Taking the tablet

Effortlessly editing a script in Word for iPad

I do technically have a laptop, but I hardly ever use it. Ever since I've had an iPad, the tablet has been my sturdy companion when working away from home. Why would I want to carry a heavy, delicate beast like a laptop when I've everything I need in a compact package with a battery life that means I can work on it all day?

I can touch type on the onscreen keyboard - okay, a little slower than a real one, but not much. It is the perfect working companion for a train journey or an overnight in a hotel. But there was a tiny fly in the ointment. And that was the lack of Office.

Not having Office was, frankly, a pain. I made use of a perfectly respectable alternative, that pretty much read and wrote Office files, but like all such second-bests it wasn't quite the real deal. The Word equivalent lost some of the formatting, while the Powerpoint handling didn't show animations, which practically every Powerpoint I use has.

So it was great when Office for iPad eventually came out - except for another issue. To do anything other than read a document, you needed an Office 365 subscription. Now I do intend to cut over to this - but not until they bring out the new Office for Mac, which isn't expected until second half of 2015.

However, Microsoft has finally seen the light. The new release of Office for iPad (which also works on iPhones) is almost full-functioned. There are a few small things missing you need Office 365 to get, but nothing I regularly use. With joy, I could throw away my old compatiblish app and it's Office all the way. So now I genuinely can say that I can't imagine ever using my laptop again.

To make the replacement seem complete, although I rarely actually want to print from my iPad, it seemed reasonable to get printing up and running as I very occasionally need to do this at home. I don't have an airPrint printer, and treasure my 12-year-old laser printer, which is a solid a battleship, so I had to look for alternatives. I'm currently in the trial period for Printopia (HT to Mark Hogarth), which seems to do the job excellently.

I think I'll keep taking the tablet...

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog