backtop


Print 18 comment(s) - last by retrospooty.. on Jan 13 at 7:48 AM

Gigabyte's U21MD will be available with a docking station

Yesterday, we brought you the news of Gigabyte’s over-the-top Aorus X7 that features a 17” 1080p screen, Intel Core i7-4700HQ processor, and dual NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M graphics processors. Today, Gigabyte is showing off a notebook that does a complete 180 compared to the overachieving Aorus X7.
 
The new U21MD is a 3-in-1 laptop with a 11.6” display. Whereas the Aorus X7 gives you a 1080p display, the U21MB makes do with a 1366x768 display with multi-touch functionality. Inside you’ll find fourth generation Intel Core i5 processor and a hybrid HDD + SSD storage system. SSDs up to 256GB can be accommodated using mSATA while up to a 1TB HDD can be used to further boost your storage capabilities.

 
Other features include USB 3.0 support, HDMI-out, Dolby Home Theater v4 technology, and a backlit keyboard.
 
The U21MD measures 11.7” x 8.9” x 20” and weighs 3.06 pounds with just the mSATA SSD installed or 3.28 pounds in the mSATA SSD + HDD configuration.

 
Complimenting the U21MD will be the D21 docking station that will allow you to use the laptop as a desktop machine. It provides connectivity for the mouse/keyboard along with additional HDMI and USB ports. It also incorporates speaker into the base.
 
Gigabyte has not yet announced pricing or availability for the U21MB or the D21 dock.

Source: Gigabyte



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

New year, same sucky display resolution
By fic2 on 1/9/2014 5:19:40 PM , Rating: 4
Can't believe that some manufacturers don't get that 1366x768 sucks.




By ritualm on 1/9/2014 5:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I stopped reading as soon as I saw that.


RE: New year, same sucky display resolution
By eldakka on 1/9/14, Rating: 0
By CSMR on 1/10/2014 8:34:11 PM , Rating: 1
Windows does not have these problems in the UI definitely since Vista.

What you might be talking about is poor scaling by applications. This problem is pretty much non-existent now, and was very rare even 6 years ago.

Usually there are applications that scale well (most), and applications that don't understand scaling (which just display smaller or are rescaled by the OS depending on the Windows option).


By BernardP on 1/11/2014 10:00:18 PM , Rating: 2

Custom Resolution

The only bulletproof way around this is to create a custom resolution. It's easy with Intel graphics. Just create the 1600x900 resolution in Advanced Mode and apply it. No more problem with scaling. You could probably get sharper results with 1536x864, as these numbers are exactly 80% of the screen resolution.


RE: New year, same sucky display resolution
By PorreKaj on 1/10/2014 3:44:51 AM , Rating: 3
It's 11 inches... 720p is fine for most ppl on that size.


RE: New year, same sucky display resolution
By retrospooty on 1/10/2014 7:03:48 AM , Rating: 2
ugh... you need your eyes checked. Not even acceptable 10 years ago.


RE: New year, same sucky display resolution
By Decom on 1/10/2014 9:23:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
ugh... you need your eyes checked. Not even acceptable 10 years ago


I think he's correct in his assumption in that 11 inches at 720p would be fine for most people.

We often forget that we on this site are in the minority when it comes to technology and our higher standards of wants and needs.


By retrospooty on 1/10/2014 11:25:21 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe in some specs but not LCD. Anyone non-technical can see the huge quality difference on an 11 inch 1366x768 screen vs a higher res one. Some people may not care but if you cant see the difference you have a problem with your eyesight period...

I agree Windows scaling does suck (supposedly much better in Win8.1) but putting poor quality low res screen in your devices because of a Windows lack is not a good excuse.


RE: New year, same sucky display resolution
By CSMR on 1/10/2014 8:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. It is true that most people have poor enough eyesight that they will buy 768p laptops. However they can still tell apart 768p and 1080p when shown a direct comparison, and it will certainly affect their productivity, e.g. reading speed, even if they don't explicitly notice the poor resolution.


RE: New year, same sucky display resolution
By SilthDraeth on 1/11/2014 10:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
Resolution doesn't equal screen quality. I am sure most of you know this, but you are basically perpetuating the same thing that happens in cameras, and the megapixel race.

