-based OSs allow for faster boot times, for event processing that was specialized for fingertip events, and for increased battery life. The legacy OSs basically ignored these design decisions and it will be some time before they are added. Windows CE allowed for ARM processors, but apparently this was incompatible with Windows as it then stood (as of January 2010). Now that MS has seen the consequences of the legacy decisions, MS has purchased an ARM architecture license to redress this. Again it will take time for the rework to be completed. See the Windows 8 citation in the article (i.e., release in 2012). Event processing is one area where QNX has a competitive advantage. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC) --edited Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, the division between the camps is desktop legacy versus untethered target systems for deployment. Since desktop is one billion PCs, apparently this outweighed the small team for tablets. Witness the cancellation of WinCE-based Microsoft Courier project. It remains to be seen how much the proof of concept OS kernel MinWin will get into the reworked OSs for tablets. There may not be enough development time to outweigh the competitive advantage of getting to market in enough time to make a difference with the competition, which is not static, but also changing. Witness Motorola, which could not afford the time required for MS to overcome the legacy software inertia. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There were other concepts which MS scrubbed. For the fundamentals which Apple understands, see Don Norman, Design of Everyday Things. As you can see, this went beyond the classic PC concept several decades ago. See especially Don Norman's '7 stages of action' in the pdf. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the designer behind the Windows Phone 7 UX (user experience -- he apparently started tiles, which are user-definable icons -- and hubs, containers which aggregate apps) talked in Feb 2010 --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

While the merge discussion is proceeding, I propose to continue my search for citations in the direction outlined above. OK? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I found a pretty good citation for boot times which is now in the article. The OS approach to fingertip event processing needs to avoid spin loops in the main thread for lower battery life. This appears to be entangled with the current implementations of ARM versus x86 devices. Does anyone have an opinion on how best to present this? The current tradeoff is to for x86 devices to stress computation (which eats battery life) and for ARM devices to stress think time (which conserves battery life). Does it make sense to bring in the successor CPUs to x86 at this time, or to wait until they appear in vendor offerings? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

.

As an example of the problems which can be addressed nicely by a tablet, I have copied the following to this thread. The touch pad of an ordinary laptop nicely frames the space needed for a Chinese character. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the context of "gesture" in this article is any non-handwriting movement made by a stylus, digital pen or finger. For example, if you have a laptop with a trackpad and you move your finger from the top right corner to the bottom right corner, that is a gesture which causes pages with a scroll bar on the right side to "scroll down" on the screen. Reference.com defines gesture as: A motion of the limbs or body made to express or help express thought. I think we're just used to using, say, limbs to gesture. biancasimone (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues for a tablet computer, including a tablet PC is the handling of strokes -- Since the Chinese-Japanese-Korean PCs have had to deal with this using keyboards, a graphics tablet will open up some vistas for the OS to deal with. I would be very impressed if the new tablet PCs get this right in the upcoming months, given that it's been 8 years already. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Chinese characters use (variable width) "brush strokes", not (constant width) "pen strokes", so I think that a touch screen that uses a capacitive technology is better suited than a touch screen technology that only returns an X-Y coordinate and need a stylus (pen). Capacitive (multi-touch) screens that can detect "brush widths" (finger pressure) seems ideal for drawing true to form chinese characters. Mahjongg (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Touch interface. I recommend to the anon that he read the article to see the differences in the state of the art between 2001 and 2010. There are a number of factors which made the difference between 2001 and 2010 which are laid out in the article. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be possible to describe the process by which an executable file is created and then deployed to a target tablet computer. This information can then be placed in a defined location in the tablet computer article. This ought to answer the questions posed on any technical distinctions between PCs and tablets. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

[former location of Example 3]

In order for the above to fully describe the process by which an executable file is deployed to a target tablet computer another column is needed, as such:

Tablet computer program development restrictions

Target	Development restrictions
iPad	From $99/year for personal use; Apple's approval required for distribution
HP Slate	none
Samsung Galaxy Tab	none
Dell Streak	none

Vyx (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Example 3: click on the sort icon at the head of the column to sort the table by that column

Tablet computer program development

Target	Target OS	App Pool	Development language	Development environment	Development computer
iPad	iOS	App Store	Objective-C	Cocoa (API)	Mac computer
HP Slate	Windows Embedded Compact 7	??	.NET language	Visual Studio	PC or Mac
Samsung Galaxy Tab	Android 2.2	Android Market	Java	Eclipse or Netbeans	PC or Mac
Dell Streak	Android 1.6	Android Market	Java	Eclipse or Netbeans	PC or Mac
etc.	??	??	5[1]	10 [2]	etc.

I have not seen any reliable source using the term "media tablet" for the iPod and its ilk, to me it sounds like Original Research! Can anybody confirm that the iPod is generally called a "media tablet"? I know there are devices that are called "media players", but the iPod is so much more than a "media player" that happens to be in a tablet form. it is a "computer", not a "media player". Mahjongg (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Media tablet" and "internet tablet" seem to be terms used by the media for a while before the iPad was finally released. Now the same kind of devices is called "iPad-like" or "Android tablets" (since that OS is the primary competitor). The current sentence "A tablet computer is a personal device purposed to media consuming" isn't true, since it doesn't apply to the breed of Tablet PC computers which were intended for business, data-taking purposes. Diego Moya (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)