How do I delete photographs from an iPad?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Eric Stevens, Oct 30, 2012.

  1. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest
    "A shell is software that provides an interface for users of an
    operating system which provides access to the services of a
    " *mac* os x is not os x." Hoo-boy!

    You don't have to dig very far before you discover that Macs use Intel
    processors while the iPhone/Pad have used 'A' series processors the
    design of which is licensed from Arm PLC. The A6 design is based on
    that of an Arm processor but is not licensed. Each step up the
    processor chain has introduced a new instruction set (no doubt
    incorporating much of the old).

    You are trying to tell me that all these various processors run the
    same kernel. I'll accept that their architecture is much the same but
    they are the same at the code level - no way.
    Eric Stevens, Nov 6, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    And they look different because they run different shells. I wasn't
    born yesterday.
    Eric Stevens, Nov 6, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. Eric Stevens

    Guest Guest

    usually when one refers to a shell, they mean a command line shell,
    such as tcsh, bash, zsh, etc., not a gui.

    there is no command line shell on an ios device, unless you jailbreak
    so what? just because they have different processors doesn't mean

    mac os x runs on intel and powerpc chips.

    os x is processor agnostic. the kernel is open source. compile it for
    whatever processor you want.
    it's the same kernel and core os, compiled for a different processor.
    nothing unusual about that.
    Guest, Nov 6, 2012
  4. Eric Stevens

    Guest Guest

    looking different only means the user interface is different. the rest
    of it is basically the same.
    Guest, Nov 6, 2012
  5. Eric Stevens

    -hh Guest

    Well, I was trying to get caught up on what seemed like an interesting


    It looks like there's been a lot of tangents; not sure if this one
    continued on or not, but this post does seem to appear to be the last
    threaded one...

    I've seen before these sorts of conversations that propose using an
    iPad as a big camera picture display -cum- backup archive.

    I'm sure that it will work adequately for some use cases. The more
    pragmatic question is "how far?" in terms of more photo-centric use
    cases ... and a very simple metric there can be to cross-compare its
    capacity to how many GB of cards a (or "the") photographer carries
    with them.

    That's the underlying element, but what got overlooked is that even
    merely buying the 64GB model is an higher end feature which cost
    money. As such, that question of capacity cross-comparison versus how
    many GB of cards a (or "the") photographer carries with them needs to
    start at 16GB that comes in the base model.
    For managing a large batch of photos, I'd see this as a role for a
    dedicated App instead of using the basic stuff that Apple ships the
    product with. Even so, one is going to have to figure out how to
    operate within the limitations of the tablet's memory (regardless of
    if we're talking 16GB or 64).

    An interesting point. What this infers is that there's UI limitations
    with the tablet class's touchscreen inputs which haven't been resolved

    And even this isn't the use case of downloading a bunch of photos from
    a camera into the device first. There's not even any iPad model sold
    that has the capacity for even half of my current in-use stack of
    memory cards...but that's just an example of an uncommon extreme case

    Unfortunately, the ease-of-use simplicity of a UI is often at odds
    against it being able to do some neat & powerful stuff in the hands of
    an experienced user. Such elements of the learning curve requirements
    are simply YA product design trade-off.

    -hh, Nov 6, 2012
  6. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    A gui is another form of shell. See the Wikipedia I have referred you
    to above.
    "Operating system shells generally fall into one of two categories:
    command-line and graphical."
    It's not a functioning kernel until you compile. Before that it's
    merely a symbolic representation.
    Nothing unusual about you shifting the definition so as to seem to
    have been right all along.
    Eric Stevens, Nov 6, 2012
  7. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    The inner interface of the shell is determined by the system which it
    is controlling. It is the user (outer) interface which is different
    and hence looks different. If the outer interface is different then
    the shell is different.
    Eric Stevens, Nov 6, 2012
  8. Eric Stevens

    Sandman Guest

    No it isn't.[/QUOTE]

    I disagree. :)
    Sandman, Nov 6, 2012
  9. Eric Stevens

    Savageduck Guest

    I disagree. :)[/QUOTE]

    Enter John Cleese.
    Savageduck, Nov 6, 2012
  10. Eric Stevens

    tony cooper Guest

    But we haven't paid for a full argument.
    tony cooper, Nov 6, 2012
  11. Eric Stevens

    Sandman Guest

    Yes you did.
    Sandman, Nov 6, 2012
  12. Eric Stevens

    Savageduck Guest

    ....and here I was thinking this was going to be the five minute spat.
    Savageduck, Nov 6, 2012
  13. Eric Stevens

    Guest Guest

    as i said, the term shell normally refers to command line shell. it's
    very rare that it refers to a gui, but regardless, that doesn't matter

    call it shell if you like. call it whatever you want. it's what's
    *under* what you are calling a shell that's the same on macs and
    idevices, and that's called os x. what's above it is either mac os x or
    so what? it's the same for both platforms. compiling it doesn't change
    anything or make one bit of a difference at all.
    i'm not shifting a thing.

    the fact remains that both macs and idevices run os x. take it up with
    apple if you think otherwise.
    Guest, Nov 6, 2012
  14. Eric Stevens

    Guest Guest

    nobody disputes what you are calling a shell is different.

    it's the *rest* that's the same.
    Guest, Nov 6, 2012
  15. Eric Stevens

    Sandman Guest

    No you didn't.
    Sandman, Nov 6, 2012
  16. Eric Stevens

    PeterN Guest

    Does the fact that you were evolved from apes make you an ape?
    Does the fact that a hart valve from a pig could be successfully
    transplanted in your heart, make you a pig?

    PeterN, Nov 6, 2012
  17. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    It does to your argument that the operating systems are the same.
    "same on macs and idevices". So you can take the code from an Intel
    powered mac and run it unchanged on an idevice? That applies to all
    idevices no matter what version of the 'A' processor they are using?
    No I don't think so, and neither do you.

    In fact you have already claimed the same OS will run "on intel and
    power pc chips". You know that's utter nonsense. The introduction of
    Intel chips required a complete rewrite of the operating system
    culminating in OS X v10.6 "Snow Leopard" which would not run on the
    PowerPC based machines.
    Then why bother compiling?

    The fact of the matter is that until you have finished compiling (and
    linking etc) you haven't got an operating system. All you have is a
    statement of intent.

    In any case, I suppose you have heard of conditional compilers and
    conditional installers?
    No matter how often you make the claim, you need more than the label
    OS X to run a machine. You need run-time code and the nature of this
    will depend on the machine at which it is targeted.
    Eric Stevens, Nov 6, 2012
  18. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Yeah, yeah ... and it runs on everything.
    Eric Stevens, Nov 6, 2012
  19. Eric Stevens

    Guest Guest

    not in the least. in fact, it reinforces my point that they share a
    common core. you are very confused.
    you sure can. quite a bit of code is identical on both platforms.

    as i've said a few times now (which you keep missing) is that the user
    interface is the part that's different. the rest is basically the same.

    once again: os x is the core, which is common to mac os x and ios.
    not only do i think so, but i know so. you are wrong and talking out
    your ass.

    how much mac or ios programming have you done? zero. zilch.
    it's not nonsense at all. mac os x on powerpc is exactly the same as
    mac os x on intel. if the user didn't know what processor was in the
    mac they're using, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference. the
    leopard dvd booted both powerpc and intel macs, and it could be
    installed on a hard drive that booted both.

    also, what a lot of people don't realize was that mac os x was running
    on intel *before* it was running on powerpc. the intel build was kept
    secret all along.

    the only nonsense is what you keep posting. you haven't a clue.
    the fact you are even asking this indicates you have no idea what
    you're talking about.

    this 'statement of intent' as you call it (making up terms that nobody
    but you uses won't help), is the same regardless of processor. the
    binary is obviously different, but that doesn't mean it's a different
    operating system.

    mac os x on a powermac looks and feels identical to mac os x on an
    intel mac. users can't tell a difference just by using it. in other
    words, it's the same.
    sure have. what does that have to do with anything?

    have you heard of portable code?
    missing the point entirely.
    Guest, Nov 7, 2012
  20. Eric Stevens

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Whisky-dave, Nov 7, 2012
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.