Just because it has more pixels doesn't mean it is better. Anyways, plenty to be said about resolution and the merits of it, without crapping on every display that doesn't go 1080p or higher.


By retrospooty on 1/13/2014 7:48:43 AM , Rating: 2
It is one aspect of display quality. There are others, color representation, viewing angles, black levels etc, but I would argue that resolution is by far more noticeable and therefore more important than the rest.

When talking about resolution comparing 2 screens, lets assume the rest is equal and the only difference is res. 1280x720 vs. 1920x1080p vs. 2560x1440 . If you cant tell the quality difference from 1 to 2 and again from 2 to 3 you need your eyes checks, NOW, BEFORE DRIVING!


By evo slevven on 1/13/2014 1:14:09 AM , Rating: 2
Best sums it up. And don't even say it wasn't acceptable 10 years ago, it still is acceptable nowadays. I find that even if I see pixels its always relative to the factors of price, purpose and form factor. I just helped my friends mom buy a cheapo laptop; she's 60+ and only wants to know what the internet is. No I won't recommend an Apple when she's also on a limited budget. Did Chromebook; piss poor display quality and features but does what she wants it to do.

And no I don't need a retina quality display for a cheapie laptop I use to go around for casual meetings/events. Why the f**k would I put $1k+ just for that let alone knowing I'm not going to be using it 3-4 years down the road just to have a shiny new toy when I go see family or get a coffee and sit down?

I think that's what gets to me with the focus on "resolution" and pixels; as Decom said, its not for all people and this is a good example of why some of us shouldn't be in marketing either.


By frozentundra123456 on 1/10/2014 1:15:32 AM , Rating: 2
My math fails me at the moment, but if I calculated correctly 1366 x 768 on a 11.6 in screen is higher pixel density than 1080p on a 17 in laptop or expecially on a 23 in LCD like I have.

If the price were right, I could live with that resolution. Actually, make fun if you want, but everyone in my family is still using 768p 15in laptops, and none of them have ever complained about the resolution.

I have a feeling that with an i5 though the price would be prohibitive, especially with the dock and keyboard. I would gladly pay 500.00 for something like the asus T300 with an i5 though.




By EasyC on 1/10/2014 7:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
He wasn't directly comparing 1080p on a 17" to 720p on an 11.6". I would think a 1440p would be desired on a 17" "lap"top.

I personally think the decision to use 720p as the main resolution on laptops is ridiculously stupid. Some people with laptops actually want to get work done. Up until recently, it was very difficult/expensive to find a portable size laptop with an acceptable screen resolution.

The 720p screen thing is nothing more than cost cutting. They'll save a few dollars per unit and that's ultimately all that matters to them.


By CSMR on 1/10/2014 8:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
Ideal resolution doesn't scale linearly with size, so that the ideal pixel density decreases with size.

On smaller screens you focus more closely and probably get physically closer to the screen.

12" is small, and if you are getting this size for portability, you expect to have to look closely at the screen. To have enough space for Windows and application UIs, you need to render quite a lot on a small screen. But when you look closely, you can see that text etc. is not properly resolved because of the large pixels.

1080p on 17" is much more comfortable despite having slightly lower ppi.


Screen Quality
By blzd on 1/10/2014 8:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
Resolution and PPI is NOT what matters. The actual quality of the screen does.

1366x768 could look brilliant especially on a 12" screen however as far as I can tell no one actually makes a quality 1366x768 screen anymore so this will undoubtedly look garbage. People are right to moan.




stupid PC buyers
By CSMR on 1/10/2014 9:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
In the PC market, it's the buyers who choose, so PC makers appeal to the stupidity of the buyers.

Some buyers don't know that there is such a thing as resolution. So PC makers give them 768p screens, the bare minimum to install Widows.

Others have heard from the media that high res = "4K", so PC makers sell them expensive and GPU-hungry 2060p screens.

Appropriate resolutions lie in the middle but no one is interested. Good screens should have appropriate resolutions (1080p up to 15"), good quality IPS panels, wide gamut, good uniformity.

But who cares about making these screens when buyers only respond to "cheap" and "4K"?




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki