Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
While the screen could be better, it is better than the iPad and iPad 2. I have had no problems with the screen and the same goes for most people.

The iPad 1 came out in 2010. The iPad 2 came out in 2011.

Coming out later in 2012, the iPad Mini should have been better.
 
An A5x chip makes no sense. Wasn't the ipad3 rapped for using it because the chip proved insufficient to fully power the retina graphics? It finally got "fixed" with the A6x chip in the ipad4. Won't it make more sense to retire the a5x chip production altogether and focus solely on the a6x for both iPads?
 
While the screen could be better, it is better than the iPad and iPad 2. I have had no problems with the screen and the same goes for most people.

Not necessarily true. I, and many others, have chosen not to buy the mini because we don't think the screen is good enough for intensive reading compared to sticking to the full size retina. It's an individual preference. People need to test it out for themselves - go to an Apple store or test the screen on a friend's mini.
 
An A5x chip makes no sense. Wasn't the ipad3 rapped for using it because the chip proved insufficient to fully power the retina graphics? It finally got "fixed" with the A6x chip in the ipad4. Won't it make more sense to retire the a5x chip production altogether and focus solely on the a6x for both iPads?

I don't really think that is accurate. The A5x has similar performance as the A5 but drives 4x the pixels. I thought I saw most test had the iPad 2 and 3 performing similarly - iPad 3 winning most tasks and the 2 slightly winning some graphics tasks.

Regardless, the iPad 3 is very fast even if the 4 is much faster. I notice no slowdown on the 3, battery life is almost as good as my 2, and I am not at all compelled to move to a 4.

Now a redesigned 5 sounds pretty interesting....
 
I don't really think that is accurate. The A5x has similar performance as the A5 but drives 4x the pixels. I thought I saw most test had the iPad 2 and 3 performing similarly - iPad 3 winning most tasks and the 2 slightly winning some graphics tasks.

Regardless, the iPad 3 is very fast even if the 4 is much faster. I notice no slowdown on the 3, battery life is almost as good as my 2, and I am not at all compelled to move to a 4.

Now a redesigned 5 sounds pretty interesting....

To my knowledge, the a5x had twice the graphic cores, but the ipad3 had 4 times the pixels. Most apps likely still run fine because the a5 chip had excess GPU capacity to spare, but I have experienced noticeable lag on apps like goodreader.
 
To my knowledge, the a5x had twice the graphic cores, but the ipad3 had 4 times the pixels. Most apps likely still run fine because the a5 chip had excess GPU capacity to spare, but I have experienced noticeable lag on apps like goodreader.

I agree and also feel the A5X is now redundant like the flawed "iPad 3"!
 
I have a mini, and the screen seems kind of in-between retina and the older screens. You can see pixels if you look closely, but it doesn't seem "pixelly", if that makes any sense. Very happy with the size and weight though, just perfect for me.
 
Not necessarily true. I, and many others, have chosen not to buy the mini because we don't think the screen is good enough for intensive reading compared to sticking to the full size retina. It's an individual preference. People need to test it out for themselves - go to an Apple store or test the screen on a friend's mini.

Well I'd say it's true. Considering it's on pace to overtake the retina iPad, I don't believe the screen is affecting many peoples decisions.
 
Well I'd say it's true. Considering it's on pace to overtake the retina iPad, I don't believe the screen is affecting many peoples decisions.

The main reason the iPad mini is overtaking the retina iPad is because it's newer. iSheep (and I'm one of them, I'll admit) want the latest and greatest. This makes up the vast majority of Apple users. How many people do you know who are still sporting the 1st iPad, even though it's still perfectly usable and pleasurable to use? Hardly anyone because it's "old".

You'll see. Once the iPad 5 comes out, it will outsell the 1st gen mini. It's just the way of the world.
 
The main reason the iPad mini is overtaking the retina iPad is because it's newer. iSheep (and I'm one of them, I'll admit) want the latest and greatest. This makes up the vast majority of Apple users. How many people do you know who are still sporting the 1st iPad, even though it's still perfectly usable and pleasurable to use? Hardly anyone because it's "old".

You'll see. Once the iPad 5 comes out, it will outsell the 1st gen mini. It's just the way of the world.

Number 1, your argument became invalid the second you used the word 'iSheep' and number 2, the vast majority of Apple users are not 'iSheep', they are normal consumers who buy what suits their needs not just so they can have the latest and greatest.
 
Number 1, your argument became invalid the second you used the word 'iSheep' and number 2, the vast majority of Apple users are not 'iSheep', they are normal consumers who buy what suits their needs not just so they can have the latest and greatest.

How does one word invalidate a whole argument? You just proved the stereotype of thin-skinned apple consumers.

And how do you know what the vast majority of Apple users are? Did you publish a study on the demographics and buying habits of all Apple users?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.