Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Has a web page where you put the serial # in and it tells any applicable warranty still available. I use it whenever I shop used apple stuff, don't have the link here on my pad. Just google apple warranty status or so.

yup this is what i do.
 
I ordered the new iPad from John lewis 64gb 3G but the clowns cancelled my order saying I failed security checks :mad: .
Was going to reorder when a 4 week old 64gb 3G iPad 2 came on an auction site for £400 so bought that :D
My plan now is to use the iPad 2 for a few months and sell it to buy a hopefully discounted new iPad. Imho I don't think the new iPad is worth £250 more.
If you can pick up a bargain priced iPad 2 I'd go for that
 
Last edited:
What could Apple have done differently though? The only possibility is if they had access to time machine to bring 28nm a15 quad core chips in 2011. it is hard to fault Apple when they are using the largest and presumably the most expensive chip in the industry right now.

The annual obsolescence comment is not a knock against Apple. It's more a comment about the nature of the industry.

Since you ask, as to what they could have done differently, I would say either added either more cores (like a mix of the low power M3s and the current A9s) and / or higher clocks on the two cores but with better core power-gating (i.e. turning off individual cores when they are idle). I think the issue has more to do with price and iOS not being ready for more cores, rather than process or tech limitations. End of the day, I am fine with this product as is, I just know I'll be upgrading next year :)
 
To be frank, the new iPad is rather dear, but it does not change too much. So, iPad 2 is a more better choice than before because of price reduction.:rolleyes:
 
Since you ask, as to what they could have done differently, I would say either added either more cores (like a mix of the low power M3s and the current A9s) and / or higher clocks on the two cores

The A5X is already being "blamed" for getting too hot and is the largest mobile ARM chip in wide spread use and you think Apple had to pack more into that? :eek: I just don't think that was possible economically, both monetarily and battery&heat wise.
 
Read the reviews, the 3 isn't any faster than the 2. The faster processor is needed for the large amount of work it has to do for the retina. The 3's A5X gives you retina at the same speed as the 2, which is impressive, but again it is not faster. You're really just paying more money for the nice display, and worth every penny if that is what you are after. But if not, I don't see why the 2 is not a good buy. Also, if you are using the wifi model only, the 3s LTE is not worth the expense.

Bottom line

When the 4 comes out, people will say that the 3 is no longer a good buy, and the same thing will take place every year.

Everytime I see this comparison people make it seem like they are comparing the iphone 4s vs iphone 3g. Jeez.
 
I wanted the iPad 2 before the iPad 3rd gen came. It's still REALLY good, it's just the retina screen and backcamera that makes me want it.
 
No.

Once you see the retina display, you can't honestly go back.

I have the iPad 3, it's my 1st iPad. After seeing the attractive prices for refurbished iPad 2 at the Apple store I briefly considered getting one for my son as a gift for acing his 1st semester of college. After using the 3 though, I'm probably going to give him this one & buy another iPad 3 with more storage for myself.

The screen quality does matter, as a student he'll be able to use the 3 for textbooks without eye strain & his backpack will get a lot lighter.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.