How would you do wireless recharging?
Isn't sending electrical current through the air called lightening?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Not to be a hater but....
- Thread starter vw195
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How would you do wireless recharging?
Isn't sending electrical current through the air called lightening?
mature. great forum response
I am really trying to tell you how much to sync your ipad?? get serious. it was a genuine question about how long do you think syncing times would be for a larger product.
no I'm not trying to get into a flame but how long would it take you to sync a 64GB ipad over your network?
I have just moved back from networked drives to a local server because I wasnt happy with the speeds
I dont think its a deal breaker but I would use it if I had to.
at least its not like the original iphone OS that took about 4 hours to sync over USB!!!
Whenever I let Time Machine backup a fresh machine, it's somewhere between 25 and 70 gig. It all happens over 802.11n. The first backup can take several hours but subsequent backups take a few seconds. I have a 16 gig iPad and only have about a gig of stuff on it. Before we got 802.11n, I used to plug computers into gigabit ethernet to run Time Machine. But the n is not that much slower than gigabit so I just let it run.
I plan to do cable backup about monthly. I would think wireless backup would be about the same frequency. I can think of one reason Apple doesn't support this. They are in an iPhone mindset. Anything they enable to happen over the network, people will try to do it over 3G. Transferring gigs of stuff over 3G is a bad thing for Att network loading.
I thought I heard at one time that Apple was allowing song purchases over wifi from iPhones and 'touches. I've tried it but never got it to work. If I want new music on my iThings, I go digging for a cable. I'm not going to be bothered with that so I listen to Rhapsody and keep about a gig of my "favorite" music on my 'touch. This frees up a lot of space and I'm not trying to pick and choose among my 32+ gig of iTunes files to avoid filling up my 8 gig 'touch or my 16 gig iPad.
My priority for the iPad is a note-taking machine to take to meetings and classes. At home, I listen to Rhapsody or watch Netflix on the thing. I have a handful of games but I mainly use it as a "work" device so I know I'm going against the grain here.
I use several network drives from Apple, Iomega and Buffalo. I've decided not to buy any more Apple drives after my Time Capsule died after only 18 months. I'll pick up usb drives, plug them in to my Airport Extreme and I can easily replace them when they die. I also have a usb drive on my Macbook to handle huge files that would overflow the tiny 160 gig internal disk. My daughter has an external drive on her Mac Mini as well. The rest of the family gets by with whatever internal storage came with their Macs. We all back up to one Time Capsule. The NAS drives are used for bulky files like movies and photos and that stuff gets backed up to a second NAS drive (in the hope both don't die at once).
If I had to do a brain transplant of my Macbook to a new machine, I'd use either gigabit ethernet, firewire or USB, but for ordinary everyday file transfers up to 10 gig a day or so, 802.11n works well enough.
I can think of one instance where I would definitely want the cable, given today's limitations. But it has more to do with Comcast than with the network in my house. I could buy the 1.7 gigabyte Elements app and let it slowly come down from the 'net at whatever speed Comcrap throttles me down to. Then I could let it transfer via usb to my iPad. But if I was able to transfer from my Mac to my iPad via wifi instead of USB, it would be a bit slower but still a lot faster than buying it OTA throttled by Comcast.
Apple really needs to ditch the usb cable requirement, especially since it is not capable of charging the iPad when it is awake. If you had a long USB sync, the iPad wouldn't necessarily run down but it wouldn't be more charged at the end than it was when you started.
I picked up an Airport Extreme to get out of the situation where 802.11g printers on my network were dragging the whole thing down below 10base100 speeds. The throughput I see on my 802.11n is high enough that I don't mind using it instead of pulling gigabit ethernet cables to every room.
Forum
I agree the merits are the point, but it is a forum so snarky is par for the course.
Sync via wireless. I see no reason why it could not. I can see some speed issues, but shouldn't the end user have the choice for themselves. As long as the USB method remains for speed adding the WIFI method just adds another option for when it just isn't practical to do it over USB. I think there might also be some sync reality on the iPad not being mentioned that wouldn't necessarily make a wireless sync useless, but when you are syncing you cannot do any thing else but sync so how long do you want to be locked out a minute or two or and hour or more. So in addition to just making it sync over wireless it has to be a background process and since none of us know how the sync function is written into the iPad OS not to mention what state the hardware must be in for it to happen it isn't fair for endusers to demand something of Apple that Apple never promised. If wireless sync was a deal breaker for most users Apple would have to do whatever is necessary from hardware changes to OS changes. And about power usage if you can wirelessly stream a movie a wireless sync would use no more power, in fact since the video part of the processor would be almost idle, it takes a lot more power to decode video than to write a bit, wireless sync would likely use less power bit by bit. Wireless vs USB not at all the same function at the hardware layer as USB is a bus driven function and wireless is a OS driven function. I'm sorry for rambling take it or leave it just trying to offer something constructive.
I agree the merits are the point, but it is a forum so snarky is par for the course.
Sync via wireless. I see no reason why it could not. I can see some speed issues, but shouldn't the end user have the choice for themselves. As long as the USB method remains for speed adding the WIFI method just adds another option for when it just isn't practical to do it over USB. I think there might also be some sync reality on the iPad not being mentioned that wouldn't necessarily make a wireless sync useless, but when you are syncing you cannot do any thing else but sync so how long do you want to be locked out a minute or two or and hour or more. So in addition to just making it sync over wireless it has to be a background process and since none of us know how the sync function is written into the iPad OS not to mention what state the hardware must be in for it to happen it isn't fair for endusers to demand something of Apple that Apple never promised. If wireless sync was a deal breaker for most users Apple would have to do whatever is necessary from hardware changes to OS changes. And about power usage if you can wirelessly stream a movie a wireless sync would use no more power, in fact since the video part of the processor would be almost idle, it takes a lot more power to decode video than to write a bit, wireless sync would likely use less power bit by bit. Wireless vs USB not at all the same function at the hardware layer as USB is a bus driven function and wireless is a OS driven function. I'm sorry for rambling take it or leave it just trying to offer something constructive.
no I'm not trying to get into a flame but how long would it take you to sync a 64GB ipad over your network?
I have just moved back from networked drives to a local server because I wasnt happy with the speeds
I dont think its a deal breaker but I would use it if I had to.
at least its not like the original iphone OS that took about 4 hours to sync over USB!!!
I don't own an iPad but if I would transfer 64 GB wireless over my other networking devices that run N standard wireless, it would take around 2.5-3 hours. And you wont Sync 64 hours every day?
Oh you were trying to educate me. My point is to let me decide whether I want to wireless sync or not. More flexibility is rearely a bad thing.
Is this really important?
Wireless charging seems like a bit of a blind request, but wireless sync functionality is fairly genuine.
Does it truly matter what the syncing times would be? Does it truly matter if the battery life would deteriorate faster? Is your limited thinking really telling you that wireless sync should be forced upon the iPad? No, all the OP was saying is that it should be an OPTION. It indeed, should.
A laptop can do it without any questions asked. Does that mean you can't hook an ethernet cord (and wow, vb underlines the word ethernet) up and transfer files that way?
The point of the iPad is to move towards a more portable computing device. "Kind of sort of" moving in that direction is where we are now. We are no where close to reaching it, and the 'pad is proof (unless its competitors really shine in the departments the 'pad is lacking).
In my opinion, OP's request falls along the same lines of complaints dealing with things such as file structure, lack of control, etc... All of which are valid points.
Why would you want to argue? How could improvement, or at least, choice, as OP has pointed out, ever be a bad thing?
I do agree that sometimes it is easier to go to stream services rather than sync but I have found that with itunes 9 it has got considerably quicker
no you wouldnt, I agree. i typically change about 3-4 gigs every couple of days
I dont see how you could say I was trying to educate you? my point was with your response and I do believe I just stated that i was not trying to tell you what to do
I do think its important in that when I want wireless functionality I want it to work as well as possible, so yes the sync times are important.
I think that point has been taken away from what I meant originally.
I run a wireless G and N networks at home but I have not been blown away by the speeds.
My point is that with itunes 9 it takes no time at all to sync, very quick not like previous versions.
until they can make it as quick and I think the issue comes from the device side limitations then I will sick with USB syncing.
I would love wireless syncing but I dont see it as a priority as others do.
I run a wireless G and N networks at home but I have not been blown away by the speeds.
My point is that with itunes 9 it takes no time at all to sync, very quick not like previous versions.
until they can make it as quick and I think the issue comes from the device side limitations then I will sick with USB syncing.
I would love wireless syncing but I dont see it as a priority as others do.
How are the wireless sync times directly important when the option of wired syncing would still exist? That's like saying that you shouldn't drive a car unless you move over 100mph. Having a car is enough. You either drive it or you don't, but either way, you can still walk.
Or static discharge.
Palm Pre is pretty close to wireless charging, there are one or two similar wireless solution for the iPhone.